Loading...
SR-112707-6Afir City Council Report City of Santa Monica• oV~rr~b~r ,~,~~ Z.DU }- City Council Meeting: ,/~, Agenda Item: ~r' 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 423-431 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and designate the property at 423-431 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark based on the findings set forth by the Landmarks Commission in its action on October 9, 2006. 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 423-431 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark and the property as a Landmark Parcel. The Landmarks Commission filed the designation application on May 11, 2006 and unanimously voted to designate the property on October 9, 2006. 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 Santa Monica from the mid-1930s to the early 1950s (Criteria #4). • 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. 1 Discussion Property Description The subject property at 423-431 Ocean Avenue is located in amulti-family residential neighborhood on the east side of Ocean Avenue between Marguerita Avenue and Georgina Avenue. There are three, two-story apartment buildings arranged in a "U" configuration centered by a narrow landscaped courtyard. Designed in the American Colonial Revival style, the north and east buildings were constructed in 1936 with the south building constructed in 1950. Research indicates that all three buildings were designed by architect William E. Foster. A detached combination utility room and enclosed garage structure is located at the rear of the parcel. 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. 2 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 Ocean Avenue (west) elevation incorporates a projecting wing featuring tripartite multipane sash windows on each- floor located north of the porches and balconies. The high level of architectural compatibility between all three buildings appears to be the result of having utilized the same architect, William E. Foster, in both phases of the property's design. 3 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 Santa Monica" in 1995. At that 4 time, its rating as a contributor to the potential Palisades Tract Historic District was reconfirmed. The property was most recently identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory Update: North of Montana Area 2001-2002 (the NOMA Update). It was at this time that the property's status changed from being a "5D" (contributor to a potential district) to a "5S" (appears individually eligible for local designation). The NOMA Update revised the potential Palisades Tract Historic District boundaries because the percentage of contributing structures within the boundary area was determined to be less than fifty percent. The NOMA Update consultants, Historic Resources Group, found that a sufficient concentration of properties still remained within a smaller geographic area primarily along Palisades Avenue between Ocean Avenue and Seventh Street. At that time, the subject property was also removed as a contributor to the potential Palisades Tract Historic District and was instead found to appear individually eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark ("5S"). Application History and Landmarks Commission Action The Landmarks Commission initially reviewed the 423-431 Ocean Avenue property on May 8, 2006 in the context of a demolition permit application and voted to continue discussion of the property until the next meeting to gather additional information. On May 11, 2006, an application to designate the multi-family residential property at 423- 431 Ocean Avenue as a Landmark was filed by Mr. Anthony Carr. 5 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 Ocean Avenue characterized by multi-family apartments during the mid 1930s - 1950s. Further, the subject 6 property's north and east buildings (constructed in 1936) appear to be among the earliest remaining examples of the garden apartments commonly constructed in the area during the middle decades of the twentieth century (Criterion #1). 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 Wilshire Boulevard. Further, the property is valuable to a study of the idiom in the context of the architectural history of Santa Monica from the mid-1930s to the early 1950s. (Criteria #2 and #4). Prominent Architect William E. Foster was an architect of local distinction whose body of work in Santa Monica includes the Shangri-La Apartment/Hotel, abuilding that has been identified by historians as a key example of Streamline Moderne architecture in the Los Angeles region. The subject property constitutes a representative example of Foster's 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. (Criterion #5). 7 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 Ocean Avenue is irrelevant; and • The property is not a significant or representative example of architect William E. Poster'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. 8 (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 AnalVSis 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: 9 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 10 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 Ocean Avenue that initially began with construction of grand scale single-family residences and transitioned to more .dense, multi-family. residences. Moreover, the third building was a highly compatible addition to the existing two apartments that unified the three residential buildings around a modest central courtyard. The property is significant as one of the earliest remaining examples of the style as applied to a garden apartment complex north of Wilshire Boulevard. The 1936 construction date of the property's north and east buildings precedes that of three similarly styled garden apartments along San Vicente Boulevard (built in 1941/1955, 1953 and 1948) and predates all of the other remaining garden apartments on San Vicente Boulevard. The subject property also precedes a 11 prominent American Colonial Revival style example located at on Montana Avenue (built in 1947), and also numerous garden apartment complexes exhibiting varying degrees of American Colonial Revival style elements East of 17th Street along Montana Avenue (the earliest built in 1939). While the appellant asserts that the property's location on Ocean Avenue is irrelevant, the research and analysis of the subject property discusses its significance in the context of the historical development patterns of Ocean Avenue and the area north of Wilshire Boulevard. For these reasons and as further detailed in Attachments B-C, the property exemplifies this period of Santa Monica's development and architectural history and meets this criterion for designation. 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 12 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 13 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. 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, 14 1953). Of these, Foster's Shangri-La ApartmenUHotel 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 Los Angeles region. • 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 15 Ocean Avenue between Georgina and Marguerita Avenues. Due to the apartment complex's two-story height and set back, which is similar to the adjacent multi-family residence to its south, it is not a particularly distinctive or established visual feature of the neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. 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 16 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: r ~- Eileen P. Foga P. mont w ~ Director, Planning and ommunity C~ y Manager Development 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 17 Additional attachments available for review in City Clerk's Office.