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.