MINUTES

 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

 

 

 

Monday, November 8, 2004

7:00 PM

City Council Chambers, Room 213,

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

 

 

 

CALL TO ORDER:              7:06 PM          

 

1.      ROLL CALL

                                       Present:    John Berley, Commissioner

Nina Fresco, Chair Pro Tem

Barbara Kaplan, 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

 

                                    Absent:        Roger Genser, Chairperson

                                                         Deborah Levin, Commissioner

 

2.      TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION PRESENTATION AND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISION PROJECT

 

         Presentation by Beth Rolandson and Michelle Glickert.

 

3.      REPORT FROM STAFF:

 

Ms. Tanemori reported that staff is in the process of finalizing the logistics for the December 13th training session for Landmarks Commissioners, ARB members and city planning staff.  Staff anticipates that Professor Ken Breich from USC will be leading the training session regarding SOI standards beginning at 6:00 pm here in the Council Chambers.  The Commission will be receiving additional information and confirmation in the next few weeks.  The property owners of 921 19th Street have filed an appeal to City Council seeking to overturn the landmark designation.  The Council will hear the appeal no later than February 22, 2005.  Also, there was an appeal on 125 Pacific Street, which will go before the City Council on January 11, 2005.

 

4.      COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

        

Chair Pro Tem Fresco announced that the Third Street Historic District tour will be held on January 30, 2005.  The Santa Monica Conservancy is giving this tour.  For more information, please visit the website at: www.smconservancy.org.

 

5.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

         Public Input Permitted

                                     

A.     October 11, 2004

 

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the minutes.  Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote, with the following corrections:  Page 4, 2nd paragraph, “the service station and the garden center are both accessory buildings” and should read, “The original service station, now replaced by the Garden Center is an accessory building”.  Page 9, Item 10B-11, include the motion on that item.  Page 10, paragraph 5, place a period after the word “differentiate”, replace the 2 following sentences with, “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”.  Page 10, last paragraph, replace 2nd sentence with, “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”.

                         

6.      APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

 

A.     Findings and Determination: Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-004, 302 Colorado Avenue (Sears-Roebuck Building) designating the property as a City Landmark.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission:  Chris Harding, Attorney, representing Sears.

 

Following a detailed discussion, Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to continue this item to the next meeting in order to consider reconsidering the Findings and Determination, and discuss the language related to the Commission’s designation action.  Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

Ayes:     Berley, Kaplan, Lehrer, Maduzia, Fresco

Nayes:   None

Abstain: None

Absent:  Genser, Levin

 

B.     Statement of Official Action: Certificate of Appropriateness LC-04CA-006, 2612 Third Street, Approving Demolition of an Existing Garage Structure and Replacement with a New Garage with Roof Deck.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco had one correction on page 2, end of paragraph 1, change the word “propose” to “proposed”.  Commissioner Maduzia made a motion to approve.   Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

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

 

8.      CONSENT CALENDAR:

         Public Input Permitted

 

         None. 

 

9.      OLD BUSINESS:

         Public Input Permitted

 

  1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application LM-04CA-008, 1911 La Mesa Drive, for Approval of Installation of Exterior Louvers Over the Front Windows. (Continued from October 11, 2004)

 

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

 

Councilmember Feinstein arrives.  8:02 PM

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the Boyds have done an extraordinary job with preserving and restoring this house.  She also felt that all of the letters of support testifies to their standing in the design community.  However, she had a lot of problems with what has been done.  She clarified that the National Park Service Standards and Guidelines, which the applicant said was not regulatory at the national level, are regulatory at the local level.  One of the very basic elements of houses of this type is the predominance of the structural framework as a unifying aesthetic.  In other words, all of the walls are not supporting walls or curtain walls.  They can either be stucco or glass.  The framework sets up a modular rhythm in a building that unifies and articulates it.    The whole building is one system, and the problem she had with the louvers is that it’s a counterpoint to that; it disrupts that system.  When you look at the main design element in the middle of the building, you can’t really decipher it.  It’s like a screen.  With the screen being open, there is a sense of transparency there.  But if approved, the screen could be closed, and instead of having glass, there would be a metal wall.  Also, the new landscaping is adding privacy without having the louvers.  She still feels that they altered a main design element of the building.  If Neimeyer designed the louvers for this building, they would have been integrated into the whole system.  In this case, they came from another building. The Secretary of Interior Standards states that you don’t take elements from one building and put them into another building.  When this happens you lose the integrity of that building.  She did not support approving the Certificate of Appropriateness.

 

Commissioner Berley stated that he’s been struggling with this issue because he has seen so many terrible restorations in the past.  He stated that the louvers provide him with what he considers to be a satisfying solution to a privacy issue.  The issue is when asked to look for an architectural solution to this southern exposure; normally you would research the architect and look for examples in the architect’s work that would help to arrive at a solution that’s in keeping with his architectural ideas or intent.  In that respect, he sees this as being a successful effort on the property owners’ part.  This does provide a solution in keeping with the architecture but presents a problem with the rhythm of the structural clarity.  He would be inclined to allow the louvers but doesn’t appreciate the means through which this discussion was initiated.  He felt that the Certificate of Appropriateness should have been brought before the Commission before the installation of the louvers instead of after the fact.  However, he felt that the property owners have been considerate of the architect, and should not be penalized. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that clearly the Commission’s role is to look at and enforce the Secretary of Interior Standards.  It is also at their discretion to allow a modification if they think it is a reasonable solution.  She stated that the louvers create more complexity on the façade of the Neimeyer house which was in a more simplistic expression of solid and void.  When they are closed, it does change the character of the home.  It is a reversible solution unlike the garage, which was an extreme change to the mass of the building.  When she looks at the home, it doesn’t have as a negative impact as she imagined it would.  However, she is very concerned about the way it was done.  She suggested documentation of the home as it was before the installation. 

 

Commissioner Maduzia thanked the owner for taking such wonderful care of an important property in this City.  There are many different ways to look at addition, and also reiterated that there is a process to follow when dealing with Landmark properties.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that the louvers are both appropriate and inappropriate.  She is willing to accommodate the owners and would be inclined to allow them to remain with conditions.  She suggested a plaque, stating when the louvers were made, what building they used to be on and when they were applied to this building, in addition to putting the photographic record into the file. 

 

 

Chair Fresco made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness based on, the finding that louvers don’t change, destroy or adversely affect any exterior features because they have been applied in a sensitive, noninvasive manner.  The louvers are somewhat indistinguishable in materials and style from the original structure, which can be mitigated by the addition of a plaque stating the origins of the louvers when they were applied to this building and records of before and after photos be filed with the City, and it’s reversible.  Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion.

 

Under a revised motion, Chair Pro Tem Fresco requested that in addition, staff review the wording, look of and placement of the plaque before installation.  Commissioner Maduzia seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: 

 

   Ayes:              Berley, Kaplan, Maduzia, Fresco

   Nayes:            Lehrer

   Abstain:          None

   Absent:           Genser, Levin 

 

10.    NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

         Public Input Permitted

 

  1. Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-007, 225 Santa Monica Boulevard (Bay Cities Guaranty Building) to determine whether the property should be designated as a City Landmark. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to continue this item to next month.  Commissioner Maduzia seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

   Ayes:              Berley, Kaplan, Lehrer, Maduzia, Fresco

   Nayes:            None

   bstain:             None

   Absent:           Genser, Levin 

 

  1. Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-008, 404 Georgina Avenue to determine whether the property should be designated as a City Landmark.

 

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission:  Joy Jones, property owner.

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that it is a joy to have a designation application come this way, and thanked the property owner for bringing it to the Commission.  She agrees with the staff report and supports the designation.

 

Commissioner Berley thanked staff for the informative report, and the applicant for setting a good example for preservation.

 

Commissioner Kaplan also thanked the applicant.  She stated that the house is great and has wonderful potential.

 

Commissioner Maduzia thanked staff and property owner, and is excited for the future of the property.

 

Chair Fresco stated that the house always stood out and is happy that it is in protective hands.  She had a concern with the differences of opinion on findings between the consultant report and the staff report.  She felt very strongly in favor of criteria #6 and felt the Commission should discuss criteria #3.

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that under criteria #6, the location is very prominent.   The front of the house looks like an 18th Century building.   

 

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve based on the staff report’s criteria 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6, including the parcel designation.  Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

   Ayes:              Berley, Kaplan, Lehrer, Maduzia, Fresco

   Nayes:            None

   Abstain:          None

Absent:           Genser, Levin 

 

11.    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 25th Street (PC016425)

R1-Single Family Residential District

Single Family Residence w/2-Car Garage

Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory  

 

               2.      1228 21st Street (PC016674)

      R2-Low Density Multiple Residential District

      Single Family Residence, Three Apartments & Detached Garage

      Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

 

               3.      1645 21st Street (PC016714)

      LMSD-Light Manufacturing & Studio District

      Single Story, Wood and Steel Structure

      Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

 

               4.      1231 16th Street (PC016747)

      CP3-Commercial Professional District

      Single Family Residence and Shed

      Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

               5.      2601 25th Street (PC016751)

      R1-Single Family Residential District

      Single Family Resident w/2-Car Garage

      Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

 

B.     Discussion of the Draft Architectural Review Board Resolution 95-001 (ARB Series) specifically in relation to staff review and approval of proposed modifications to structures listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory and structures in the Ocean Park Neighborhood.

 

Ms. Reich presented a Power Point presentation. 

 

Following a discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Berley made a motion to forward to City Council, the following recommendations to the draft attachment A as specified:  Item 2, the size of the building addition of 1500 square feet is too large.  Items 5 and 6, add line dealing with the same visual appearance for historic resources.   Item 7, no damage to surface materials of historic resources.  Item 8, remove the words “expressive good taste” and replace with “consistent or compatible with existing architecture”.  Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

   Ayes:              Berley, Kaplan, Lehrer, Maduzia, Fresco

   Nayes:            None

   Abstain:          None

Absent:           Genser, Levin 

 

C.    Discussion of ways to incorporate and implement the General Plan Historic Preservation Element into the Land Use Element Update that is now in progress.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that she has been working diligently on providing a list of Historic Preservation Element topics that she and other members of the Santa Monica Conservancy have been working on.  This list states some very specific detailed changes that they would like to see incorporated in the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance.  She suggested that the Commission first consider a subcommittee that would go over the material and give a summary to the Commission.  She also stated that she’d like to see historic preservation policies incorporated into the ordinance in the same manner that affordable housing is incorporated.

 

Ms. Reich suggested that the Commission schedule a detailed discussion in December before creating the subcommittee. 

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco also discussed incorporating landmarks information into the community booklet, created by Dyett and Bhatia.  Since the booklets create a neighborhood character view, the community needs to see how these landmarks fit into the character of their neighborhoods and understand why it’s so important to preserve their historical context.

 

Councilmember Feinstein suggested that in addition to simply listing properties, perhaps it would be helpful to create context statements that describe the nature of the challenge to historic resources in these neighborhoods and some of the changes that have gone on there.  This will help to provide some of the context when specific issues about how the City will develop and what are the tradeoffs.  When these issues are debated, people in the community will have some context of what the trends have been in the past.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco also felt that the Commission should compose and submit their own letter so that the points they feel are the most significant are stressed.

 

Councilmember Feinstein stated that the Commission needs to further refine what’s on the preliminary list and really identify what are the most controversial tradeoff issues.  It may take a subcommittee of 3 a few hours to go through the list and bring it back to the Commission.  The earlier this is done, it can be given to staff and/or brought up in community meetings.  

 

Several of the key issues that the Commission would like to see incorporated in the Land Use Element are things that have to deal with the historical context that remains for the remaining historic resources.  

 

D.    Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

 

12.       WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

            Public Input Permitted

 

            None.

 

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

 

Chair Fresco requested to agendize items related to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element update and the formation of a subcommittee to review the Historic Preservation Element further and refine the information to transmit to City Planning staff in the future.

           

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

                                                  

15.       ADJOURNMENT:  10:18 PM