MINUTES

 

MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

City of Santa Monica Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

 

 

 

 

Monday, August 11, 2003

 

7:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, Room 213,

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

 

CALL TO ORDER:    7:10 p.m.

 

1.     ROLL CALL    

Present:

Commissioner Fresco

Chair Pro Tem Genser

Chairperson Lehrer

Commissioner Kaplan

Commissioner Rosenfield

 

Also Present:

Elizabeth Bar-El

Barry Rosenbaum, City Attorney

Arlene Johnson

 

2       SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND CHAIR PRO TEMPORE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004

        

Chair Pro Tem Genser moved to nominate Ruthann Lehrer as Chairperson.  Commissioner Rosenfield seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Commissioner Kaplan moved to nominate Roger Genser as Chair Pro Tem.  Chairperson Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

3.      REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Bar-El introduced John Chase, the new Urban Designer with Planning and Community Development.  She also stated that a new Landmarks Commissioner would be appointed at the City Council meeting on August 12th.  Commissioner Posek resigned, effective end of July.    The contract with Historic Resources Group on South Beach is being circulated.  The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines community meeting was held on July 24th and the Commission will keep getting notices of future meetings.  The 128 Hollister appeal hearing will be heard by City Council on September 26th and Bubba Gump’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision will be heard by City Council on September 9th.  Work on the Marion Davies Estate located at 415 Pacific Coast Highway will begin soon.  Non-contributing structures will be demolished and the historic guest house will be mothballed.

 

4.      COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

         None.

 

5.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

         Public Input Permitted

                                     

A.  June 9, 2003 (continued)

B.  July 14, 2003

 

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser moved to approve the minutes of June 9th.  Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote. 

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser moved to approve the minutes of July 14th.  Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote, with the following corrections: On page 3, Item 9A, Commissioner Fresco’s motion should read, “to continue this item to August to allow the Commissioners more review time to consider the applicant’s concerns with staff recommendations”.  On page 4, last paragraph, Commissioner Fresco stated that she was concerned about the 11-1/2 feet of “additional height “in front of the building, not “blank wall in front of the building”.  Item 9C, Commissioner Schnitzler was recused from the vote.

 

   6.   APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

 

A.  Statement of Official Action: Landmark Designation Application LC-03LM-003, 522 24th Street, designating the eucalyptus deanei tree located on the property as a City Landmark.

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action.  Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Commissioner Rosenfield arrived at 7:26 pm.

 

B.  Statement of Official Action: Landmark Designation Application LC-03LM-004, 2034 La Mesa Drive (John Byers Third Residence), designating the property as a City Landmark.

                                                                                                            

Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action.   Chair Pro Tem Genser seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

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

        

Commissioner Fresco received and shared a letter from an anonymous member of the public regarding the La Mesa tour sponsored by the Santa Monica Conservancy.

 

8.      CONSENT CALENDAR:

         Public Input Permitted

 

         None.

 

9.      OLD BUSINESS:

         Public Input Permitted

 

A.  Certificate of Appropriateness LC-03CA-002, 380 Santa Monica Pier. Sign Program to Modify an Approved Sign Program, including a Sign Adjustment, for signage within Pacific Park, located on the Landmark Santa Monica Pier. (Continued from July 14, 2003).

 

      Staff report presented by Ms. Bar-El.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission:  Dana Wyatt, Pacific Park and Jack Fovell.

 

      Commissioner Kaplan asked for clarification on the maximum height limitations.

 

Ms. Bar-El explained that the Pier is in the RVC zone, which is considered a residential zone.  The signage permitted does not work for the Pier.  Until the sign code is changed to specifically reflect the needs of the Pier, applicants will require a sign adjustment.

 

Commission Fresco commented on the food court signs and stated that they were inappropriate for the Pier and the frames should not be revised in new signs.  She also felt that the east entrance sign should have more reference to the Pier entrance sign.  She also stated that she agrees with staff that the menu boards should remain at 6 square feet, and the applicant should have to prove why they need additional square footage to allow larger ones.

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that she was less concerned with the additional square feet.  She, like other members of the public, sometimes has a hard time reading the small print on menu boards and would support a larger sign as long as architectural features and window mullions are not covered up.

 

Commissioner Kaplan felt that 6 square feet menu signs weren’t very big and in order to fit within the span of the architecture, maybe 10 square feet should be allowed.  She also stated that we shouldn’t put a hardship on the retailers because it may drive them away.  

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that the design of replacement signs should not interfere with the architecture.  Also she would support signs up to 10 square feet, and the timeline for removal of non-conforming sign at Pacific Park should be within 6 months.

 

Ms. Bar-El stated she would amend staff recommendations on condition 3e.

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was disappointed with the east entrance sign.

 

Mr. Wyatt agreed and stated that they are looking at suggestions for making changes to the park sign.  However, they would like to keep the same size sign and they are not making those changes soon.

 

Commissioner Fresco made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with staff recommendations, except for the following:  Change the parameters of the menu sign to10 square feet within the mullions, modify the arcade signs and the east entrance as proposed.  However, any redesign of the east entrance sign with a new supporting structure must come back to the Commission for review.  All non-complying signs must be removed in 6 months.  Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

      Ayes:              Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Rosenfield, Lehrer

      Nayes:            None

      Abstain:          None

      Absent:           None

 

B.  Certificate of Appropriateness LC-02CA-008, 301 Santa Monica Pier.  Design, Materials & Colors for a proposed new restaurant (Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.) to replace the Boathouse Restaurant Structure located on the Landmark Santa Monica Pier. (Continued from July 14, 2003)

 

Ms. Bar-El stated that staff supports the proposed changes with one exception the proposal of the solid door to replace the fire door. Staff recommends some sort of decorative wrought iron gate in that location.  Secondly, the signage shown on the drawings is not a part of the application.  It will be addressed in September. 

 

            Overhead presentation by Howard Laks, architect for Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.

 

Commissioner Fresco asked if the fire door was the same height as the others.  Mr. Laks responded, yes.  She also asked if the interior wall could be made transparent.  Mr. Laks responded that Bubba Gumps was opposed to this idea for retail space reasons.  Commissioner Fresco asked if the lights on the roofline would also be applied to the elevator shaft.   Mr. Laks responded yes, that would be possible.  Commissioner Fresco commented on the door at the back entrance.  Mr. Laks stated that this door would be used for deliveries and trash removal.  He did not want to draw attention to it.  Commissioner Fresco commented that she did not like the non-descript look and would like to see a more barbaric (i.e. industrial) look, perhaps using some vertical corrugated metal.

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that her favorite part of this building is the north façade and the way it connects to the beach.  She asked why they used a decorative element on some posts and not others?  Mr. Laks stated that without the 45 degree brackets the columns looked a little spindly.  Commissioner Kaplan stated that the down lights on the tower were spidery.   Mr. Laks stated that they were consistent with this type of architecture, and provided soft, warm light on the proposed signage.  Also, they add another level of articulation and detail to this building’s façade. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan felt that there was too much going on in regard to lighting in a small area on the front facade.  Perhaps an indirect light could be placed behind the marquee.   Mr. Laks agreed that that was a good idea.

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that they did a much improved job in opening up the building and making it very friendly to the general ambiance on the Pier.

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser was concerned about the marquee itself.  He stated that there is too much signage.  Also, the artifact looks like a giant billboard, and the marquee itself adds to that feeling. 

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that the marquee makes the building look welcoming for the pedestrians and introduces a nice interface between the Pier and Bubba Gump.  She felt the signage on the marquee itself was inappropriate and should be taken off so it would read as a more architectural element and not an advertising element.  She concurred with Chair Pro Tem Genser on the overkill of shrimp on the artifact.  It should be some other kind of whimsical design element and not just list different kinds of shrimp. 

 

Commissioner Fresco felt that the marquee adds a more welcoming people scale element.  It is a terrific addition to the design.  She also felt that the lamps create an earthier looking building, and that adding a mysterious source of lighting seems inappropriate.  She would also like signage on which the shrimp jump out of its circle. 

 

Commissioner Rosenfield concurred with the previous comments.  However he is very pleased with the changes made. 

 

Following additional discussion regarding the gooseneck lighting, Commissioner Fresco made a motion to approve with no gooseneck lighting on the tower, addition of necklace lights around the top by the elevator tower alternative lighting from below and enhancement of the north elevation service door.  Revised plans are to be submitted for staff’s approval. The Commission will review the artifacts at the September meeting.  Commissioner Rosenfield seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

            Ayes:                          Fresco, Kaplan, Rosenfield, Lehrer

            Nayes:                        Genser

            Absent:                       None

            Abstain:                      None

 

10.    NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

         Public Input Permitted

                          

None.

 

11.    DISCUSSION ITEMS:

         Public Input Permitted

 

A.  Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application For Designation of a Structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.

     

            1.         2121 Virginia Avenue (PC014742)

                        R2/Low-Density Multiple Family Residential

                        One-Story House and Shed

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

2.      301 Santa Monica Pier (PC014685)

RVC/Residential-Visitor Commercial District

         2-Story Restaurant

                        Structure Identified on Landmarked Pier

 

               3.      1519 26th Street (PC014646)

         LMSD/Light Manufacturing & Studio

         Two, Single Story Houses

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

4.      2702 Arizona Avenue (PC014692)

         R2/Low Density Multiple Family Residential

         One-Story, Single Family House w/Detached Garage

         Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

5.      2626 33rd Street (PC014717)

         R1/Single Family Residential

         Single Family Resident

         Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

 

 

6.      1919 -1921 4th Street (PC014585)

         OP2/Low Multiple Residential        

         Single Family Resident w/Guest House in Rear

         Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

7.      1120 21st Street (PC014729)

R2/Low Density Multiple Residential

         One-Story, Single Family Home w/Detached Storage Shed

         Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

      No action was taken on these items.

 

B.  Discussion of 1911 La Mesa Drive (Oscar Neimeyer/ Strick House) and Consideration of Whether to file an Application for Designation of the Property as a City Landmark. (Continued from June 9, 2003)

 

Ms. Bar-El stated that the owners are still in progress with construction and if the house were nominated, that work would have to cease temporarily between the nomination and designation period. 

 

This item was continued to a date uncertain, pending final inspection; after which staff will agendize Landmark application consideration.

 

C.  Discussion of 147 Georgina Avenue (R.D. Farquhar Residence) and Consideration of Whether to file an Application for Designation of the Property as a City Landmark.  (Requested by Chair Lehrer)

 

Chairperson Lehrer suggested that this property was brought to her attention by a Realtor.   She gave the history of the architect, R.D. Farquhar. 

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Brian Murphy (spoke on behalf of the property owner).

 

Chairperson Lehrer suggested that the Commission should begin the nomination process.  A discussion followed regarding timelines, permits, Mills Act, and the new owner’s plans for the property.

 

Commissioner Fresco reminded the Commission that their responsibility is to nominate based on merits and designation criteria.

 

Commissioner Genser felt uncomfortable regarding the nomination and didn’t feel the property is in jeopardy.

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that the Commission should be proactive and file the designation application.  Staff confirmed that this item could be scheduled in October.

 

Commissioner Fresco made a motion to file a designation application.  Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

      Ayes:              Fresco, Kaplan, Rosenfield, Lehrer

      Nayes:            Genser

      Abstain:          None

      Absent:           None

 

D.  Discussion of Conducting a Survey of the City’s Courtyard Housing Stock. (Requested by Commissioner Kaplan) (Continued from July 14, 2003)

 

Commissioner Kaplan asked if it would be possible for an intern to take on this assignment.  She stated that the building types that are coming before the Landmarks Commission are tear-downs, and is concerned that the stock is disappearing and we are unsure of how many are left in Santa Monica.

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that courtyards are a vanishing breed and in addition, they are often the last remnants of affordable rent control housing in the city.  Perhaps this could be the next survey, if it’s in our budget.

 

Commissioner Fresco mentioned a past appeal on 701 Ocean Avenue back in 1988 in which the appellant presented a list of courtyard properties in the City.

 

Ms. Bar-El stated that city staff did not have the financial resources at this time to fund the research into courtyard housing stock.  However, in the next phase of the inventory, maybe the Commission could select the area with the most undocumented courtyard structures.  She also said she would search the files for that list.

 

E.  Discussion of Ways for the Landmarks Commission to Comment during the Review Period for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) when the EIR Includes Cultural Resource Analysis. (Requested by Commissioner Fresco) (Continued from July 14, 2003)

 

Ms. Bar-El stated that she would schedule a discussion item during the 30-day comment period whenever an EIR includes Cultural Resource impacts. The Commission could then have a discussion limited to the EIR issues but not the rest of the project, and file a comment if it decides to do so.

 

F.   Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

 

12.    WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

         Public Input Permitted

 

13.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:  (Requests from Commissioners to add items to     

         upcoming agendas)

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser requested to agendize a review of the revised Commission exparte communication.

                       

14.    NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, September 8, 2003.

                                                                                                                       

15.    ADJOURNMENT:  10:15 p.m.