sr-090809-1p~r
;Yof City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: September 8, 200{9
Agenda Item: ~I'
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community Development
Subject: Statement of Official Action Upholding Appeal of Landmarks Commission
Designation of 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official Action
upholding Appeal 09APP-001 and reversing the decision of the Landmarks Commission
to designate the property at 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark.
Executive Summary and Discussion
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action
for Appeal 09APP-001. After holding a public hearing, the City Council upheld Appeal
09APP-001 and reversed the Landmarks Commission's designation of the structure
located at 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark, and of the real property commonly
known as 301 Ocean Avenue (APN # 4293003021) as a Landmark parcel, based upon
findings contained in the attached Statement of Official Action.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Scott Albright, AICP, Senior Planner
Forwarded to Council:
Eileen Fogies U
Director, Planning &
Development
Attachment: Statement of Official Action
Ewell
1
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
2
Ci[y of
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: Appeal 09-001
LOCATION: 301 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
APPELLANT: Trammell Crow Company (301 Ocean Development LLC)
PROPERTY OWNER: 301 Ocean Development, LLC
CASE PLANNER: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Appeal 09-001 of Landmarks Commission Designation of
the Property at 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark.
CEQA STATUS: The project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15270 of the State Guidelines in that CEQA does
not apply to projects that are disapproved.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
June 9, 2009 Date
Appeal upheld and Landmarks Commission approval reversed
X based upon the findings below:
Appeal denied and Landmarks Commission designation
upheld based on the following findings:
Other
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: June 9, 2009
3
The City Council, having held a public hearing on June 9, 2009, hereby upholds Appeal
09-001 and reverses the Landmarks Commission's designation of the structure located
at 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark, and of the real property commonly known as
301 Ocean Avenue (APN # 4293003021) as a Landmark Parcel based on the findings
and determinations below.
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.
Findings and determinations for Designation of the Landmark Parcel and Structure Per
SMMC 9.36.100(a)
(7) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests. elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the City.
The 47-unif apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is a typical and
unremarkable example of post-war multi-family residential architecture, a multi-
family housing type that was popular in Santa Monica from the years following
World War II through the early 1960s. The property's Building A, designed by
architect Joseph M. Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its
integrity of design, workmanship, and materials has been compromised. The
property was built in stages, lacks unity of design and minimally incorporates the
character-defining features of post-war multi-family residential architecture.
Furthermore, it is not a Garden Apartment and therefore does not contribute to
the potential San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District. It does
have a central courtyard and-some basic elements of Modern design and
construction, but the complex is not set back from the street, there is little garden
frontage, and the layout does not incorporate the seamless continuity of space
between the interior courtyard and the frontage that is required for classification
as a Garden Apartment. The apartment complex was developed by Mr. and Mrs.
Hoover as income property and the penthouse apartment was the Hoover's
primary residence during the period of Clo Hoover's productive life as a City
Councilmember and Mayor, but the subject property is not emblematic of the
economic, political or architectural history of the City or of Clo Hoover's tenure as
a City Councilmember or as the City's first female mayor. Furthermore, ttre
property does not. have significant cultural or social associations. For these
reasons the subject property does not exemplify the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history of the City of Santa Monica: Therefore, the
subject property does not satisfy this criterion.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
4
The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue does not meet this
criterion. As a typical example of a post-war multi-family residence, the building
lacks sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for designation
pursuant to this criterion.
(3) /f is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or
national history.
The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue was the longtime
residence of Clo Hoover who, as the second woman to serve as a
councilmember and the City's first woman mayor, was a tale model and an
advocate for increasing the role of women in city government.. Hoover was
consistently recognized for her decades of service to Santa Monica, particularly
as a woman in a political environment dominated by .men. Nonetheless, even
given the significance of Clo Hoover as an historic personage associated with the
movement for political rights for women in Santa Monica's history, it does not
appear that the subject property.-occupied by ownerlresident Clo Hoover during
the many years of her significant contributions to .the City -would be eligible for
local Landmark designation for its identification with a historic personage. The
subject property does not convey, embody, or represent in a clear manner her
ideals or symbolize her accomplishments in furthering the role ofi women or
physically represent her contributions as a public official. The property does not
appear tb have a direct connection to the significant events. associated with her.
productive life as a Councilmember, Mayor, or advocate for woman serving in
public offices. The multifamily dwelling did not. directly inform Hoover's ideas or
give her perspective for her votes against the causeway, against allowing jets at
the Santa Monica Airport, or for her support for preserving the Santa Monica and
.Newcomb Piers: Nor did the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex directly
inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her .historic role as the
second woman councilmember in Santa Monica, her historic nomination to the
honorary title of Mayor of Santa Monica, or for her advocacy for woman in public
office. Furthermore, the .architecture and design of 301 Ocean Avenue, does not
directly represent the political ideas of Clo Hoover, and the building itself does
not provide a visual representation of her community contributions or her historic
role as the second woman councilmember• in Santa Monica, and her historic
nomination to the honorary title of Mayor of Santa Monica. Finally, research to
date does not support a-conclusion that she significantly conducted her
productive publio work from this residence. Therefore, it is unclear .how the
apartment complex at 301 -0cean Avenue is related in a clear manner to the
significant aspects of her productivity and public career as an elected official.
There are other properties in Santa Monica that better represent her significant
contributions to the City. The property most directly associated with her tenure
as a public official is Santa Monica City Hall, including the Mayor's office and the
City Council Chamber. The City HaII is a designated local Landmark and has
been determined to be eligible for the National Register. In addition, the
unencumbered views of Santa Monica Bay can be considered a part of her
5
enduring legacy and those of many others who. have contributed to the
conservation of this natural resource. Therefore, the property does not meet 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 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Averiue is a common,
undistinguished example of a post-war multi-family. residential complex that was
built in stages from 1952-1958. It is a typical and common example of a post-war
multi-family residential complex constructed in the Palisades Tract along San
Vicente Boulevard and other major corridors in Santa Monica during the post-war
period. The property does not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics
in that it incorporates typical features associated with post-war residential
architecture such as its massing, low-pitched roof, overhanging eaves, and
stucco finish. 301 Ocean Avenue is not an excellent or unique example of its type
and lacks unity of design found in noteworthy examples of post-war multi-family
residential architecture that more fully articulate the key design elements of the
idiom. The property's Building A, designed by locally significant architect Joseph
M. Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its integrity of design,
workmanship, setting, and materials has been compromised. Furthermore, the
.subject property does not embody the distinguishing characteristics or character-
defining features of the Garden Apartment type and does not meet the eligibility
requirements for eligibility as a contributor to the potential courtyard apartment
district. Most notably, 301 Ocean Avenue is laid out on the periphery of-the
irregular lot, not setback. On the San Vicente facing elevation, the exterior of the
building is just a few feet. from the property line maximizing the units on the lot
and creating a private interior courtyard separated from the street. The entrance
to the courtyard from San Vicente is along a narrow paved walkway through a
small gap between Building A and the driveway leading to the subterranean
parking which is adjacent to the northeast edge of Building B. Therefore, the
property does not meet this criterion.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer or architect.
The original architect of the property's Building A, Joseph M. Estep, was a locally
important architect practicing in Santa Monica. However, the original design for
Building A was thoroughly compromised when the building was substantially
altered in 1958. As a result, the property is not a significant or representative
example of Estep's work and does not meet this criterion.
6
(6) !t has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established
and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
The subject property is located on the curve where San Vicente Boulevard meets
Ocean Avenue opposite Palisades Park, but its location on a corner lot is not unique.
The curved elevation of the property's Building B, which hugs the perimeter of the
property near the sidewalk, and the building's relative prominence as viewed from
Ocean Avenue or the promenade in Palisades Park does not qualify the property as an
established visual features of the neighborhood. The curved design is not a singular
physical characteristic but is largely a function of the piershaped parcel upon which the
property is situated. In all likelihood the apartment complex was designed to
accommodate the greatest number of units with the available ocean views. Its relative
visual prominence is primarily due to its location on the corner of San Vicente and
Ocean Park rather than the building's design. Therefore, the subject property does not
meet this criterion.
VOTE
Ayes: Bloom, Holbrook, Davis, Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor
Nays: McKeown, Shriver
Abstain:
Absent: Mayor Censer
NnTICF
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under Article 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, the time within which judicial review of this decisior must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which provision has been
adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal. Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
-"~- q-~-o`'i
MARIA M. STEWAR ,City Clerk Date
F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STOAS\2009\09APP-001 Council STOA (3010cean Avenue).docx
7