MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MONDAY, February 7, 2000 City
Hall Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to
order at 7:15 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Rick Abelson, Chair
Chris Joseph, Vice Chair
Howard
Laks, Boardmember
Sergio
Zeballos, Boardmember
Joan
Charles, Boardmember
Iris
Oliveras, Boardmember
Alison
St.Onge, Boardmember
Also
Present: Jean Moore, Associate
Planner
Jonathan
Lait, Associate Planner
Tony
Kim, Assistant Planner
Bonnie
Clark, Staff Assistant
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. December 6, 1999
Chair Abelson moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Boardmember Zeballos seconded the motion,
which was approved by voice vote.
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Stephanie
Barbanell spoke to the Board about the landscaping along the easement between
the Le Merigot Hotel and the properties on Seaview Terrace. She informed the
Board that the fence installed is six feet from the property line and added
that the planting had been done prior to the approval of landscaping plans.
5. REVIEWS:
A. CONSENT
CALENDAR
Chair Abelson
informed the Board that chits had been submitted for item #4 and it would
therefore be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
He asked the Board if there were other items to be pulled from the
Consent Calendar. Boardmember Zeballos asked to hear item #6. Boardmember Laks
asked to pull item #3. Boardmember Charles asked to pull item #3, and
Boardmember Oliveras wished to hear a presentation for items number 7 and #8.
Chair Abelson pulled items #2, #5, and #1 from the Consent Calendar.
Chair Abelson asked the Board if any items
were to be added to the Consent Calendar.
Boardmember Zeballos suggested that items #12 and #17 be added to
Consent. Chair Abelson thought items #9
and #14 should be approved on Consent.
Boardmember Oliveras said she wanted to hear the presentations for items
#12 and #9. Chair Abelson moved to approve
items #14 and #17 on Consent.
Boardmember Laks seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
14. ARB
00-013,
Approval
of Building Design, Colors and Materials and Sign Plans
ACTION:
APPROVED ON CONSENT WITH STAFF FINDINGS AND CONDITION
17. ARB
99-364,
Approval
of Modification to Previously Approved Sign Program and a Sign Adjustment
ACTION:
APPROVED ON CONSENT WITH STAFF FINDINGS AND CONDITION
A. REGULAR CALENDAR
1. ARB
00-023,
Approval
of Lighting Design, Colors and Materials and Landscape and Irrigation Plans
ACTION:
APPROVED WITH CONDITION
The
applicant’s representative, Lauren Melendez, was present to discuss the
project.
Boardmember
Joseph stepped down from the dais for this item.
Chair
Abelson asked Ms. Melendez if it would be possible to change the planting plan
and substitute verbena for rosemary. He
said, in his experience, rosemary attracts bees. Ms. Melendez said she saw no problem with
that.
Boardmember
Oliveras asked Ms. Melendez if the lighting plans would light the
landscape. Ms. Melendez said yes.
Boardmember
Zeballos moved to approve the project with the condition as stated in the staff
report and a second condition that the rosemary be replaced with verbena. Boardmember Laks seconded the motion, which
was approved by voice vote.
Boardmember
Joseph returned to the dais.
2. ARB
99-355,
Approval
of Sign Plans
ACTION:
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
The
applicant, Arno Firstenberg, was present to discuss the project with the Board.
Chair
Abelson said he pulled this item from the Consent Calendar. He asked Mr. Firstenberg if the sign could be
shifted to align with the band of pink windows as shown in drawing 2C. Mr. Firstenberg said the signage was
intentionally unaligned to add interest to the facade. Mr. Firstenberg said if the signage were
aligned, it made the design look like a mistake.
Boardmember
St.Onge observed that the sign LAUNCH and the windows were the same height at
4’3”.
Boardmember
Charles, Boardmember Laks, and Boardmember Joseph agreed with the applicant.
Boardmember
Laks moved to approve the project as submitted.
Boardmember Charles seconded the motion, which was approved by voice
vote.
3. ARB
99-216, 802 Broadway: Swingers
Approval
of Modification to Previously Approved Sign Plans
ACTION:
APPROVED WITH CONDITION
The applicant, Sean MacPherson, was
present to discuss the project with the Board. He explained to the Board that
he was requesting the modification due to structural conditions at the
site. He said the 1” thick header plate
prevented individual letter installation.
Boardmember Charles said she had
seen a “now hiring” sign on the facade.
Mr. MacPherson said it would be removed.
Boardmember Oliveras asked what the blue structure on the roof was. Mr. MacPherson said that was also being
removed.
Boardmember Laks asked Mr.
MacPherson if the accent bar had a raceway.
Mr. MacPherson said no.
Boardmember Laks asked what color the accent bar would be. Mr. MacPherson said stainless steel, same as
the sign.
Boardmember Laks moved to approve
the project with the condition that all extraneous signage be removed. Boardmember Charles seconded the motion,
which was approved by voice vote.
4. ARB
00-003, 1746 Ocean Avenue: Le Merigot Hotel
Approval
of Lighting Design, Colors and Materials
ACTION:
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
The
applicant, Joe Young, and his representative, Scott Baker, were present to
discuss the project.
Jerry
Bass and Stephanie Barbanell asked to address the Board regarding the proposed
project. Mr. Bass thanked Mr. Young for
the increased lighting in the palm trees and the downlights on the finger
lots.. He asked that the number of
lights be increased to four (where there were two) to light the easement on the
east and west ends. Ms. Barbanell submitted drawings of where she and Mr. Bass
would like to see the lights installed.
She said she would like to see the lights be warm colors and without
glare.
Mr.
Young agreed to add two more lights as Mr. Bass and Ms. Barbanell had
indicated.
Boardmember
Oliveras said she could support the project if the landsccaping were increased.
Boardmember
Laks asked the applicant if Colorado 720s luminescence would be powerful
enough. Mr. Baker said yes. He said he wanted to enhance the facade. Boardmember Laks asked Mr. Baker about the
uplights on the roof terrace. Mr. Baker
said there would be three per trellis below the parapet.
Chair Abelson noted that the Bird of Paradise plants were
packed in. Mr. Baker said this was to
create some interesting shadows.
Boardmember
Laks moved to approve the project with the conditions that two additional
lights be installed along the easement and that the plant material be
maintained when lighting is installed.
Chair Abelson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
5. ARB
00-006, 1760 Cloverfield Boulevard: Mobil
Approval
of Sign Plans and a Sign Adjustment
ACTION:
CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT
The
applicant’s representative, Dave Fink, was present to discuss the project.
Chair
Abelson reminded the Boardmembers and the applicant’s representative that at
the time the building design, colors and materials had been approved, the
architect had promised that the design would be great and be completely unlike
any other gasoline station. Boardmember
Joseph added that the approval had been given in October of 1999, and it was
his understanding that the oil company had changed ownership.
Chair
Abelson asked staff why a sign adjustment was necessary. Staff responded by informing the Board that
gas stations often have signage difficulty due to the small size of the
buildings on site, and the actual street frontage was much larger.
Chair
Abelson observed that the proposed canopy was larger than most. He asked the applicant where the other design
elements were. Mr. Fink said the
proposed structure and signage were designed to go up quickly.
Boardmember
Oliveras said the submitted materials did not make it easy to see what it would
look like when it went up.
Boardmember
Laks agreed and commented that the signage had changed. The previously approved plans had more details. He said he wanted to see a design consistent
with the architecture.
Mr.
Fink asked for a continuance to address the Board’s concerns.
6. ARB
00-007, 2939 Nebraska Avenue: Adelphia
Approval
of Sign Plans
ACTION:
CONTINUED; APPLICANT NOT PRESENT
7. ARB
00-016, 256 Twenty-Sixth Street: Arbor Place
Approval
of Sign Program
ACTION:
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
The applicant’s representative, Ann Tate, was present to
discuss the project with the Board. She
explained that the program proposed
would allow each of the four ground floor tenants to have signage that
was centered over each entrance and could be floating off the building neon.
Chair
Abelson moved to approve the project as submitted. Boardmember Laks seconded the motion, which
was approved by voice vote.
8. ARB
00-004, 320 Wilshire Boulevard: Good Earth Vitamins
Approval
of Sign Program
ACTION:
APPROVED WITH STAFF CONDITION
The
applicant’s representative, Bardo Brantley, was present to discuss the
project. He said he had asked to pulled
from the Consent Calendar because he wished to discuss the staff
conditions. He said he had no problem
with conditions 1 and 2, but, since he was a tenant and not the building owner,
he did not see how he could fulfill condition 3.
Staff
explained that condition 3 could be handled through Code Enforcement.
Boardmember
Zeballos moved to approve the project with the conditions as stated in the
staff report. Boardmember St.Onge
seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
9. ARB 99-371, 2600 Wilshire Boulevard: Cellular Fantasy
Approval
of Building Design, Colors and Materials, Landscape and Irrigation Plans and a
Sign Adjustment
ACTION:
DISAPPROVED
The
applicant, Michael Saee, was present to discuss the project with the Board.
A
member of the public, Chuck Allard, addressed the Board, expressing his
concerns over the project. He asked the
Board to address his concerns regarding the liquefaction zone the project
building is in, his impression that the entire façade would become signage, the
glare caused by the setting sun, the “yuppie” or overwhelming appearance of the
façade and the danger posed to the public by the glass. He asked the Board what would happed if the
applicant lost their lease.
Mr.
Saee answered the issues raised by stating that the glass façade would be
constructed of 3/8” tempered glass and safe, meeting California standards and
being engineered by a California company.
He said every building is a sign for the business it houses, and added
that the screen wall would soften the image, not fight it. There would be no glare created since the
glass would not be straight. Mr. Saee said that Cellular Fantasy had a 10 year
lease, not 2 as stated in a newspaper article, and intends to buy the
building.
Vice
Chair Joseph asked staff what the previous recommendation had been. Staff said that at the last meeting staff had
recommended disapproval. Vice Chair
Joseph asked if the reasons for the previous recommendation of disapproval had
been addressed. Staff said the signage
issue had been addressed, but the issues of scale and materials were still
subject to staff conditions to be recommended for approval.
Chair
Abelson asked when the building was constructed. Staff said 1969.
Boardmember Charles asked how the canopy in the front would be attached
to the building. Mr. Saee said it would
be bolted from below. Behind the mural is a concrete beam. Boardmember Charles asked how the glass
façade would be attached. Mr. Saee said
the supports would be drilled into the building’s travertine wall. Boardmember Charles asked what the distance
would be between the façade and the building wall. Mr. Saee said it would vary.
Boardmember Zeballos asked Mr. Saee to describe the existing and proposed
windows. Mr. Saee said the existing
building has narrow “bank-like” windows.
His project would extend the windows to the corners.
Boardmember Oliveras asked the applicant if the artist’s family had been
contacted or consulted with regard to this remodel, and if the applicant was
aware of the history of either the artist or his work. Mr. Saee said he was aware that the artist
had done extensive murals, most of which had been in Beverly Hills, but had
been eliminated due to demolition or remodels of the buildings on which they
were. He said he hoped to save and frame the mural on this building.
Boardmember Laks asked Mr. Saee about the display cases on the ground
floor. Mr. Saee said the glass display
cases would be clear glass with two layers.
Boardmember Laks observed that the blue glass was not parallel. Mr. Saee
said that the glass façade would have 4’
by 6’ pieces angled to each other and “zig up and back.”
Boardmember Laks asked if the line of sight to the mural would be
interrupted by the canopy. The applicant
said only slightly. Boardmember Laks
asked if the mural could be reinforced or embraced even more by a change in the
canopy configuration or shape. Mr. Saee
said he thought the canopy might be made of clear glass, but Boardmember Laks
wasked if the canopy could simply be changed to not affect the view of the
mural.
Boardmember Laks asked Mr. Saee if the ground mount features would be
spaced at seams or the midpoints of panes. Mr. Saee said that the location
would be mid-span.
Boardmember Laks mentioned that the Board had looked at the screen
parapet on the roofline. He asked if the
screen of the parapet would be reinforced parallel to the screen to satisfy
seismic bracing.
Vice Chair Joseph asked the applicant if the owner of the building was
committed to retaining the mural. Mr.
Saee said yes.
Boardmember St.Onge asked if Cellular Fantasy had another store. Mr. Saee said there was another store on Pico
and Westwood. She asked Mr. Saee is the
glass would be sandblasted. Mr. Saee
said no, that the glass treatment would be baked onto the back of fritted
glass.
Chair Abelson asked staff if the mural was considered signage. Staff said no, the mural was civic art. He asked the applicant if Cellular Fantasy
would consider a partial approval, assuming that the project could be divided
into sections. Mr. Saee said no, the
intention was not to over-design the project.
His design, he said, was responsive to the geometry of the building
itself, and he felt it was important to frame the mural.
Boardmember Oliveras said the building together with the mural
constitutes a strong and powerful presence, and added that she felt this
project would subdue the building and the mural. She asked about the dolphin. Mr. Saee said the dolphin would be behind
glass to give the impression of being in water.
Boardmember Laks asked staff if the building was listed in the Historical
Resources Inventory. Staff said no, the
building was less than 50 years old.
Boardmember Zeballos said he was in favor of the project. He said he had no issues with the skin of the
building, but he agreed that the canopy should be located so it wouldn’t block
the mural. He also said he wasn’t sure
about the size of the openings, especially on the 26th Street side.
Boardmember Laks said he increasingly supported the project. He said he
felt the use of the glass façade would somewhat preserve the building. He added that the glass did frame the mural
and enhanced it.
Boardmember Charles said she had concerns about the project and could not
support it. The building is located at a
major intersection. She felt that trash
could collect behind the façade and said she felt that maintenance could become
an issue. Boardmember Charles said the
building was created along with the mural, and felt that this was a unique
chance to preserve the historic fabric of the building.
Boardmember Oliveras said she did a lot of research on the building. She said she felt the building protects the
artwork, and any change to the building should include consulting the family of
the artist. She asked that staff check
with the Landmarks Commission. She felt
any approval of this project would be premature. She said that all historic and artistic
aspects to this project must be addressed first.
Vice Chair Joseph said he could not support the project because the glass
obscured the building instead of enhancing it.
Boardmember St.Onge said she also could not support the project, citing
maintenance and cleaning issues. She
also expressed concern about whether or not the glass façade would frame the
artwork.
Chair Abelson said he did not object to the innovative use of materials
at this location, but he felt that this was too much. Because the applicant indicated that this was
project must be approved in its entirety, Chair Abelson said he could not
support the project. He added that he
had no design issues with the landscaping plans.
Chair Abelson offered the applicant the option of asking for a
continuance. Mr. Saee consulted with his staff and returned with a request for
a vote on the project. Boardmember
Zeballos moved to approve the project with staff conditions. Boardmember Laks seconded the motion. Boardmember Laks, Boardmember Zeballos, and
Boardmember St.Onge voted aye. Chair
Abelson, Boardmember Charles, Vice Chair Joseph, and Boardmember Oliveras voted
nay.
Chair Abelson and Boardmember Oliveras directed staff to contact the
Landmarks Commission and the artist’s family for further information on the
site.
10. ARB
99-340, 1746 Ocean Avenue: Le Merigot Hotel
Approval of Awning Design, Colors
and Materials
ACTION: APPROVED WITH STAFF FINDINGS
AND CONDITION
The applicant, Joe Young, and his
representative, Brian Cochran, were present to discuss the project.
Mr. Cochran explained that many
alternate design options had been examined, but that due to wind sheer, zoning
requirements, and the weight of the awning, other designs had been discarded.
He said that the awning was 15’ wide and the struts needed to be anchored at
the fourth floor level.
Boardmember Laks observed that this
was a district which required a 35’ setback and the awning was not allowed to
project into that setback or over the driveway.
Boardmember St.Onge said she would
like to see the color of the struts be subdued, perhaps match the facade.
Boardmember Oliveras asked why the
awning couldn’t be cantilevered. Mr.
Cochran said that was due to the angle of the tension rods.
Boardmember Laks asked if the height
of the awning was dictated by the minimum height for deliveries. Mr. Young said the height had to accommodate
buses.
Boardmember St.Onge asked staff is a
variance could be granted to allow a covered driveway. Staff said the necessary findings could not
be made.
Boardmember Oliveras said the
problem was visual. Chair Abelson agreed
that there were design issues. He said
he felt the struts were too thin and dark.
Boardmember Laks agreed that there
were problems with the design, and added that the struts should not be made
thicker or painted to match the facade since that would create a striping
effect. Boardmember Joseph agreed.
Boardmember Joseph moved to approve
the project as submitted. Boardmember
Zeballos seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote. Boardmember
Oliveras voted nay.
11. ARB
99-235, 1230 Montana Avenue: Mixed Use
Approval
of Landscape and Irrigation Plans
ACTION:
APPROVED WITH STAFF CONDITIONS
The applicant’s representative, Steve Pribyl, was present
to discuss the project with the Board.
Boardmember
Charles asked staff is a treescape plan were being considered for Montana
Avenue. Staff said a plan was being put
together.
Chair
Abelson moved to approve the project as submitted. Boardmember Laks seconded the motion, which
was approved by voice vote.
12. ARB
00-025, 812 Euclid Street: Multi-Family Residence
Approval
of Building Design, Colors and Materials
ACTION:
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
The
applicant, Steve Pribyl, and his representative, Mike Coffee, was present to
discuss the project with the Board.
Boardmember
Zeballos pointed out that the rendering showed the roof overhang clipped the
window on the west elevation. Mr. Coffee
said that was just a shadow in the rendering.
Boardmember
Laks asked Mr. Coffee how high the mechanical screening parapet would be. Mr. Coffee said it would be 30”. Boardmember Laks asked where the trash
enclosures would be, and Mr. Coffee said they would be in the rear.
Boardmember
Laks asked the applicant what material would be used for the spark arrestor on
the roof. Mr. Pribyl said that copper
would be used.
Chair
Abelson asked if there was any grade differential along the north property
line. Mr. Pribyl said it varied from 2
1/2 feet to 3 feet at the curb cut. He
added that a six foot wall separated the residential uses from the commercial
uses.
Boardmember
Charles asked Mr. Coffee about the corbels on the east elevation. Mr. Coffee said they were wood corbels at a
45 degree angle. He added that window
below was recessed.
Boardmember
Oliveras pointed out the round window with four inner windows on the east
elevation. Mr, Pribyl and Mr. Coffee
said they like this design element.
Boardmember
Zeballos said he liked the project, but he had reservations about the metal
patina against the stonework. Boardmember Laks agreed.
Boardmember
Oliveras said she felt there were too many superfluous details.
Boardmember
St.Onge said she agreed with Boardmember Zeballos. Boardmember Laks agreed with concerns about
the arrestors becoming sooty.
Boardmember Zeballos suggested a neutral gray tone, either slate or
charcoal in color.
Boardmember
Joseph moved to approve the project with the conditions that the metalwork be
light charcoal gray and the landscape plans return to the Board for
approval. Boardmember Laks seconded the
motion, which was approved by voice vote.
Boardmember Oliveras and Boardmember Charles voted nay.
13. ARB
00-017, 1513 Ninth Street: Condominium
Approval
of Building Design, Colors and Materials and Landscape and Irrigation Plans
ACTION:
CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT
The
applicant, William Brantley, was present to discuss the project with the Board.
Chuck
Allard addressed the Board to discuss his concerns about the project. He said the developer had met with neighbors
only with an attorney. He said he was
concerned by the industrial appearance of the building.
Boardmember
asked Mr. Brantley if the glass on the south elevation would reflect. Mr. Brantley said that e-value glass would be
used. Boardmember Laks said he was also concerned with the limited pedestrian
orientation. Mr. Brantley said a bench
system would be installed.
Boardmember
Laks asked about the air conditioning units on the roof. Mr. Brantley said
small condensing coils were used by the air conditioning units and added that
the system would be hydronic and the interior slab would be exposed.
Boardmember
Zeballos asked if the ramp could incorporate some risers or steps.
Chair
Abelson suggested that Italian cypress might soften the facade.
In
deliberation, Boardmember Laks said he agreed with the staff report and saw the
need for additional pedestrian elements.
The design, he said, offered too limited of articulation on the facade.
Boardmember
Joseph agreed and said he would like to see the project return.
Boardmember
Zeballos said that basically he liked the design, and added he thought the Italian
cypress acted as a barrier for privacy.
He said the windows on the front elevation could be larger. Boardmember Zeballos said he found the ground
floor forbidding.
Boardmember
Charles asked Boardmember Zeballos how he felt about the cladding. Boardmember Zeballos said it was okay and
that he liked the different ideas shown in the design.
Boardmember
Oliveras said she like the industrial quality of the building, but she felt the
location for the building was wrong.
Chair Abelson agreed with her and said he wanted to see fewer industrial
aspects.
Boardmember
Joseph agreed with Boardmember Zeballos.
Mr.
Brantley asked for a continuance to address the Board’s concerns and restudy
the design.
15. ARB
00-005, 1700 Wilshire Boulevard: Simonson Mercedes
Approval
of Building Design, Colors and Materials
ACTION:
CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT
The
applicant’s representative, Don Wheeler, was present to discuss the project
with the Board.
Boardmember
Laks asked Mr. Wheeler why the roof on the east elevation was flat. Mr. Wheeler said that part of the building
housed the service bays. Boardmember
Laks noted that the service bay had 14’ high roofs and could still accommodate
a hipped roof. He asked Mr. Wheeler if
the finish would be stucco. Mr. Wheeler
said the finish would be antique plaster with a limestone base.
Boardmember
Laks compared the design to the site across the street. He said the spiral surrounds were easily
found. He asked Mr. Wheeler if the bay
window in front would be single-paned.
Mr. Wheeler said it would be multi-paned in front, but the applicant was
willing to consider any suggestions the Board might have.
Chair
Abelson asked staff why the project had been appealed. Staff said the appeal had been about parking
requirements. Chair Abelson asked the
applicant if the proposed glass blocks would be suitable for driving on. Mr. Wheeler said yes.
Boardmember
Zeballos remarked that the pole sign featuring the Mercedes Benz logo had been
granted meritorious status and asked if sign plans would retain the sign. Mr. Wheeler said the sign was under
consideration, but it would most likely be mounted on the facade to conform to
Code.
Chair
Abelson asked Mr. Wheeler about the lighting plans. Mr. Wheeler said that would be submitted with
the landscape plans.
In
deliberation, Boardmember Laks said that the Mediterranean Revival style could
be incorporated by elements of multi-paned windows, hipped roofs, a display
arcade, and pre-cast columns. He said he would like to see the details of the
arch spirals.
Chair
Abelson added that he would like to see photographs of the glass blocks and
consider the project together with the lighting, landscaping and signage. He added that he would like to see the
effects of water on the proposed design and materials.
Boardmember
Zeballos pointed out that if the sign were moved it would lose its meritorious
designation.
Mr.
Wheeler asked for a continuance to address the Board’s concerns.
16. ARB
00-018, 1801 San Vicente Boulevard: Single Family Residence
Approval
of Modification to Side Yard Setback Requirements
ACTION:
DISAPPROVED
The
applicant’s representatives, Cary Stevens and Sharon Landa, were present to
discuss the project with the Board.
Chair
Abelson observed that the problem was not one of design, but rather the
conditions necessary to make the finding. Boardmember St.Onge pointed out that
the excessive lot width constituted an unusual circumstance.
Chair
Abelson disagreed and moved to disapprove the project based on the finding that
the existing tennis court is a tenant improvement that limited the building
footprint, but did not constitute a hardship.
Boardmember Joseph seconded the motion, which was approved by voice
vote.
5. DISCUSSION:
6. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Meritorious Sign Review Board
(Zeballos)
Boardmember
Zeballos informed the Board that the Meritorious Sign Review Board had
continued its task of approving signs for meritorious designation. He told the Board that approximately 75 signs
had been approved on the list and nine more signs were under staff review. Boardmember Zeballos said the Board would
meet again on February 9, 2000.
7. PUBLIC INPUT: None
8. ADJOURNMENT: The
meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Rick Abelson, Chair
Chris Joseph, Vice Chair
Howard Laks, Boardmember
Alison St.Onge, Boardmember
Sergio Zeballos, Boardmember
Joan R. Charles, Boardmember
Iris N. Oliveras, Boardmember
Jean Moore, AICP, Associate Planner
Jonathan Lait, Associate Planner
Bonnie Clark, Staff Assistant III