|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
|
|
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded
1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 11, 2006 7:00 PM |
City Council
Chambers, Room 213 |
|
|
|
CALL
TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:10
pm.
1.
ROLL CALL: Present: John Berley
Nina
Fresco, Chairperson
Roger
Genser
Barbara Kaplan
Ruthann Lehrer
Ruth
Shari
Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Recording Secretary
Roxanne
Tanemori, Associate Planner, Commission Secretary
Jing
Yeo, AICP, Senior Planner
2.
REPORT FROM
STAFF:
Commission
Secretary Roxanne Tanemori reported that the City Planning Division held a
community meeting on December 7, 2006 at the East Wing of the Civic Auditorium in
regard to the citywide update of the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. Members of the public are welcome to submit
ideas to the City Planning Division by February 1, 2007. The PowerPoint presentation has been posted on
the City Planning Division’s webpage under the Historic Preservation
subsection.
Ms. Tanemori also reported there are
three appeals of Landmark designations scheduled before the City Council. The scheduled appeal dates are as follows:
Chair Fresco asked staff when the
Camera Obscura in
Commissioner Genser asked staff if
there has been any progress in regard to an outreach program for the citywide
update that would be based upon the Downtown outreach model. Ms. Tanemori stated that before developing an
outreach program, several issues need resolving in regard for reassessing the
buildings currently identified on the inventory. Staff is waiting for the reassessment to be
completed.
3.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
4.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
4-A. November
13, 2006
Commissioner
Kaplan asked for a correction on page 5, third paragraph, specifically that
“Broyer” should be spelled “Breuer.”
Commissioner
Lehrer asked for several corrections on page 2, second paragraph, specifically
the address should be “423-431 Ocean” instead of “435 Ocean;” on page 8; under
Discussion Items, she stated that her disclosure is missing. Ms. Tanemori stated she will go back, review
the tape, and add Commissioner Lehrer’s disclosures.
Commissioner
Berley asked staff if the minutes for the November 13, 2006 meeting are a full
transcript or is it still being edited, specifically in regard to
Chair Fresco asked
for a correction on page 3, the second to the last bullet point as follows: Commissioner
Lehrer “asked them how to access the roof,” not “accessed the roof.” On the last bullet point, “spent” not
“spend.” On page 4, “cite” should be
“cited.” On Page 6, third from bottom
paragraph, change “extension” to “development.”
On Page 10 under Item #9, “Chair Fresco asked that her “
Commissioner Genser
made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Lehrer. The motion was
approved by voice vote.
5.
APPROVAL OF
STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
5-A. Landmark
Designation Application, 06LM-008,
Commissioner Lehrer complimented staff on the excellent job
transcribing the STOA. Following
discussion to clarify several points, the following changes were made to the
findings:
On the first paragraph prior to the Criteria, “modified U-shaped
configuration” should be “pinwheel” site footprint throughout the
findings. Under Criteria #5 on page 3,
there is a discussion on the work of
Commissioner Lehrer also stated in regard to Criteria #1
that the word “style” should be deleted from “the subject property is a very
good and early example of mid-century modern international architecture as
applied to the garden apartment complex of the style and type that was
popular in
Commissioner Genser made a motion to approve the Statement of
Official Action as amended. Commissioner
Lehrer seconded motion. The motion was
approved by voice vote.
6.
PUBLIC INPUT: None.
7.
CONSENT
CALENDAR: None.
8.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
9.
NEW
BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9-A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration
Whether to File an Application For Designation of a Structure as a City
Landmark or Structure of Merit.
Commissioners
made ex parte disclosures regarding
their visits to the properties with proposed demolitions. All commissioners visited all of the subject
properties.
1.
R2- Low
Density Multiple Family Residential District
Single-family
residence
Structure Identified on the Historic
Resources Inventory
(Continued from November 13, 2006)
Discussion
held. Mr. Richard Merriman, the property
owner addressed the Commission. No
action taken.
2.
R2- Low
Density Multiple Family Residential District
Single-family
residence
Structure Not
Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
3.
R2- Low
Density Multiple Family Residential District
Single-family
residence
Structure Not
Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
4.
R2- Low
Density Multiple Family Residential District
Two
multi-family structures; three residential units
Structure Not
Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action
taken.
5.
R1-
Single-Family Residential District
Single-family
residence
Structure Not
Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action
taken.
6.
OP2- Ocean
Park Low Multiple Family District
Unpermitted
one-bedroom structure (a non-contributing feature of the site)
Structure Identified on the Historic Resources
Inventory
Ms. Tanemori
stated that this is a City Landmark and the demolition application is for
removal of a non-contributing structure on the site. The project architect,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi, was present to discuss the proposal.
No action taken.
9-B. Certificate of Appropriateness
Application, 06CA-017,
Commissioner Genser recused himself as he owns property
within 500- feet of this application. All other Commissioners
disclosed the dates and times that they visited the property. Chair Fresco also stated that she passes this property
twice a day, five days a week for over six years as she goes to the pre-school
next door and the pre-school owner, Ms. Sinsheimer, asked her opinion about the
proposed variance. Chair Fresco stated she did not discuss the variance with
Ms. Sinsheimer. She also met with Mr. Powell as part of the Citizen’s
Participation Committee (CPC) for the Third Street Historic District, and met
with him without the other CPC members present.
He went over the plans and explained what was happening.
Senior Planner
Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if a variance was required
to conform to the dimensions of a two-car garage. Ms. Yeo responded affirmatively. Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if any
consideration was given to having a one-car garage. Ms. Yeo responded that the applicant did not
apply for a one-car garage. Commissioner
Lehrer asked staff if any consideration was given to Historic District
guidelines during the variance process.
Ms. Yeo responded that the variance process was continued after the
first Zoning Administrator hearing because of concerns about historic
issues. Staffed reviewed the application
and found that the residence seemed to comply with the guidelines; therefore,
the variance was allowed to move forward.
Commissioner Berley asked staff which of the eight styles
listed in the Guidelines best represents this residence. Ms. Yeo responded that the residence closely
resembles the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
Commissioner Berley asked if staff had conversations with the applicant
about the possibility of a front yard stepback to the second floor. Ms. Tanemori responded that the application
was continued before the Zoning Administrator to further evaluate the proposal
in light of the Guidelines and that that staff discussed several modifications
to the design with the applicant, which were incorporated into revised plans and
brought back before the Zoning Administrator.
She further stated that a stepback was not discussed. She explained the balcony was a significant
feature and gesture to the street in accordance with the design guidelines. Commissioner
Berley asked if the variance required discretionary approval by the Planning
Commission. Ms. Tanemori responded that
it did not.
Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if there was any discussion
regarding the massing of the north elevation and how it might be compatible
with the historic guidelines. She noted
that the entire north elevation, as well as the front elevation, is visible
from the street. Ms. Tanemori responded
that staff evaluated the overall scale and mass of the building in terms of the
north elevation. Staff felt that the
actual presence of the building as viewed from the street is a little different
than rendered in the plans. In terms of
its overall scale and mass, staff paid particular attention to design and felt
it would not be overwhelming to the district.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Adam Finkel (Third Street Neighborhood
CPC), Bea Nemhala, Aleks Istanbullu, James Bianco, Ina Sinsheimer, Tony Haig
and Braden Powell (owner/applicant). All
speakers opposed the proposal except Mr. Powell.
Commissioner Lehrer expressed concern that staff’s direction
and the community’s concerns are in opposition and that there needs to be a
conceptual review with the CPC for such projects. She commented that the
two-car garage was driving this project.
Chair Fresco commented that until she received the packet
for this meeting, she had never seen the “Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District Design Guidelines and Landscape Survey” and expressed concern about
the current situation for this property. She asked staff if an owner of a designated
property could receive a variance for decreased parking. Ms. Tanemori responded that this is possible,
but two covered parking spaces are required for all single family residences in
Commissioner Berley suggested there it would be beneficial to
have an overlay providing exceptions to standard zoning requirements. He stated that this would allow for the
preservation of historic character. He further stated this is a unique
situation and needs a unique solution to satisfy both the applicant’s and District’s
needs.
Ms. Tanemori stated that the proposal was reviewed in light
of the guidelines and other planning issues, including the code-required
parking. She further stated that the lot is 25 feet wide with no alley and it
was determined that subterranean parking was not appropriate. In response to
the questions raised in the public comments, she clarified that this is a
“non-contributing parcel,” and was evaluated as such using the Guidelines.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that there is a section in the Guidelines
that applies to freestanding buildings replacing non-contributing structures
and this also applies to a non-contributing lot.
Commissioner Berley commented that some properties in the District
have garages in the rear and that driveways are primarily used for
parking. He asked staff if this option is
available for new construction in the Historic District. Ms. Tanemori replied that it did not seem
feasible to put in a driveway based upon the width of the lot. Ms. Yeo advised that the Zoning Ordinance
would require a variance to have parking in the front half of the property;
however, it is typically difficult to make findings to support such variances.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that the Commission’s job is to
protect the Historic District and uphold the guidelines. She stated that she shares
the concerns raised by the residents about the project being driven by Code
requirements for a two-car garage.
Chair Fresco asked if the Commission’s decision can be
appealed to City Council. Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum answered in the affirmative. Chair Fresco stated that denying
the application without coming up with a solution to amend the conflicting
rules only penalizes the applicant.
Commissioner Lehrer commented that the application should
have been discussed with the CPC first and ordinance changes might be needed in
the long term. She stated that it is
important that development in the Historic District not be driven by parking
requirements. She expressed her sympathy for the applicant’s situation, but
stated that she has difficulty approving the project.
Commissioner Kaplan expressed concerned regarding the height
and overall massing of the structure, which is not similar to surrounding
contributing buildings in the Historic District. She stated that there should be some
consideration on breaking-up the massing of the stucco box.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to deny the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
The Commission encouraged the applicant to meet with the Citizen’s
Participation Committee (CPC) to determine if there is a creative way to
provide a project design that is more appropriate to the Historic District and
that represents the intentions of the Guidelines.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
Ms. Tanemori requested that some statements be made by the
Commission to support the motion so that the record is clear in regard to the
Statement of Official Action.
Commissioner Berley responded that the project was designed in order to
meet parking requirements and this caused the Guidelines to be somewhat loosely
applied and interpreted. He stated that
this project significantly impacts the overall character of the neighborhood in
a negative way and that the building is significantly higher and the shape is
significantly different from the buildings that surround it. He commented that a clearly defined main
entrance that is oriented toward the street requires more than just having a
door from the side yard of the property.
The motion to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer,
RECUSED: Genser.
9-C. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application, 06CA-018,
Commissioner Genser recused himself as he owns property
within 500- feet of this application. All other
Commissioners disclosed the dates and times that they visited the property.
Ms. Tanemori gave the staff report. The applicant proposed four primary
modifications to the property: [1] on-site relocation of the residence
approximately 12-1/2 feet closer to the front property line; [2] construction
of a 148 square foot addition to the north elevation of the residence; [3]
addition of new doors and windows on the rear elevation of the residence; and
[4] addition of two new basement level windows, one on the west elevation and
one on the south elevation of the house.
Staff recommended approval subject to the draft findings and conditions.
Commissioner Lehrer asked staff when the first basement
window was installed and if the deck had a permit to be constructed. Ms. Tanemori responded that she did not know
when the deck was installed. Ms. Tanemori
explained that the existing window on the primary elevation was shown when the
original DPR was prepared for the property back in the early 1980s.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Mark Woollen (property owner),
Michael Folonis (architect), Adam Finkel (Citizens Participation Committee),
Karen Blechman (who also spoke for Jeanne Kukor), Aleks Istanbullu, James
Bianco, Tony Haig, Bea Nemlaha, and Erin Fotos (resides at the property).
Speakers spoke
both in support of and opposition to the application, particularly opposing the
relocation of the structure. Mr. Folonis spoke in response to the public
comment.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Folonis to explain the rationale for relocating the house. Mr. Folonis explained that a new foundation
will be installed and by moving the building toward the street, the rear yard
can be developed into a more usable space.
Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Folonis for the distance from
the bottom of the steps to the sidewalk.
Mr. Folonis stated that the bottom step is currently 23-feet from the
sidewalk. He explained that the front steps of the adjacent homes are set back 15-feet
back whereas the building in question is setback almost 40-feet from the
street.
Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Folonis about the separation
between the driveway and the existing deck which will become the footprint of
the addition. Mr. Folonis replied that
the driveway is not shared in the area between the driveway and the deck. Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Folonis if the
front wall that abuts the sidewalk will be maintained. Mr. Folonis replied that it will.
Commissioner Berley asked Mr. Folonis if he explored the
possibility of moving the house forward eight feet instead of fifteen feet. Mr. Folonis replied that the only compromise
that was suggested to the owner was not to move the house at all; however, the
property owner looked into having a 22-foot front yard setback versus a 20-foot
setback, which would be similar to the adjacent homes. Commissioner Berley
asked Mr. Folonis if the applicant was moving the house because he was concerned
about the driveway and noted that the addition does not encroach into the
driveway if the house was not moved forward.
Mr. Folonis responded that the driveway does not change at all and the
farther the house is moved forward, the less impact there is on the driveway. Commissioner Berley noticed that the deck appears
to be notched because of the angle of the driveway. Mr. Folonis replied that moving the house
forward and leaving the deck in the same configuration had less impact on the
driveway. Commissioner Berley asked Mr.
Folonis if he would consider moving the house forward by some factor that would
satisfy all parties. Mr. Folonis
responded that it would not be worth moving the house if the setback is more than
22 feet because of the amount of work, energy and cost involved.
Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Folonis if he would modify the
eave slightly to the end of the rafter tails to differentiate the addition from
the original. Mr. Folonis responded
there is a slight change in the north elevation and there will be something
that would differentiate it from the existing eaves.
Chair Fresco closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Berley commended the applicant and the
architect for showing a great deal of restraint for the small addition. He commented that some compromise should be
struck in regard to how far forward the house should be moved as there is a
historic precedent for the house being set back further than the rest of the
houses on the block. Commissioner Berley stated that this is a very tasteful
project and he appreciates the clarity with which it has been presented. He
stated he would not object to the proposal.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that there are a few
precedents for moving historic buildings to accommodate development of a site. She
stated that this is a very tasteful, well designed project, but she would feel
more comfortable if a compromise could be made in regard to the setback issue.
She expressed the opinion that the sideyard deck does not compromise anything
in the project and it is a tasteful, yet slightly differentiated, addition to
the building. She stated she is hoping
for a two-foot compromise in the setback.
Commissioner Lehrer commented that it is a very well
designed project as far as the addition is concerned and it makes sense to use
a non-historic deck as a footprint for an addition to a historic structure. She
further commented that the project is very compatibly designed but
differentiated which exactly follows the Guidelines. Commissioner Lehrer stated she has a problem
with the setback because it is important for the Historic District to maintain historic
setbacks. She noted that the two adjacent properties have setbacks which are
approximately 25-feet in depth and if the house was moved, she could not
approve anything which was inconsistent with the two other houses. Commissioner
Lehrer commented that the property has beautiful trees in the backyard and the
addition is a very modest amount in terms of scale.
Commissioner Shari commented that she does not have a
problem with the way the project has been presented, including the
setback.
Chair Fresco commented that she agrees with Commissioner Lehrer
in regard to the 22-foot setback. She
stated she does not want to see the house moved to be aligned with the adjacent
houses. She further stated that the five
houses should be viewed as one and should be evaluated that way. Chair Fresco commented that the addition is a
good choice; however, she does not want to see the house moved forward on the
lot.
Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the Certificate
of Appropriateness with the modification that the front yard setback be
maintained to be consistent with the average front yard setback of the houses
on either side, 2607 and 2619 Third Street, which is approximately 25 feet, and
that the design of the addition be consistent with the standards.
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.
Ms. Tanemori asked whether a 25-foot setback would be
acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Folonis
responded that a 25-foot setback is not ideal and that a compromise between 20
and 25-feet would be acceptable. After
further discussion among the Commissioners, Ms. Tanemori clarified the motion and
took a role call vote, which was approved as follows:
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer,
RECUSED: Genser.
9-D. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 06CA-020,
Commissioners disclosed
the dates and times that they visited the property. Commissioner
Kaplan also disclosed that she spoke with a neighbor named Giorgio and asked
him about the public space. She was told
all of the neighbors are supportive of the project. Chair Fresco disclosed that
she met briefly with former Commissioner Deborah Levin. Commissioner Shari disclosed that she had a
few e-mail conversations with former Commissioner Levin about the complex.
Ms. Tanemori
presented the staff report. The
applicant requests design approval for a 769 square foot addition to a 955
square foot, non-contributing residence located within Hollister Court, a designated
City landmark. Staff recommended approval
subject to the draft findings and conditions.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission in support of the application: Pablo Maida (architect), Deborah Levin, Tammy Cameron.
Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Maida the length of the actual
setback from the proposed building to the walkway. Mr. Maida explained that the setback is 20 to
25-feet, the existing deck is about 13 to 14-feet wide which would be about
1-1/2 feet from the walkway and the new deck will be four to five feet from the
walkway. Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Maida
if the height of the proposed building is above the existing building. Mr. Maida responded that the lower eave
matches the existing lower eave and the
Chair Fresco asked Mr. Maida if the setback from the
sidewalk is a wall. Mr. Maida responded
that there is an existing retaining wall and a light well.
Chair Fresco closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she supports the project
since the building is unremarkable. She
commented that the addition sits well on the property and is compatible in massing
and scale.
Commissioner Lehrer expressed agreement with Commissioner
Kaplan.
Chair Fresco commented on the aluminum windows versus the
older divided-light casement windows and suggested the aluminum windows be
replaced for continuity. Commissioner Lehrer asked Chair Fresco whether she is
asking the applicant to redesign the windows in the existing building. Chair Fresco responded in the
affirmative. Commissioner Kaplan noted
that the redesign of the windows is not part of the scope of the project.
Chair Fresco commented that the screen of the deck is nice,
but cuts off the view of the window and does not seem compatible with the rest
of the corridor. Mr. Maida stated that the applicant considered an open design
of the expanded wood siding but the following issues came up: [1] the architect
could not come up with a tasteful design which would maintain the openness of
the courtyard, [2] the siding would need to change so that the wall above the
deck floor would become a different element, and [3] the addition of a third
element to the building would complicate the design. Mr. Maida noted that the area just east of
the building is the only common yard that any of the houses share which is why it
was decided to pull it back from the walkway. Chair Fresco accepted Mr. Maida’s
explanation.
Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve application as
submitted. Commissioner Kaplan seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Genser expressed concern about the roof line as
it gives bulkiness to the northern extremity and to the walkway. Commissioner Lehrer commented that unless the
changes have a negative effect on the Historic District, the architect’s
proposal should be acceptable.
A role call vote was taken and the motion was approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
9-E. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 06CA-021,
At this point,
Commissioner Genser made a motion to continue past 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which
was approved by voice vote.
Commissioners disclosed
the dates and times that they visited the property.
Ms. Yeo presented
the staff report, which recommends the approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness with the condition that the bull-nose brick be removed and
replaced with bricks of similar size to the bricks on the lower layers.
Commissioner
Berley asked staff if the work was done without a permit. Ms. Yeo responded that the wall would not
require a building permit but does require a Certificate of Appropriateness,
which was not received before the work was done.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Tammy Cameron (property owner)
and Deborah Levin. Ms. Cameron disagreed
with the staff report. Ms. Levin agreed
with the staff report.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Ms. Cameron if she was aware that she needed a Certificate of
Appropriateness prior to commencement of any work on the property. Ms. Cameron responded that she was not aware
of this provision.
Commissioner
Berley asked Ms. Cameron if she received approval from the homeowner’s
association prior to commencement of work.
Ms. Cameron responded that it was approved after the work was started. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that it is rare for Code Enforcement issues to
come before the Landmarks Commission after the work has been completed, but
that the Commission’s role is to assess the work that has been completed in the
same way as any proposed work.
Chair Fresco
commented that anyone who buys a home within a Historic District should find
out the rules regarding restoration work before the house is purchased. She noted that installing bricks on historic
properties which are made to look “old” should not be used. Additionally, she stated that the bull-nose
bricks on the subject property are a problem because they are a modern detail. Chair
Fresco explained that the brickwork in
Commissioner
Lehrer commented that if the severity and deterioration requires replacement of
a distinctive feature, the new feature should match the old in design, color,
texture, and, where possible, materials in accordance with Standard #6. She also commented that the porch has a distinctive
design. Commissioner Lehrer stated that
it is unfortunate that there was a deviation from the standard which results in
a financial hardship for someone who has invested in a rehabilitation. She
concluded that a homeowner who owns a historic property and has a Mills Act
contract has the responsibility to find out exactly what is involved to
renovate the residence.
Commissioner
Berley asked if the Commission could view this situation as not seriously
detrimental and reversible at a later date.
He noted that the recommendation by staff is a good compromise. Chair Fresco commented that the bricks are so
permanent that changing them would be a problem. Commissioner Genser commented that the brickwork
is clearly not compatible with the other brickwork in the courtyard. He also noted that the staff report offers a
reasonable compromise and it would be a burden to the applicant to replace all
of the brickwork. Commissioner Kaplan commented
that she does not want to discourage future Mills Acts and designations by
interpreting the rules to be so restrictive.
Commissioner Berley noted that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and
there are valuable lessons that come from someone finding themselves in this
position before this Commission because the owner could be faced with reworking
the project to meet the standards. He
recommends the Commission try to strike a compromise and stated that staff has
made an effort in this regard.
Commissioner
Berley asked Commissioner Shari what disclosures are made when someone is
purchasing a designated residence.
Commissioner Shari responded that there is a disclosure given to the
buyer. She also thought that any
renovation over $400.00 needs a permit. She
suggested that in the future, there should be provisions in the Mills Act which
should be signed by the applicant which will be on public record. Commissioner
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that the important issue is whether or not the
Commission could make findings to support the work that was done. The staff recommendation includes draft
findings for the Commission’s consideration.
He stated that sympathy for the applicant is not an aspect of the
Commission’s determination.
Commissioner
Lehrer reiterated staff’s recommendation that the Commission accept the walls
because some of the bricks are correct. She stated it would be would hard for
her to approve this application.
Commissioner
Kaplan commented that the grout detail is also an important aspect of matching
brickwork. She stated that the grout
detail should be looked at closely if the cap is changed out as recommended by
staff and she is not sure how consistent this has been with brickwork that has
been redone at other units.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked if the color variation can be corrected without dismantling the
brickwork. Commissioner Berley asked if
some type of patina could be applied to the outer layer of the brick. Ms. Yeo explained that she spoke with the
contractor about staining or painting the brick to change the exterior
appearance and the contractor indicated that the color variation is basically
irreversible, however, staining or painting might work.
Commissioner Genser
suggested that it would be appropriate to continue this matter for another
month to find out if the bricks could be treated to make them more consistent
with the brickwork of other units within the Court. Commissioner Genser made a motion to continue
for 30 days to allow the applicant to consult a historic brick expert about ways
to change the appearance of the brick so that it more closely approximates the
work of adjacent brickwork. Commissioner
Shari seconded the motion.
A role call
vote was held and the motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Fresco,
Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
10.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
10-A. Consideration whether to file an
application to nominate the commercial building at
Commissioners disclosed
the dates and times that they visited the property. Chair Fresco also
disclosed that she received numerous e-mails, which she forwarded to staff and
that she met with Randy Wright who gave her a tour and showed her where they
grind the boards. Chair Fresco also disclosed she had a conversation with Abby
Arnold on the morning of December 11, 2006, regarding installing some sort of
commemorative plaque. She recommended Ms.
Ms. Yeo gave
the staff report. The preliminary
assessment prepared by PCR states that the property does not possess sufficient
architectural merit to warrant designation as a contributor to the
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Julie Doar (granddaughter of
current owner), Ken Kutcher, Marcello Valvala, Jerry Rubin, Abby Arnold, and Jacob
Samuel.
Commissioner Genser
commented that Ms. Doar had withdrawn the demolition permit, and then asked if
she wants to incorporate the historical context in the new design. Ms. Doar agreed with that assessment. Commissioner Berley asked Ms. Doar if retail
space is proposed. Ms. Doar responded
that there will be two retail units and the owners would like to retain the
surf shop.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Ms. Doar if the owners are willing to offer the surf shop a rent
reduction in the new project. Ms. Doar responded that the project must be
profitable as it will be funded from a loan against the land value. She stated she would like to keep the surf
shop but she will need to review all possibilities.
Commissioner Genser
stated that the demolition application has been withdrawn and therefore, the imminent
demise of the building is not at issue. He commented that he had not been aware
of the depth and breadth of the interest in skateboarding history. He noted he would favor the compromises that
have been floated by Ms. Arnold, Mr. Kutcher and Mr. Rubin. He stated this seems to be a real opportunity
to do something creative and to restore the integrity of this cultural icon.
Commissioner Genser urged the Commission to do what it can to encourage this as
much as possible; however, filing for landmark status is not appropriate at
this moment.
Commissioner
Berley stated that a representative of the applicant contacted the Santa Monica
Conservancy regarding this property. He asked the Conservancy’s representative,
Mr. Valvala, to comment on the issue.
Mr. Valvala responded the Conservancy would like to look into
celebrating the history of the property and that there should not be anything
blocking the nomination going forward. He stated that the Conservancy would be
interested in seeing what comes out of the assessment reports if a nomination is
filed. Commissioner Berley asked Mr.
Valvala if he has spoken to any of the historical figures associated with the
property. Mr. Valvala answered in the
negative.
Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum advised that it is within the Commission’s power and purview
to file a landmark application. He stated that since there is not a demolition
permit before the Commission at this time, there is no urgency in acting on
this item. He further stated that the
Commission is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in reviewing a demolition
application or any subsequent decision. He
further stated the Commission can decide not to act or re-agendize the matter
and it is the Commission’s role to determine if the landmarking of the property
should proceed.
Commissioner Genser
stated that the Commission could re-agendize this matter at a future meeting in
order to facilitate the discussion that has occurred thus far. Chair Fresco
stated that it is premature to nominate the subject property because it is not
urgent at this time, but it should be agendized for next time so that a subcommittee
could be formed to get the community involved in this issue.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the skateboarding culture was a fringe element and the
Commission should not take an active role other than monitoring the issue. She
commented that if the community does not want to take an active role in this
issue, the Commission might want to become actively involved.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to re-agendize the issue in two months. Commissioner Genser
seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
10-B. Discussion
and potential recommendations from the Landmarks Commission to City staff
regarding future revisions to the adopted Third Street Neighborhood Design Guidelines,
including formation of an ad-hoc subcommittee of Commissioners to make
additional recommendations on this matter. (NF)
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Adam Finkel (current CPC
representative), Erin Fotos (also speaking for Mark Woollen), and Aleks
Istanbullu.
Chair Fresco made
a motion that the Commission create an ad-hoc subcommittee to address issues
raised by the public.
Commissioner Genser
stated he would be interested in being part of the subcommittee; however, there
is a conflict because he is prohibited from voting on anything within 500-feet
of his home. Senior Land Attorney
Rosenbaum concurred that it would not be appropriate for him to be on the
subcommittee.
Commissioner
Berley stated his current work schedule does not leave time to attend
subcommittee meetings. Commissioner
Shari expressed the same problem. Following some discussion, Commissioners
Berley and
Commissioner
Berley recommended the residents’ concerns be outlined so that the subcommittee
can have a clearer understanding of the concerns.
10-C. Discussion and potential recommendations from
the Landmarks Commission to City staff or City Council regarding potential
Municipal Code or City Charter revisions to allow condominium conversions of
City Landmark designated multi-family rental units.
Continued to
January 8, 2007.
10-D. Report from City Council Liaison to the
Landmarks Commission on recent City Council actions related to appeals,
development projects, planning policy studies and ordinances related to the
City’s historic resources, and information concerning future City Council
agendas.
Continued to
January 8, 2007.
10-E. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison
to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action
taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential
historic resources.
Continued to
January 8, 2007.
10-F. Discussion regarding Historic District
nomination and designation procedures specified in
Continued to
January 8, 2007.
10-G. Update from staff regarding conduit installation
on the
Continued to
January 8, 2007.
10-H. Discussion regarding timelines for
submittal of application materials and distribution of Commission meeting
packets.
Continued to
January 8, 2007.
10-I. Planning Commission Case List
(Information Only).
11.
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS: None.
12.
FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS:
Commissioner
Lehrer requested a future agenda discussion on how the City applies the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to historic resources.
13.
NEXT MEETING
DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting:
7:00 PM Monday,
January 8, 2007; City Council Chambers, Room 213, City Hall.
14.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner
Shari made a motion to adjourn at 12:27 a.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2006.
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
APPROVED: JANUARY 8, 2007 AS AMENDED