MINUTES

 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

 

 

 

Monday, July 12, 2004

7:00 PM

City Council Chambers, Room 213,

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

 

 

CALL TO ORDER:                          7:05 p.m.

 

 

1.         ROLL CALL    Present:    John Berley, Commissioner

Nina Fresco, Commissioner

Roger Genser, Chair Pro Tempore

Ruthann Lehrer, Chairperson

                                                         Barbara Kaplan, Commissioner

                                                         Debra Levin, Commissioner

                                                         Colin Maduzia

 

                              Also Present:    Elizabeth Bar-El, Commission Secretary

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Michael Feinstein, Council Liaison

Arlene Johnson, Staff Assistant

 

2.      INDUCTION OF RE-APPOINTED COMMISSIONER:    BARBARA KAPLAN, COMMISSION ARCHITECT

 

3.      SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND CHAIR PRO TEMPORE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005

 

Commissioner Fresco made a motion to nominate Chair Pro Tempore Genser as Chairperson.  Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Commissioner Maduzia made a motion to nominate Commissioner Fresco as Chair Pro Tempore.  Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

4.      REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Bar-El reported to the Commission that there would be two items on the City Council agenda of interest tomorrow night.  One is a discussion of multi-family standards, and staff has forwarded the Commission’s recommendation to appoint a commissioner that will sit with the Architectural Review Board to advise on any item that involves a historic building in a multi-family zone.  She also met with a former peer from the City of West Hollywood and discussed training with both cities’ Commissions together.  They came up with the following proposed topics: “Making meaningful findings for designations” and “Understanding the Secretary of Interior Standards”.  The State Office of Historic Preservation has offered funding generally to the Certified Local Government if they work together on proposed training opportunities for Commissions.  A possible location is the Schindler House in West Hollywood on a Thursday afternoon, the 3rd week of the month of September or October.

 

5.      COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

6.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

         Public Input Permitted

                                     

A.  May 10, 2004 (continued from June 14, 2004)

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco’s written comments from the May meeting will be added into the minutes.

 

B.     June 14, 2004

 

Correction: Chairperson Genser brought in “a lithographic image” of Santa Monica’s early years, not “copies of photos.”

 

Chairperson Genser’s motion on page 5, last paragraph should replace “large” bungalow courtyard with “dense” bungalow courtyard. 

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to approve the minutes.  Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote. Commissioner Kaplan abstained from the May minutes. Commissioner Maduzia abstained from the June minutes.

 

7.      APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

 

A.     Findings and Determination: Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-003, 125 Pacific Street (Christie Court), designating the property as a City Landmark.

 

Chairperson Genser had one correction: On page 1, replace the word “largest” to “densest”.  

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action.  Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

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

Nayes:            None

Abstain:          Maduzia

Absent:           None

 

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

 

Rick Laudati, member of the public, addressed the Commission regarding window replacement in the 3rd Street Historic District.

 

9.      CONSENT CALENDAR:

         Public Input Permitted

 

         None. 

10.    OLD BUSINESS:

         Public Input Permitted

 

None.

 

11.    NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

         Public Input Permitted

 

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

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Don Stewart, Sears Representative, Ivor Samson, Sears Representative and Penny Primo.

 

Commissioner Berley stated that he would be in favor of granting a continuance to show good faith to the property owner.  However, he didn’t feel that the 90 days would make a difference in what Sears can and can’t do with the building.  Any future alterations to the landmarked building will still come before the Commission.  He encouraged the Commission to work favorably with the owners as a gesture of good will.  One of the most important things that the Commission can do is to try to bring the owners of historic properties along in the process, and this is an opportunity to do that in a very public way with a structure that the city and community all respect and admire. 

 

Commissioner Lehrer did not object to the continuance, but reminded the Commission that the historic merit of the building is what is important.  She also stated that Sears should not bring back a development proposal because that is not relevant to the designation process.

 

Commissioner Maduzia stated that the continuance seems to be a reasonable request and he supports it. 

 

Chair Genser stated that he hopes the next 90 days will yield some discussions and dialog with staff regarding what the landmark status might mean, and any opportunities that might go with that.

 

Commissioner Levin concurred and also did not have an objection to the continuance.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to continue this item to October 11th.  Commissioner Maduzia seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

B.  Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-005, 1337 Ocean Avenue (Spanish Colonial Revival-Style Commercial (Residential) Property), to determine whether the property should be designated as a City Landmark.

 

Staff report presented by Ms. Bar-El.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: David Daniels, Attorney, Teresa Grimes, Cara Horowitz, (who also spoke for Natasha Badagliano and Gabriella Saveri), Jessica Grannis, Penny Primo, Morgan Wynn and Bea Nemlaha.

 

Commissioner Lehrer commented that she believes the property also meets the fourth criterion as it can be interpreted to refer to three different qualities, each of which is separate and distinguishable.  The first phrase is a very broad one referring to architectural periods and styles of the past.  She did not feel that this criterion requires a structure to be a rare example, but more of a typical example.  She was concerned that this particular criterion may be misconstrued if this aspect is ignored and in this case the property meets its intent. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that this is a good example of the urban prototype for building; a historic example of a courtyard building.  She was hesitant in this particular situation, to look primarily at the façade as the owner suggests, as the architecture does extend more into the depth of the property.

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the streetscape façade on Ocean Avenue is meant to be the primary architectural expression of the building. The location of particular windows and doors in the side elevations of the building is less important, and it could be indicated that changes on the side elevations would be far less significant than any changes to the façade that faces Ocean Avenue. The building still has a very residential character, although it’s in commercial use, and it reflects the growth of the Commercial district of the downtown in the change from the residential to the commercial. She also stated that Ocean Avenue is the significant grand boulevard of the city. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan commented on criterion #6, which seems to be supported by the staff report, although staff did not recommend this finding.  She stated that the building is in a unique location and is an established, visible feature of the neighborhood.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that many specific things all come together to make this portion of Ocean Avenue very unique.  It is the juxtaposition of the other historic buildings, along with the ocean and the proximity of the park.  She agrees that it is a unique location and also concurred with Commissioner Lehrer on criterion #4 that we confuse the word “distinguishing” versus “distinguished.”  It does not need to be superlative; it just needs to be characteristic, and she feels this building is.  She feels that the Commission is going down a dangerous road if we start writing off or downplaying the importance of one part of the building over the other.

 

Commissioner Levin concurred with Commissioner Lehrer on the characteristics of the building and felt that the location was definitely important.  

 

Commissioner Maduzia agreed that the building meets at least 3 criteria and that Ocean Avenue is probably the most prominent location in Santa Monica. 

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the building has typical features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style but it also has unique features with these two side bays that have 2nd story decks.  Also, the French windows that open out responds to the view out toward Ocean Avenue.  Those are unique features for a building of this architectural style. 

 

Commission Kaplan stated that the scale of the building to the street was pedestrian friendly and charming.  The balconies break the mass of the façade on the street, which gives it a pedestrian feel, and connection to activity on the street below. 

 

Chair Genser stated that the real presence of this structure is the street façade, and the juxtaposition with other historic buildings on the block.

 

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the designation based on criterion #1, per the staff report, and criteria #4 and #6 per their discussion.  Commission Maduzia seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

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

Nayes:            None

Abstain:          None

Absent:           None

 

12.    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.      2307 Ashland Ave (PC016112)

                        Single Family Dwelling

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

 

               2.      2512 28th Street (PC016106)

                        10-Unit Apartment Complex and Carport

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

Previous Demolition Permit (PC013229)- 6/13/02; Expired on 6/9/04      

 

               3.      240 15th Street (PC016096)

                        Single Family House w/Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

              

               4.      239 14th Street (PC016116)

                        Single Family Resident w/Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

5.      917 19th Street (PC016150)

2, One-Story and 1, Two-Story Duplexes

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission:  Rodney Allmon and Bruce Laffey.

 

No action taken on the above items.

 

6.      921 19th Street (PC016151)

One-Story Unit and One Garage

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

The following members of the public addressed the Commission:  Rodney Allmon, (Roya Kianmahd spoke for Rodney Allmon) Bruce Laffey, Elizabeth Terry, James Terry and Sue Schuerman.

 

                        After some discussion, Commissioner Maduzia made a motion to file a designation application for this property, which includes a craftsman-style bungalow in excellent condition.  Chair Pro Tem Fresco seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

                 

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

                  Nayes:      None

                  Abstain:    None

                  Absent:     None

 

7.      402 10th Street (PC016172)

Single Family Resident w/Detached Garage

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

Previous Demolition Permit (PC013912)- 12/23/02; Complete 3/19/03; Expired on 6/21/03

 

                        No action was taken on this item.

 

B.  Discussion of the Ocean Park Update of the Historic Resources Inventory in Regard to the South Beach Area and its Implications for Protection and Preservation of the South Beach Neighborhood.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco suggested offering criteria regarding altered contributors to the consultants who are working on the Inventory.  When these properties are not listed on the inventory, they are vulnerable.  She felt that they still provide consistent massing, material and style to contribute greatly to a district. 

 

Councilmember Feinstein mentioned that, apropos to going into the Zoning Ordinance update, in this neighborhood, the current requirement for off-street parking combined with these narrow lots mean that new construction ends up having front garages that are entirely out of character with the historic and older properties.  One of the issues is that properties that get redeveloped will by the current nature of the zoning, be forced to become architecturally incompatible with what is there now.  It is something that will be looked at when Council receives the ordinance update.  The pedestrian orientation, porches and windows that are up front are totally negated by new construction that now essentially has a side entrance with the front garage and people living up above those garages.  Specifically, the international styles that have gone into that neighborhood haven’t fit at all because of what we’re requiring new construction to do there.

 

Chairperson Genser suggested another category of altered contributor because he felt it was important to itemize these properties. There should be a list on the consultant’s report of properties that have been removed or altered. He stated that 159 Fraser was correctly taken off the list; however, it was cited as one of the examples of foursquare architecture. 

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the Commission might consider the altered contributor category if they have an opportunity to establish a district.  She stated that the consultants use the National Register criteria and she didn’t know if they could change their evaluations based on the Commission’s desire to have everything contribute to the neighborhood.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that the National Register handbook states that public opinion of value for a contributor to a district is a valid criteria.

 

Commissioner Berley stated that he is concerned that buildings that have been altered are being removed from the inventory based on those alterations.  This may not be a valid means of removing endorsement to potentially historic buildings. 

 

Chairperson Genser stated, at some point, there needs to be a dialog with the owners of historic properties in this neighborhood.  He also stated, in the short-run, there should be a list of houses that have been altered, so that they are made aware of, and could be referenced in some fashion.

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that even with the houses that are considered to be non-contributing, the consultant’s report found that there was still sufficient concentration with enough contributing houses to justify a district.  If that could be pursued, then the protection would pertain to all of the houses, even the altered ones. 

 

Councilmember Feinstein commented that properties that redevelop might create new curb cuts due to the requirement to have on-street parking.  This will exacerbate the parking shortage for the people who currently have buildings that are historic who have to park on the street.

 

C.  Discussion of Request by Fraser Avenue Neighbors to Discuss Concerns Regarding the Marketing for Development of 154-156 Fraser Avenue, Two Inventory-Listed Properties.

 

            The following member of the public addressed the Commission:  Mitchell       Lachman.

 

The property’s Realtor has redirected the marketing to note the historic nature of these homes, so the Commission had no further concerns at this time.

 

D.  Discussion of Main Street Historic Resources and Ways in Which They May Be Protected (Requested by Commissioner Kaplan)

 

Commissioner Kaplan commented that the bluff between Hill Street and Marine Street have a significant number of buildings, some of which are on the historic inventory.  They still maintain their original facades.  She feels that these buildings are in danger of being remodeled, particularly the facades, without any protection.  She wanted to know if there is anything in the ordinance that would help protect against any modifications.

 

Ms. Bar-El explained the ARB process and the Division’s continuing efforts to be more diligent in applying the Secretary of Interior Standards when reviewing modifications.  She gave two recent examples on Main Street and noted the Urban Designer’s contributions to these efforts.

 

E.  Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

 

13.                   WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

            Public Input Permitted

 

            None.

 

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

 

Discussion to Consider Requesting the Council to Amend the Municipal Code to Require Realtors to Disclose that Landmarks Review is Required Prior to Issuance of a Demolition Permit for any Structure that is over 40 Years Old. (Requested by Commissioner Maduzia)

 

Discussion of the City Processes for Permitting Window Replacement and other Routine Alterations to Potentially Historic Buildings and Consideration of Potential Modifications to Those Processes. (Requested by Commissioner Fresco)

 

15.       NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, August 9, 2004.

                                                  

16.       ADJOURNMENT:  10:30 pm.