MINUTES

 

MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

 

 

 

 

Monday, May 10, 2004

 

7:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, Room 213,

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

 

CALL TO ORDER:              7:04 pm

 

1.         ROLL CALL:  
Present:           
Commissioner John Berley

 

Commissioner Nina Fresco

 

Chair Pro Tempore Genser
 
Chairperson Lehrer

           

Commissioner Barbara Kaplan

           

Commissioner Levin

           

Commissioner Colin Maduzia

                             

Also Present:

Elizabeth Bar-El, Commission Secretary

 

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

 

Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer

 

Michael Feinstein, Council Liaison

 

Arlene Johnson, Staff Assistant

 

2.      REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Bar-El stated that the City Council will be proclaiming May as preservation month, and the proclamation will be read by the mayor and presented to Landmarks Chairperson, Ruthann Lehrer.  Council will also be discussing the Downtown Urban Design guidelines.  She also shared a guidebook prepared by the Getty, called Incentives for the Preservation and Rehabilitation of Historic Homes in the City of Los Angeles.  City Planning is interviewing interns this week and should be working by the next Commission meeting.   The City is applying for a CLG grant this year in connection with the ongoing update of the Historic Resources Inventory.  No status update yet on the Oscar Neimeyer house.

 

3.      COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

        

Chair Pro Tem Genser announced that there is an arts event coming up on May 17th.  It is for the preservation of murals.  He also visited the Chicago Historical Society last week, and got a chance to see the only known examples of the earliest views of Santa Monica dated back to 1877.  He will bring copies to the next meeting.

 

Commissioner Fresco shared photos of the old portion of the Boulangerie building recently revealed during demolition and requested to add a discussion of it to the current agenda as an emergency item.

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to add the discussion of the Boulangerie to the end of the current agenda as Item 10G.  Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

         Ayes:                 Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Levin, Maduzia, Lehrer.

         Nayes:               None

         Absent:              None

         Abstain:             None

 

4.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

         Public Input Permitted

                                     

A.  April 12, 2004

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to approve the minutes with the following corrections: 

·               Page 2, 5A, change the 3rd sentence in the paragraph as follows: “In regard to the discussion of downtown urban design guidelines, Commissioner Berley suggested that Planning staff modify the language to require that new buildings should be stepped so that they occur no more than 5 feet above the cornice of the adjacent historic structure as a way of responding to the unique conditions of the site.”  

·               Page 8, Item 12A, add to the end of the first sentence in paragraph 3: “with sufficient front setback to maintain the structure’s residential character.”

·               Page 5, Item 10A: Revise the next to last paragraph to read: “Chairperson Lehrer concurred, and added that it would be appropriate for the applicant to install a plaque.“

·               Page 5, Item 10A: Add: “Commissioners also made several other comments related to concerns about the facade.“

 

Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote with all Commissioners voting in favor except for Commissioner Kaplan who abstained.

 

   5.   APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

 

A.     Statement of Official Action: Certificate of Appropriateness LC-04CA-004, 507 Wilshire Boulevard, Approving the Design, Materials and Colors for Adaptive Reuse of the Designated Landmark Structure that Incorporates the Front Facade into a New Five-story Mixed-use Project.

 

         Commissioner Fresco made a motion to move Item 5A after Item 10E.  Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

 

               Ayes:           Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Levin, Maduzia, Lehrer.

               Nayes:         None

               Absent:        None

         Abstain:       None

 

         Following discussion under Item 10E, Commissioner Genser made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness LC-04CA-004.  Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

            Ayes:              Berley, Genser, Levin, Maduzia, Lehrer.

            Nayes:            None

            Absent:           None

     Abstain:           Fresco, Kaplan

 

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

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Chuck Allord.

 

7.      CONSENT CALENDAR:

         Public Input Permitted

 

         None. 

 

8.      OLD BUSINESS:

         Public Input Permitted

 

A.  Discussion regarding the Sears-Roebuck buildings at 302 and 402 Colorado Avenue and Consideration of Whether to File an Application for One or Both of These Properties for Designation as a City Landmark. (Continued from February 9, 2004)

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission:  Bill Christopher and Ivor Samson, Sears representatives, and Chuck Allord.

 

Ms. Bar-El reiterated the context within which the Commission discussed this property in the past and expressed interest in its historic value, eventually agendizing a landmark nomination discussion. City Attorney Rosenbaum concurred.

 

Chair Lehrer asked about the storefront design and the extent of the alterations.

 

Ms. Bar-El stated that according to an ARB file, the green glass was changed and some of the storefront on the Colorado side was closed up. 

 

Mr. Samson stated that there were a number of modifications to both buildings over the years and the façades that face the street are essentially new. 

 

Commissioner Fresco stated that the Commission had already indicated that it did not wish to include 402 Colorado in a nomination.  However, the consultants’ report and the Civic Center Plan add urgency to the situation regarding 302 Colorado.

 

Chair Lehrer stated that the timing is right to move ahead with 302 Colorado.  If Sears seeks to modify the property, having the designation in place at the time gives the Commission a chance to be involved with those changes.  It is a very cherished building with outstanding architectural qualities.

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that after reading the information on the Civic Center Specific Plan and the intentions of the City regarding the 402 Colorado property, it seems to be an appropriate time to move forward with a designation now, so that the Commission can be involved with any changes that may occur.

 

Commissioner Berley expressed that the intention was to bring the Sears Corporation into the discussion of the significance of the building at 302 Colorado Ave., and encourage them to consider its importance to the Santa Monica community and have a dialog with the Commission. 

 

Mr. Samson stated that the negotiations with the City’s Resource Management Department, which involve sensitive issues on both sides, hinder their ability to talk to the Commission and the City staff with regard to the landmark question.

 

Mr. Christopher stated that there is no plan to do anything with the 302 Colorado property other than run it as a department store.  The landmarking of this building versus the purchasing of the auto center should be treated as two separate issues.  The potential sale of the auto center at 402 Colorado will affect how they want to operate the remaining 302 Colorado property.  Sears has a duty to mitigate any potential damages, and he believes that a Landmark designation would increase the costs of replicating these facilities.

 

Commissioner Berley stated that the Commission’s concern is that they would like to weigh in on any modifications that would occur to the structure, so he supports filing this application.

 

Commissioner Maduzia made a motion to file a designation application for 302 Colorado Avenue.  Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

            Ayes:              Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Levin, Maduzia, Lehrer.

            Nayes:            None

            Absent:           None

      Abstain:          None

 

B.  Review of Demolition Permit Request at 1337 Ocean Ave. (PC015739) and Consideration Whether to File an Application For Designation of a Structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit. (Continued from April 12, 2004)

 

                        RVC-Residential/Visitor Commercial District

                        2-Story Office Building

                        Structure Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory - 5

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission: David           Daniels, Attorney and Sami El-Bayar, property owner representative.

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser suggested that if the applicant waived the time limit that the Commission could hold a broad based discussion about the project.   

 

      Ms. Bar-El clarified what process is involved in order for this to happen.

 

Commissioner Fresco stated that the replacement project should have no bearing on the Commission’s decision to designate this building.

 

Commissioner Berley stated the Commission should decide if 1337 Ocean Avenue has any merit.  He also stated that the merit of the existing structure has nothing to do with the applicant’s replacement project. 

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that the buildings further north on Ocean Avenue mentioned in PCR’s report are not comparable to the subject property.  1337 Ocean Ave. is a unique structure and has great merit.  He would support a designation nomination.    

 

Commissioner Levin stated that her opinion remained unchanged and that she would support a nomination.

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that this building has wonderful scale from the street and is very charming.  It has integrity and a character on that block.    She would support a nomination.

 

Commissioner Berley commended the architects on their presentation last month. He stated that it was important for the Commission to gain a better understanding of what their intentions were and what they presented was a creative solution to enhance the community.  Their historic evaluation report was somewhat confusing because it downplayed the building, although it received a 5 status on the Historic Resource Inventory.  He believes the Commission should look more carefully at all properties on the Historic Resource Inventory.

 

Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to file an application to designate 1337 Ocean Ave as a landmark.   Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

 

            Ayes:              Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Levin, Maduzia, Lehrer.

            Nayes:            None

            Absent:           None

      Abstain:          None

 

C.  Finalization of a Priorities List of National Register Eligible Properties in the Downtown Area for the Commission’s Future Use in Initiating Consideration of Filing Landmark Designation Applications. (Continued from April 12, 2004)

 

Each Commissioner listed his/her priorities, which were tallied to determine an order to agendize application filing as follows:

 

1.      221-25 Santa Monica Blvd. (Bay Cities Guaranty Building)

2.      710 Wilshire Blvd. (Professional Building; CBD)

3.      312 Wilshire Blvd. (Commercial Building)

4.      1202 3rd Street  (JC Penney Building)

5.      1301 3rd Street  (Criterion Theatre & Apartments)

6.      1360 3rd Street  (Bank of Italy; Crocker Bank)

7.      516 Colorado Avenue (Angels’ Attic)

 

9.      NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

         Public Input Permitted

                          

None.

 

10.    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.      544 14th Street (PC015802)

                        R1-Single Family Residential

                        Single Family Resident w/ 2-Car Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

2.      2438 22nd Street (PC015799)

                        R1- Single Family Residential

                        Single Family Resident w/ Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

3.      3017 Pearl Street (PC015818)

         R1- Single Family Residential

         1-Story House w/Attached Garage

         Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

 

4.      210 23rd Street (PC015811)

         R1- Single Family Residential

         Single Family Resident w/ Detached Garage

         Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

5.      622 25th Street (PC015832)

                        R1- Single Family Residential

                        Single Family Resident w/ Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

6.      121 Esparta Way (PC015851)

                        R1- Single Family Residential

                        Single Family Resident w/ Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

                        Demolition sign not visible on property

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that this is a beautiful example of ranch style architecture. 

 

Upon further comments by the Commission, Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue this item to the next meeting.  Chair Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote, with Commissioner Maduzia voting no.

 

7.       333 20th Street  (PC015906)

R1- Single Family Residential

Single Story Resident w/ Detached Garage

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

                        No action taken on Item 10-A(1-5 and 7).

 

B.  Appointment of Two Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Residents to Serve Two-Year Terms on the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District’s Citizen’s Participation Committee (CPC).

 

      Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to nominate Adam Finkle and Anne Troutman.  Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

     

C.  Discussion of Proposed Incentive Programs for Designated Historic Properties Developed by the Commission’s Ad-hoc Subcommittee.

 

Commissioner Fresco suggested a special study session to discuss this item.          This item is continued to a later date. 

 

D.  Discussion of the Landmarks Commission's jurisdiction and scope of review over Certificate of Appropriateness determinations and clarification of the role and responsibilities of the urban designer.  (Requested by Commissioner Fresco)

 

Commissioner Fresco stated that she had misunderstood the City Attorney’s statement from the last meeting in regard to what the Commission could and couldn’t discuss about the project.  She suspected that other Commissioners might also have misunderstood.

 

City Attorney Rosenbaum explained his statement at the April meeting and the Commission’s purview in reviewing alterations through the Certificate of Appropriateness process.  

 

Commissioner Fresco stated that she felt it was almost impossible for the Urban Designer to do all the many requirements of the job description and expressed concern with the Urban Designer’s ability to remain neutral and objective in reviewing architectural design.

 

Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer, clarified that she in no way represents nor defends any of the applicants’ positions.  She serves as a resource to the Commission and gives her professional opinion based on her 20 years of practice and education.   She also makes suggestions to help applicants with their projects before they are presented to the various Commissions so that there is less confusion regarding the City’s standards.

 

Ms. Bar-El agreed with Commissioner Fresco in that the Urban Designer position is quite a task and a lot of work.  She also stated that much of that work is in relation to new projects that are not in the purview of the Landmarks Commission.  In relation to Landmarks, she is another resource, in addition to PCR and the Commission Liaison.  Having this resource in-house helps the Planning Division serve the public better and saves a great deal of time and money.

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that she understood what the City Attorney meant by “connected” during the April meeting discussion.  It was not necessarily physically connected but the Commission’s primary responsibility was to ensure that the façade remained intact and its integrity respected.  The new building responded to that.  The input on the design characteristics of the new construction needed to relate to those characteristics of the historic element, which was a part of the project.  As long as the Commission did that, then they were within their scope of responsibility.

 

City Attorney Rosenbaum concurred, and again explained the point of his statement regarding the Commission’s purview.

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that he had also misunderstood what the City Attorney meant.  He left with a different understanding on the limits on their authority to review a Certificate of Appropriateness.  He is relieved to have this additional clarification.

 

Commissioner Berley felt that the Commission was only commenting on a façade and the side and rear had no features that were identified in the findings.  It was as if they were not important.  The building did not exist anymore it was just a street front.  He felt unable to resolve this problem because he felt he was only able to comment on the façade. 

 

Ms. Bar-El reiterated that the Commission’s purview is very broad within the context of impact on the historic property.

 

E.  Request to reconsider the Landmarks Commission’s April 21, 2004, approval of Certificate of Appropriateness LC-04CA-004, 507 Wilshire Boulevard, Approving the Design, Materials and Colors for Adaptive Reuse of the Designated Landmark Structure that Incorporates the Front Facade into a New Five-story Mixed-use Project. (Requested by Commissioner Fresco)

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission:  Craig Jones and Don Empakaris, architect.

 

Commissioner Fresco explained her concerns about the application’s approval process, stating that she felt that there was confusion regarding the extent of the Commission’s discretion in the matter due to the City Attorney’s interpretation of the findings and other points of discussion between the Commission and staff. 

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that if a Commissioner wants a decision reconsidered that’s really serious.  It would have been helpful for the rest of the Commission that was not privy to the Commissioner’s thoughts because of the Brown Act to have a letter that would at least explain to the rest of the Commission why this item is now coming back before them.  Perhaps this could be added to the Commission’s rules and proceedings.

 

Commissioner Maduzia stated that he was a bit disappointed that this was brought back.  He stated that he was really clear on the guidelines and what was presented and supports the approval.

 

Commissioner Levin felt that the discussion was very subjective in terms of taste, and that the applicant did want to work with the Commission.  She agreed with and supports the approval.

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated she felt that once a decision is made, it should be reconsidered only if substantial new information that constitutes some real reason to reconsider is presented.  Otherwise, it sends a negative message to the community. 

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that the project is an example of how the Commission could work with a developer.  This is a positive thing and he still stands by his decision.   His confusion lied with the purview of the Commission.  He does not support the motion to reconsider.

 

Commissioner Berley stated that his concern was with the moderately confusing process.  He felt that his comments to the architect were treated as something that was already considered and could not be revised.  He was pleased with the overall concept of the building; however, he would like to get a better understanding of the process. 

 

Commissioner Fresco, upon reflection after the last meeting, felt that the Commission's decision had became secondary to a decision that had already happened between the applicant and the Urban Designer behind closed doors.  The Commission had requested that the Urban Designer and the applicant come up with a more substantial way to connect the historic façade to the sides of the building.  Perhaps there were other solutions as this one was not satisfactory to several Commissioners.  The Commission was told that the Urban Designer had already considered every possible choice and that this was the best solution.  Commissioner Fresco also had a problem with the second main entry added to the east elevation in that the entry design didn’t relate enough to the historic façade and undermined the landmark.  When the City Attorney gave direction regarding the Commission’s ability to discuss the new construction aspect of the project, she had understood it to mean that the east side of the building perpendicular to the historic façade could not be changed by the Commission.  Therefore, she dropped those concerns from her comments.  This later turned out to be a misunderstanding of the City Attorney’s direction.  She wanted to know if other Commissioners shared the same feeling of being censored during the discussion, but in case the discussion was reopened, couldn’t approach other Commissioners without violating the Brown Act.  She felt that this issue was much too important to let go, and the only way to legally discuss her concerns with the other Commissioners was to agendize it.   She felt it was important that the Commission understand what is in their purview for Certificates of Appropriateness so it can discuss everything to its fullest. The Commission is responsible for making sure that landmarks in adaptive reuse retain their significance and prominence for subsequent generations.

 

City Attorney Rosenbaum apologized again to the Commission if his statements were confusing. 

 

Ms. Bar-El clarified that staff’s intent during the April discussion was to explain that in staff’s opinion, no change needed to be made to the wraparound of the front façade, so the Commission could know what staff would determine if the matter was delegated down.  Ultimately, the final decision always comes from the Commission. 

     

Chairperson Lehrer stated that this discussion has been helpful for the Commission to clarify how they make decisions on complicated projects like this.

 

There was no motion to reconsider this item.

 

F.   Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

 

G.    “The Boulangerie” Demolition and Rediscovery of the original brick structure under the stucco façade. (Item added by unanimous vote)

 

The Commission discussed this item and concluded that the Chair should draft a letter to the property owner requesting that demolition be delayed just a little in order to allow architectural photos to be taken of the underlying structure that has been partially exposed in last week’s demolition work.

 

11.                   WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

            Public Input Permitted

 

            None.

 

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

            upcoming agendas)

 

            Commissioner Kaplan requested to agendize a discussion on Main Street.

 

13.       NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, June 14, 2004.

                                                  

14.       ADJOURNMENT:  10:50 p.m.