MINUTES

 

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

 

 

 

Monday, June 14, 2004

MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00 PM

City Council Chambers, Room 213,

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

 

 

 

CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.

 

ROLL CALL                Present:    John Berley, Commissioner

Nina Fresco, Commissioner

Roger Genser, Chair Pro Tempore

Ruthann Lehrer, Chairperson

                                                         Barbara Kaplan, Commissioner

                                                         Debra Levin, Commissioner

 

                              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

 

                              Absent:              Colin Maduzia, Commissioner

 

1.      STUDY SESSION PRESENTATION BY HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (HRG) OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE IN THE OCEAN PARK AND SOUTH BEACH AREAS.

 

Christy McEvoy discussed both the scope of work that was done and the results of the survey.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Joel Brand and Kathleen Masser.    

 

The following corrections and revisions need to be made to the Ocean Park Report:

 

·        Commissioner Fresco commented that 719 Kensington Road was not in the report, and the actual address may be 711 Kensington Road rather than 719.  She also felt that the other pre-war structures not in the HRI have been overlooked and should be reviewed again.

·        Chair Pro Tem Genser mentioned a clerical error on the numbering system in reference to 2331 3rd Street.  He also commented on Santa Monica Shore and the pre-1968 tower.

·        Chair Lehrer mentioned that the bungalow court list on page 44 of the report doesn’t appear to be consistent with the one in the appendix

 

Ms. McAvoy asked the Commission to give a list of items to staff for corrections, and stated that they would review these comments.

 

Ms. Bar-El thanked HRG’s staff for the in-depth presentation.  She stated that when the final report is finalized, staff would then update the inventory list so that they can integrate this information with the existing information on the inventory.  Also, as a result of this work, each DPR has an updated photo and there are DPR sheets for a lot of non-eligible properties.  All of the surveyed properties that were determined not to be eligible for the inventory have DPR sheets with photographs, some information, year of construction and type.

           

2.      REPORT FROM STAFF:

 

Ms. Bar-El reported that the substantial remodel ordinance would be going to the City Council to consider on July 13th.  This is a proposed change in the definition of a substantial remodel.  She passed around information on a training summer program at USC on historic preservation.  Sign-ups are before the end of June for those interested.   She also introduced the Landmarks Intern, Pam Edwards. 

 

3.      COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

Commissioner Fresco mentioned that brochures on the Santa Monica Conservancy were available on the desk outside the Council Chamber.

 

Chair Pro Tem Genser brought in a lithographic image from the early years of Santa Monica.  Commissioner Kaplan mentioned that the photos of the Boulangerie came in and were with staff.

 

4.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

         Public Input Permitted

                                     

A.  May 10, 2004

 

The minutes were continued to next meeting due to Commissioner Fresco’s concerns regarding Item 10-E.  Commissioner Fresco and Chair Pro Tem Genser each had corrections regarding their comments on Item 10-D.

                         

 

   5.   APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

 

None.

 

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

        

Kristina Deutsch addressed the Commission regarding the marketing of the properties located at 154 and 156 Fraser Avenue in her neighborhood as development opportunities and asking the Commission to consider filing a landmark application for these HRI-listed properties.

 

7.      CONSENT CALENDAR:

         Public Input Permitted

 

         None. 

 

8.      OLD BUSINESS:

         Public Input Permitted

 

A.  Review of Demolition Permit Request at 121 Esparta Way (PC015851) and Consideration Whether to File an Application For Designation of a Structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit. (Continued from May 10, 2004)

 

                        R1- Single Family Residential           

                        Single Family Resident w/ Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher, attorney for property owners, and Mary Jo Winder, Historic Resources Consultant, hired by the property owners.

 

Chairperson Lehrer stated that this property seemed to be an exemplary representative of Ranch Style architecture in a context of a section of Santa Monica, that has a whole cluster of this type of house, all of which are well constructed.  She noted that two changes in this area include a new house adjacent to the subject property, which doesn’t have the same type of high quality architecture and the property across the street, which has been well done in terms of construction.  121 Esparta Way is a property type from the more recent past that the Commission has not looked at before.  It is very high quality in terms of vernacular Ranch Style architecture in California in the mid-century.   

 

Commissioner Levin stated that this may not be the best example, but it has a lot of good qualities and she likes it.

 

Commission Fresco stated that this house did connect to the others on the street. It has a certain look, which makes it appealing.  However, she felt that the building doesn't merit any type of designation based on Santa Monica’s history versus the suburban architectural history of California.  The appeal of the original look of that area is great, but she felt that the preserving of that area is not going to help further the telling of the Santa Monica story.

 

Commissioner Berley stated that the house is very handsome.  However, it does not rise to the occasion of being historic.  Architecturally, it does not have a level of quality that would distinguish it in that fashion.

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that this is a nice example of a ranch style house.  It borrows details and design style from some great architectural buildings that were built during the same period.

 

There was no action taken on this item.

 

9.      NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

         Public Input Permitted

 

A.  Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-003, 125 Pacific Street (Ocean Park Bungalow Courts), to determine whether the property should be designated as a City Landmark.                     

 

      Commissioner Kaplan recused herself from this item.

 

      Staff report presented by Ms. Bar-El.

 

      The following members of the public addressed the Commission: David Moss, Ralph Mechur, Mary Hubell, Mark Hooker, Randy Davidson, (PowerPoint presentation) Kimberley Hightower, Cynthia Fraser, Carlo Brooks, Robert Duffy, Rachel White (who also spoke for Suzette Marquis), Robert Minzner (who also spoke for Graham Ferrier, Michelle Katz (who also spoke for Richard Mikoliteh, and Kathleen Masser.

 

Mr. Moss, representing the property owner, had submitted a written request for continuance of this hearing, but stated that they were withdrawing this request and did not object to holding the hearing at this meeting.

 

      Chairperson Lehrer thanked the community for coming to show their support and for all of the intense research that was done.

 

      Commissioner Berley had a question regarding the alterations on the building and how it would affect a designation status.

 

      Chairperson Lehrer stated that the building has had alterations, which are reversible.  It could have a future if restored.  She is looking at the building as a historical property type as a courtyard bungalow with a landscaped court and that its context in the Ocean Park beach front west of Neilson Way is important.  She stated that the Commission could make findings based on criteria 1 and 6.

 

      Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that there is something unique about the building.  It is unusually large for its era, with 24 units, and very high density.  It was built for inexpensive housing at the time and remains that way today.  It not only contributes to the courtyard potential district, but it also stands alone.  He also agreed with Chair Lehrer that it meets criteria 1 and 6.

 

      David Moss questioned why PCR was not present at the hearing to explain their report.

 

      Attorney Rosenbaum explained that city consultants are under no obligation to appear at public hearings, and that staff usually answers questions from the public, and is qualified to explain points raised in the report.

 

      Commissioner Berley stated that the initial reaction to the building from the street might be misleading and that the courtyard is indeed special.  Therefore, the Commission should be careful not to judge a book by its cover because a historical feature may be overlooked. 

 

      Following further discussion, Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to designate 125 Pacific Street based on Criteria #1 and #6.  Chair Lehrer added Criterion #4, which was accepted as a friendly amendment.  The property meets Criterion #1 because it is a good example of a relatively dense bungalow courtyard, a historical property type that has been significant to Santa Monica’s architectural and residential history. Also, it manifests Ocean Park’s social and economic history in that it was home to a succession of people who played a role in the everyday life of the community and maintains integrity to convey this sense of continuity. It meets Criterion #4 in that the courtyard bungalow represents a historical property type and this particular property has 24 units in a U-shaped configuration and landscaped interior court differing from other courts in the Ocean Park area.  It is a remaining survivor of a building type of which many examples have been lost citywide.  It meets Criterion #6 in that the courtyard is a singular physical characteristic that has become a familiar visual feature to this beachfront neighborhood.  Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

      Ayes:       Berley, Fresco, Genser, Levin, Lehrer

      Nayes:     None

      Abstain:  Kaplan (recused)

      Absent:   Maduzia

     

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.      1032-34 3rd Street (PC015944)

         R3-Medium Density Multiple Family North of Wilshire

         4 Wooden Structures, Residential Apartments

                        Structure Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory - 5S3

 

2.      2220 4th Street (PC016002)

                        OP2-Low Multiple Residential

                        One-Story Duplex

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

                        The following members of the public addressed the Commission:

                        Mike Wolf, Margaret Mills and Mr. Glasser.

 

               3.      3124 5th Street (PC015996)

                        OP2-Low Multiple Residential

                        Single Family Dwelling

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

               4.      2502 Marguerita Ave (PC015975)

                        R2-Low Density Multiple Family

                        One-Story, Single Family Residence w/Detached 3-Car Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

5.         914 14th Street (PC015974)

R2-Low Density Multiple Residential

                        Two Two-Story Buildings

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

            6.         2246 25th Street (PC016032)

                        R1-Single Family Residential

                        Single Family Resident w/Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

                        No action taken on these items.

 

B.  Discussion of Council’s direction given at the May 18, 2004, meeting regarding Landmarks Commission review of proposed remodels involving properties listed on the Historic Resources Inventory in R2, R3 and R4 Zones. (Requested by Commissioner Fresco)

 

Report presented by Ms. Bar-El.  She and Ms. Reich also explained the planning process and that this text amendment involves on certain multi-family residential zones.

 

Commissioner Fresco stated that getting Landmarks Commission input into the ARB process is a good idea because of the incremental loss of properties in the downtown area.  With all the good intentions, the current system isn't working.  We need a better safeguard for the Inventory buildings and this would prioritize paying attention to the buildings when there are market pressures to redevelop them.           

 

Following further discussion, the Commission recommended that the Landmarks Commission appoint a Commissioner to attend ARB meetings and provide input on proposed modifications to Inventory structures that are on the ARB agenda.  Staff stated that this recommendation will be brought to Planning staff preparing the Council staff report.

 

C.  Discussion of Proposed Incentive Programs for Designated Historic Properties Developed by the Commission’s Ad-hoc Sub-committee or Setting a Special Meeting Time for Future Discussion of this Subject.

 

This item was continued to August or September, at a meeting that will commence earlier. 

 

D.  Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

 

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 ways to protect Main Street historic resources.

 

Chair Lehrer requested to agendize a discussion on the historic resources in the South Beach tract.

 

Commissioners requested to agendize a discussion on 154 and 156 Fraser Avenue as requested by Ms Deutsch during public input.

 

13.       NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, July 12, 2004.

                                                  

14.       ADJOURNMENT: 11:17 pm