MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

Monday, April 9, 2001	City Council Chambers
5:45 p.m.	1685 Main Street, Room 213

1.	ORIENTATION DINNER:
2.	ROLL CALL:
3.	COMMUNICATIONS:
	A. B. C. D.	Introduction of Planning Division Staff to Landmarks Commission (Jay Trevino, Planning Manager) Legal Issues Pertaining to Board (Barry Rosenbaum, Sr. Land Use Attorney) 1. Official Record a. Findings and Conditions 2. Rules of Order / Procedure for Conduct / Robert’s Rules of Order 3. Brown Act a. Agenda b. Contact with Applicants c. Serial Meetings d. Quorum 4. Conflict of Interest a. When should a Board member step down? 5. CEQA Overview – Landmarks Commission’s Role Role of Landmarks Commission as Part of Overall Development Process. (Donna Jerex, Associate Planner) Division Work Program, Priorities, and Budget (Kimberly Christensen, Senior Planner) The Landmark Commission agreed on the following priorities: 1. Appropriate enough funds for inventory updates 2. Accelerate the inventory update process 3. Need more staff-not just for inventory process, but also for programs / projects identified in the Historic Preservation Element

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Public Input Permitted

A. Amendment to Minutes: February 12, 2001

B. March 12, 2001

Commissioner Genser moved for approval of the minutes with correction to item 6A on the March minutes, page 2, 1333 Ocean Ave. (per his comment, the word architect should be changed to “historical and cultural context and location”. Commissioner Lehrer seconded and the motion passed.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Public Input Permitted

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Public Input Permitted

A. Formal Consideration Hearing: 1333 Ocean Avenue The City Landmarks Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a Landmark Designation Application for a structure located at 1333 Ocean Avenue. The Landmarks Commission will determine, based on the application and research presented, whether the application is appropriate for formal consideration. If the Commission determines that the application merits consideration, a public hearing on the application for Landmark Designation will be scheduled.

Sherman Stacey, Attorney for the Property Owner, stated he was present on behalf of the property owner. He reiterated what happened in the previous meeting. Stated the staff findings, he believes, are not the strongest ones in connection with a landmark. Stated the property has no historical value, we don’t know who the architect is, and it never had a resident of any great importance to the city. It is old and relatively intact at the façade only. Stated the Queen Anne style of structures and residences were not confined to Ocean Ave. in Santa Monica, although the pictorial records seem to emphasize Ocean Ave. because it was a place people took pictures of. Also stated that landmark designation of this structure is inconsistent with the City’s land use plan. Asked the Commission to not take any action and reschedule for 60 days and let them try to work out an agreement that would preserve the building.

Doris Sosin, Member of the Public, stated she drove by the property and noticed that there were 3 significant homes grouped together, and if this house goes, the others will go. Stated it is a great chance for them to have a small historic district.

Ms. Jerex stated that the Landmarks Commission has requested that staff bring it to this point. Stated if the Commission were to take action on the landmark application, it would be appealable to the City Council if the owner is not happy with the decision. If the Commission decides to waive the time frame, they may not have any role in whether or not the property is relocated to the new site. Staff believes that the contextual issues are very important in this case and the other sight wouldn’t be appropriate.

Chairperson Alofsin concurs with Mrs. Sosin.

Commissioner Schmidt stated that it is the Commission’s position to decide whether or not this property warrants landmark designation and not whether to agree on a waiver. She stated that the building is significant and that it needs to be acted upon tonight.

Commissioner Page concurs with Commissioner Schmidt. Stated he would like to see the house saved. Stated if this issues goes to City Council, we lose our position to save the building. Also stated he agrees with what Rosario Perry proposed in an earlier meeting.

Commissioner Posek stated that the context of the building is extremely important. Stated the house would lose a lot of its integrity if moved and doesn’t see what good a 60-day extension would do.

Commissioner Lehrer stated that this is a very significant building, which is almost extinct. Stated if we don’t have that cluster, we won’t have that memory. Stated the context is very important and feels the building merits designation based on the information from staff that it clearly meets three of the criteria.

Chair Pro Tem Bolton agreed that the context is important and stated he is afraid of losing the building through an appeal. He felt that the Commission needs to look at the district issue. Stated that the Montana Avenue site is more in scale and the house would be more visible.

Commissioner Genser concurs with Commissioners Schmidt and Lehrer. Stated that his concern is, if the Commission takes no action and there is some sense of moving the building, and it falls through, then the Commission loses control of the situation, and the building would be lost either way. Stated he doesn’t want to see the building torn down in either location.

Rosario Perry, Attorney for the owners, stated that the owners would like to have the house move to 17^th Street, and Deed Restrict it a landmark forever. They would like to do a contract with the city to move the house and in the contract would be all of the terms that would be important. If the contract didn’t work out, the Commission could come back in 60 days and designate the property a landmark. If the contract did work out, the house would not be moved for a year, and it would come back to the Commission for designation again. If the Commission did designate it a landmark, and they tried to move the house, they would have to do an Environmental Impact Report, which is a $50,000-$60,000 process and would take a year. Stated the owners of Montana don’t want to wait an additional year and spend that amount of money. If the house isn’t moved now, the owners will sell the property and the lot will be lost. The only way to save this building is to move it. They are willing to move the building in such a way that the Commission has complete control at all times.

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the relocation site seems to be physically infeasible and that the plan seems to be very speculative. She also felt and stated that the Commission’s responsibility is, to seek out and find properties that are historically important and protect them for the future of the city.

Commissioner Schmidt moved to designate the property a landmark and schedule a public hearing. Commissioner Posek seconded and the motion passed.

Action was taken based on the following vote:

Ayes: Genser, Lehrer, Posek, Schmidt, Alofsin

Nayes: Page, Bolton

Absent: None

B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application No. LC-01-CA-001 380 Santa Monica Pier, The City Landmarks Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider Certificate of Appropriateness Application No. LC-01-CA-001 to allow the following work at Pacific Park on the Santa Monica Pier: Removal of the existing Candy Cove building and attached Ticket Booth, and replacement of the building with a new open air canopy (maximum 14-foot high) for 2 game booths; construct a new (replacement) ticket booth with new signs; relocate the climbing wall; and add a new wind block fence constructed of wood and plexiglas (maximum 5’-6” high) around a portion of the existing open air dining patio, adjacent to the Pier’s promenade.

Dana Wyatt, Director of Operations at Pacific Park, stated that this is a simple project. Stated there is a building in the middle of the park that blocks the view of the ocean and traffic flow through the park. They plan to remove it, and replace it with a new ticket booth. They also need covers for a few of the games.

Commissioner Page moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with staff conditions. Commissioner Lehrer seconded and the motion passed.

Action was taken based on the following vote:

Ayes: Genser, Lehrer, Page, Posek, Schmidt, Bolton, Alofsin

Nayes: None

Absent: None

8. OLD BUSINESS:

Public Input Permitted

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Public Input Permitted

A. Demolition Permits

1. 1531 6^th Street (PC010537)

C3/Commercial District

15 Unit Apartment Building

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

2. 1809 Olympic Blvd. (PC011516)

M1/Industrial Conservation District

1 Story Building w/ Wood Shed

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

Chuck Allord, Citizens for Safer Santa Monica, stated that they did not get their agenda in the mail in a timely manner and therefore didn’t have enough time to prepare for this item.

Ms. Jerex stated that the information was posted for the public on Thursday, prior to the meeting date. She also stated that Demolition permits have a window time of 60 days, which would therefore allow time for any action to be taken.

3. 1527 6^th Street (PC011513)

C3/Commercial District

14 Unit Apartment Building

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

4. 1237 24^th Street (PC011533)

R2/Low Density Multiple Residential District

Single Family Dwelling w/Garage

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

5. 1253 19^th Street (PC011507)

R2/Low Density Multiple Residential

Single Family Residential

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

B. Budget Priorities/Workload: What issues would the Landmarks Commission like the City Council to look at in setting their budget priorities for fiscal year 2001-2002.

C. Neighborhood Group Outreach and Formation of Historic Districts (Request from Commissioner Genser at March 12, 2001 meeting).

Commissioner Genser stated that he would like to work with neighborhood groups to identify those areas within neighborhoods that they may find appropriate for a district.

Sheila Wells, Member of the Public, (NOMA) commended Commissioner Genser for inviting the neighborhood groups out for input. Stated they love their neighborhoods and care very much about preserving the historical and architectural ambience of Santa Monica.

Rick Laudati, OPCO member, stated the board wholeheartedly supports the proposal by Commission Genser. They have received a lot of input from the public, such as benefits and negative impact. Would like a handout to give to the public that would answer these type of questions.

Michael Quick, Member of the Public, raised the possibility of a historic district on 7^th Street. Stated the area between San Vicente and Montana has pros and cons. Felt it has some merit and historical character.

Commissioner Genser, Chair Alofsin and Commissioner Posek, volunteered to be members of the Neighborhood Outreach Group.

D. Potential Historic District: 22^nd Street. Discussion regarding integrity of surrounding area and whether it merits consideration as a historic district. (Request from Commissioner Alofsin at February 12, 2001 meeting.)

E. 401 Montana Avenue Project Status (Verbal Report from Staff)

Ms. Jerex stated that the applicant is intending to withdraw the application.

F. RAND Demolition Status (Verbal Report from Staff)

Ms. Jerex explained that the Rand development falls under a Development Agreement. In constructing the Development Agreement, the City Council made the decision to allow the demolition of the existing Rand buildings because future oriented uses on that site would far outweigh the public benefit of keeping these buildings there. The new Rand building is going to be built on the southern portion of the parking, which will provide open space. She stated that replacement uses are open for discussion at this point.

Commissioner Alosfin stated that she attended the Civic Center meeting on the previous Monday, and there were many people there from the community who were interested in seeing the property be developed. She also stated, there was an agenda set for every Monday in May so that the process would be accelerated to have some decision made with community input.

Chuck Allord, Member of the Public, stated that the City was getting itself into trouble by demolishing this building. He feels the Commission should be allowed to review this property because it falls under the same criteria as other buildings that are 40 years and older. Stated that there should not be a double standard for this project.

Council Liaison Pam O’Connor, stated that the Development Agreement with Rand included a landmark designation application with full environmental review. As part of that, a cultural resources assessment and the impact of the post project were evaluated. Potential adverse effect mitigation measures were proposed. They don’t fully mitigate the loss but the Council was able to make findings, in the context of the environmental review, that there were overriding considerations. This is part of any Development Agreement contract.

G. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

10. COMMUNICATIONS:

None

11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas.

12. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, May 14, 2001

13. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)

Jerry Rubin, Member of the Public, would like to agendize an item regarding the protection of the Civic Auditorium. Stated, he would like to see it designated a landmark. He also mentioned a brief period of history of the structure.

Rick Laudati, Member of OPCO, stated that OPCO was called and received a petition to save the banyan tree on 4^th Street, and arranged to meet with the residents of Community Corporation.

14. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15pm