MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

Monday, October 11, 2004 7:00 PM

City Council Chambers, Room 213, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

CALL TO ORDER: 7:04

1. ROLL CALL

Present: John Berley, Commissioner

Nina Fresco, Chair Pro Tem

Roger Genser, Chairperson

Barbara Kaplan, Commissioner

Deborah Levin, Commissioner

Ruthann Lehrer, Commissioner

Colin Maduzia, Commissioner

Also Present: Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary

Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer

Elizabeth Bar-El, Associate Planner

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Michael Feinstein, Council Liaison – arrived @9:28pm

Arlene Johnson, Staff Assistant

2. REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Tanemori reported that staff has arranged for the first in a series of historic preservation training sessions beginning in November for Commission and Board members, and city staff. The first topic will be implementation of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for treatment of historic properties in ways to make meaningful findings. Staff will make every effort to schedule the training in accordance with the Commissions availability. The following schedule is currently proposed: Monday evening in the month of November or immediately before the November 8^th meeting. Staff will confirm with the Los Angeles Conservancy once the Commission decides on a date. At the October 4^th Architectural Review Board meeting, the board discussed draft revisions to resolution No. 95-001. A portion of these draft revisions specifically relate to staff review and approval of proposed modifications to structures on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory and to structures in the Ocean Park neighborhood. A discussion item regarding the draft resolution will be agendized for the November 8^th meeting for the Commission’s review. Commissioner Kaplan will provide comments when the draft resolution is brought back to ARB for discussion. In regard to the Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Element update, the City Council along with the Planning Commission will meet on Tuesday, October 26^th to discuss the proposed public participation process and schedule for the Land Use update. In the future the Commission will receive more information regarding opportunities for their participation and feedback during the process.

3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that the Santa Monica Conservancy is planning a tour of the Third Street Historic District in January. For more information, the public can join the Conservancy and be put on the mailing list. Also, there are brochures on the table outside.

Chairperson Genser stated that he would not be attending the November 8^th meeting.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Public Input Permitted

A. September 13, 2004

Commissioner Lerher made a motion to approve the minutes. Chair Pro Tem Fresco seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote, with Commissioners Levin and Maduzia abstaining. Commissioner Kaplan made the following corrections: On page 4, 1^st paragraph, change “would” to “will”, and “as a whole” to “from the street”. Also, change “a historic building”, to “a historic building that is part of a historic district”.

5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

A. Findings and Determination: Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-006, 921 19th Street (Craftsman Bungalow), designating the property as a City Landmark.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to approve. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote, with Commissioners Levin and Maduzia abstaining.

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

7. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Public Input Permitted

None.

8. OLD BUSINESS:

Public Input Permitted

1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application LC-04CA-006, 2612 Third Street, for Approval of Demolition of an Existing Garage Structure and Replacement with a New Garage with Roof Deck. (Continued from September 13, 2004)

Chairperson Genser recused himself from this item.

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Bea Nemlaha, applicant and Ralph Mechur, architect.

Commissioner Kaplan felt that the revision wasn’t exactly the solution that she was looking for, however, it is less imposing on the street than the original proposal. She stated that it is acceptable and a beautiful solution architecturally. It is subtle enough that it won’t distract from the property’s character when viewed from the street. She supports the staff report.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco agreed with Commissioner Kaplan. She stated that it is a nice solution and that it’s beautiful and will blend. However, she felt the matching of the house siding wasn’t as fully consistent as she would like. However, it is discreet enough. It isn’t her first choice but a good second.

Commissioner Berley stated that he was pleased with the revision and hopes that the applicant is also happy with the solution. This will accomplish what the criteria asks for in terms of how the Commission deals with historic structures in historic districts as well as satisfying some of their own personal criteria.

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the revised plans as presented. Commissioner Maduzia seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

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

Nayes: None

Abstain: Genser

Absent: None

2. Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-004, 302 Colorado Avenue (Sears-Roebuck Building), to determine whether the property should be designated as a City Landmark. (Continued from July 12, 2004)

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ivor Samson, David Hibbert, Maryjo Winder and Louis Colleto.

Chairperson Genser stated that in reviewing the consultant’s report, he noted that the property qualifies under two of the six criteria; criteria #4 and #5.

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the alteration of the service station into a Garden Center is approximately 40 years old. The original service station, now replaced by the Garden Center is an accessory building, clearly subordinate to, but in design, related to the Sears main building. Even though there have been a lot of changes, those changes have supported the function of Sears as a retail center and relate to it. She would like to give Sears the flexibility it needs to be economically successful.

Ms. Reich, Urban designer stated that, after speaking to the consultant, there is a possibility for the Landmarks Commission to recognize the accessory building but not include it in the designations.

Commissioner Levin asked if the building could be placed on the inventory list in the case of alterations.

Ms. Bar-El stated that the Commission could add language to the designation to note that it is in the same style. If and when Sears would come back with proposals for alterations to the property through a Certificate of Appropriateness, even if the accessory building is called out as a more minor contributor to the property as a whole, the Commission could consider in the Certificate of Appropriateness what action to take as far as their proposal.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that Sears occupying that property is an important part of the Commission’s findings and the continued significance of the building.

Commissioner Maduzia thanked staff and Sears for the research conducted. He also stated that he is having a hard time finding a reason to include the accessory structure in the designation.

Commissioner Berley wondered if Sears’ options would be limited if the buildings were landmarked.

Chairperson Genser stated that the iconic nature of the main Sears building dwarfs the iconic status of the Garden Center. He stated that the building has been severely compromised, but as other Commissioners have previously mentioned, there should be a way to word the designation of the main building and somehow describe the historic importance of the accessory building with an obvious diminished emphasis on it.

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the accessory building exhibits less significance than the main Sears building. If that is clearly indicated in the wording of the designation itself that it is an accessory building that has undergone a change of use and physical alterations, that it still has a design relationship to the sears building but is considered to be of lesser significance, that would provide direction for consideration of future changes. In the context of the ordinance, there would be a range of options that would still be open for Sears economically, such as Certificate of Hardship. Sears is a vital part of the community and the Commission hopes it will stay healthy. She supports moving ahead with the designation clearly indicating that the former service station, now Garden Center is an accessory building of lesser significance but still contributes to the significance of the whole property.

Commissioner Maduzia stated that the service center meets some of the criteria, at least two. He also stated the Commission is trying to preserve the fabric of the community. It is a building that people marvel at on a regular basis. However he had a hard time understanding how the Garden Center fits in relation to the main building. He would support designating the main store only.

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the Garden Center is part of the history of Sears in the community versus merely just a service station, and now a Garden Center. The predominant feature is the curving canopy roof. If, in the future, there were a new building design, she’d like to retain that feature. Clearly there is some significance to the building, and acknowledging that but making it clear that it wouldn’t necessarily be a constraint to future changes.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco felt that it is really important that Sears remain on that site. She agreed with Commissioner Lehrer’s description of the Garden Center in the findings and that it would allow flexibility and still not have its demolition be a foregone conclusion.

Commissioner Berley stated that the Commission wants to preserve the opportunity for consideration of the accessory building for the future, and that consideration from Sears, at least be addressed as a part of their future designs for the property. He also stated that the Commission does not view this necessarily as a limitation or a restriction on what Sears can do. It’s a means of trying to incorporate this idea of their role in the community in a way that retains its meaningfulness and its aspect of the beauty that that site possesses.

Commissioner Maduzia asked if the entire parcel of land would be included in the designation, because his concern would be the building of some high-rise that would obscure two facades of the property.

Ms. Bar-El stated that whenever you designate a landmark property, any changes on the property would come before the Landmarks Commission and would need a Certificate of Appropriateness.

Mr. Rosenbaum reminded the Commission that the only matter before them is the landmark application, and it does point to the need to be clear in the designations to how you’re viewing the property because that may influence how the Commission acts in the future.

Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was not convinced that there were enough findings to include the accessory building, even as a less significant contribution. Given the plans that were presented and understanding that this has been significantly altered, does the property still have enough integrity and connection to the other property to include it?

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the accessory building was a support service for the main store, but it was still a functioning support service, which worked as a whole in terms of being a place to shop and an attraction for families and having the parking there, etc. In terms of its design, clearly there’s a design relationship between the accessory building and the main building with the Moderne style and particularly the shape and form of the roof. The designation should note that the accessory building has had physical alterations and a change of use, and that it doesn’t have the same level of significance. She stated that it has architectural and historical significance under Criteria 1, 4, 5 and 6. She also referenced that this building was owned by the Janss Development Company, who shaped the landscape of Southern California. It was the premier development company that built towns, cities and shopping centers all over. They were the firm that was responsible for revitalizing the 3^rd Street Promenade in 1989. They also developed Westwood, and gave the land to the UCLA campus. They started out in the early 1900s and are still in business.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that in finding #3, the Sears building stands out from other Sears outlets due to its pedestrian orientation and downtown location. She would like to make sure that Sears is allowed to continue to have that pedestrian orientation, and that bridges and tunnels aren’t built over, across and in front of it.

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to designate the Sears building as a landmark including the original service station, now Garden Center, as an accessory building of lesser architectural significance. Also, add to the staff’s findings that the Brentwood Country Mart was a part of Rowland Crawford’s work. Chair Pro Tem Fresco seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

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

Nayes: None

Abstain: None

Absent: None

9. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Public Input Permitted

1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application LC-04CA-008, 1911 La Mesa Drive, for Approval of Installation of Exterior Louvers Over the Front Windows of the Single-Family Residence.

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

Commissioner Berley made a motion to move this item to after item 10A to allow the applicant time to arrive. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Public Input Permitted

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

1. 927 25^th Street (PC016425)

R1-Single Family Residential

Single Family Residence w/2-Car Garage

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

This item will be continued to the November 8^th meeting due to an error in the noticing.

2. 2316 3^rd Street (PC016530)

OP2-Ocean Park Low-Multi-Residential

Single Family Residence and Accessory Building

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

3. 2308 California (PC016581)

R1-Single Family Residential

Single Family Dwelling w/One-Car Detached Garage

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

4. 1242 Chelsea Ave (PC016580)

R2-Low Density Multi-Residential

Single Family Residential w/1-Car Detached Garage

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

5. 854 23^rd Street (PC016636)

R1-Single Family Residential

Single Family Residence w/ 2-Car Detached Garage

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

6. 1035 Franklin Street (PC016645)

R1-Single Family Residential

Single Family Residence w/Attached Garage

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

There was no action taken on Item 10A(2-6).

1. Recommendation to City Council regarding the following Mills Act Contract Applications:

1. 04MA-001 at 140 Hollister Avenue #1, (Horatio West Court, a Designated Landmark)

2. 04MA-002 at 140 Hollister Avenue #2, (Horatio West Court, a Designated Landmark)

3. 04MA-003 at 140 Hollister Avenue #3, (Horatio West Court, a Designated Landmark)

4. 04MA-004 at 140 Hollister Avenue #4, (Horatio West Court, a Designated Landmark)

5. 04MA-005 at 2034 La Mesa Drive (Third John Byers House, a Designated Landmark)

6. 04MA-006 at 147 Georgina Avenue (R.D. Farquhar Residence, a Designated Landmark)

7. 04MA-007 at 2511 Beverly Avenue (E.C. Japs/Crossland Residence, a Designated Landmark)

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve Mills Acts 1-7 and 11. Chair Pro Tem Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

8. 04MA-008 at 2402 4^th Street #4 (Hollister Court, a Designated Landmark)

Commissioner Levin recused herself from this item.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to approve. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote.

9. 04MA-009 at 2621 2^nd Street (First Methodist Church, a Designated Landmark and a contributing structure to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District)

Chairperson Genser recused himself from this item.

Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to approve. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote.

10. 04MA-010 at 822 3^rd Street (Vanity Fair Apartments, a Designated Landmark)

Commissioner Kaplan recused herself from this item.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to approve and revise the work order to include the restoration of missing striations of the exterior plaster where necessary. Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote.

11. 04MA-011 at 406 Adelaide Drive (Gillis House, a Designated Landmark)

Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue Item 9A to the November 8^th meeting. Chair Pro Tem Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

B. Discussion of a Development Agreement proposal for a 77-room hotel, with a restaurant and subterranean parking at 1327, 1333, 1337 Ocean Avenue.

Ms. Reich presented the staff report.

The Commission had many questions in regard to the process through which a Development Agreement would be drafted, reviewed and approved. City staff provided information regarding some of the procedural requirements for a Development Agreement.

Michael Feinstein arrives at 9:28:55 PM.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: David Daniels, Sami El Bayars and Teresa Grimes.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that the proposed project is a fabulous idea in concept. She liked the placement of the historic structures and the building in the background. She disagrees with the staff report in that this is not just a façade with a new building behind it. It should be treated as a whole structure. The Rapp Saloon on 2^nd Street is an example of how they incorporated the whole building into the new development that’s behind it. In this case the building behind is too similar to 1337 Ocean Ave. Maybe it should be brick instead of stucco. It should be differentiated so that we can see the whole original landmark as a complete unit.

Commissioner Berley stated that he would like to see more references to the moving/storage company and the procedures they will employ to ensure that proper care will be given to the movement and storage of historic structures onsite.

Commissioner Maduzia concurred with Chair Pro Tem Fresco. He stated he would also like to see from the Secretary of Interior Standards guidelines a little more differentiation from the 1337 Ocean building and the building behind. He didn’t have a problem with the stucco, but suggested perhaps a different color and maybe change the identical pitch roof. Perhaps a built up roof similar to the rear of the property might more effectively distinguish the newer building from the 1337 Ocean landmarked building in the front.

Commissioner Lehrer commended the applicants for the direction that they’re going in, and she agrees with their basic concept. To develop a hotel project with these constraints on three parcels is very challenging. Her concerns are with what happens on the Victorian, as it’s adaptively reused into a restaurant. There will be a major addition and changes to the building. It’s a complicated project, and she would like the Landmarks Commission to be more involved with the process. She was reluctant to bypass the Certificate of Appropriateness where the Commission has a chance to comment on all of the treatments and what happens with these two buildings.

Commissioner Levin stated that she was very impressed when she viewed this project. She likes the public space.

Chairperson Genser stated that he was excited about this project. He felt that more of the northern façade should be retained because it faces the public and creates a sense of public space. There is a loss of architectural detail, particularly in the rear of the structure and it seems like the character of the building is really compromised, at least there. The rest of the project is great. We have to realize that this is a Development Agreement on a landmarked building, and they need to be looked at a little more closely.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that projections on the second floor are very unique, and with a Development Agreement, and maybe exterior sprinklers perhaps they both can be saved. She would like to see this taken under consideration. She also mentioned, through a suggestion by Michael Feinstein, that in the course of this Development Agreement that City Council could direct some of the negotiated fees to a historic preservation fund that would give the Commission money to help implement the Historic Preservation Element.

Commissioner Kaplan stated that this is a positive step for the City’s Landmarks Program and for thoughtful development. The applicant has done a great job incorporating the two buildings into a well thought out project. She likes the concept of subtle differentiation. Perhaps the detailing of the new windows might be different than the original windows. She would like to see a solution that makes it clear that one part is original and one isn’t, such as a wall finish material that can differentiate the old from the new with subtle variations in texture or color. If we could gain more of the north façade as a result of lifting the building without harm, then that would be the ideal situation in order to maintain as much of the existing building as possible. It would be good if landmarks could be involved, whether through a traditional Certificate of Appropriateness or a continuing discussion. She also supports the idea of a gift for historic preservation.

Commissioner Berley stated that he can see the problem that the parking creates. He suggested that the applicant revisit the parking situation noting that they were providing 146 parking spaces when they only needed 131. This way it wouldn’t be such a severe impact on reworking the design. He also stated that they are setting a wonderful precedent by engaging the Commission at an early stage. A concern he has is regarding landmark properties and the potential for Development Agreements negotiated and approved by the City Council without the Landmark Commission’s input, sets a dangerous precedent. It leads perhaps to the idea that other developers could bypass Landmarks Commission review and not acknowledge that Landmark structures are important to the historic fabric of this City. It’s important that the Landmarks Commission’s voice not be taken from this process.

Chairperson Genser stated that in regard to the northern façade, he felt that the whole feeling of the building is lost with the current design he would like to see more of the northern façade retained.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to recommend to City Council the following: set the correct precedent, which would include careful landmark review throughout the process of the planning and design of the building; landmark comments on the Certificates of Appropriateness issued for this project; mitigation fees gathered from the developer to be directed toward a preservation fund; keep as much of the original façades as possible; more reference checks on the moving company; that the adaptive reuse of the Victorian be sensitive; re-examine the transition between the buildings so that the Victorian looks more natural in the environment and Landmark comments go directly to the City Council and not be filtered through the Planning Commission. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

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

Nayes: None

Abstain: None

Absent: None

C. Discussion of the Ocean Park Survey Update and Next Geographical Area to be Re-surveyed as Part of the City’s Project to Update the Historic Resources Inventory.

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00. Chairperson Genser seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

Chair Pro Tem Fresco suggested that by not resurveying the Pier, expenditures might be reduced, thereby allowing them to look at the park more carefully. She also mention that the Commission discussed in the past, surveying courtyard architecture.

After a brief discussion, Chairperson Genser made a motion to look at area # 2 with the conditions that Chair Pro Tem Fresco suggested. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

Chairperson Genser suggested that a meeting be conducted in November, between the Landmarks Chair, Vice Chair, staff liaison and the consultant, to further discuss the Ocean Park Update.

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)

Chair Pro Tem Fresco requested to agendize a discussion of ways to implement the Historic Preservation Element in the Land Use Element.

13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, November 8, 2004.

14. ADJOURNMENT: 11:17 pm