|
MINUTES REGULAR
MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS
COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus
felix in urbe felici” |
|
Monday, January 8, 2007 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 7:07 pm.
1.
ROLL CALL: Present: John Berley
Nina
Fresco, Chairperson
Roger Genser
Ruthanne
Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Absent: Barbara Kaplan
Also Present: Elizabeth Bar-El, Senior Planner,
Acting Commission
Secretary
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
(Arrived
at 9:35 p.m.)
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Steve
Traeger, Urban Designer
Susan
Umeda, Recording Secretary
2.
REPORT FROM
STAFF:
Acting
Commission Secretary Elizabeth Bar-El introduced Recording Secretary Susan
Umeda to the Commission.
Ms. Bar-El
gave an update on the Historic Resources Inventory. Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary, has
arranged for a very smooth transition of this project to
Ms. Bar-El
reported that the Pier Restroom Project will be coming before the Commission in
February 2007 for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Pier Restoration Corporation (PRC) is
working on a proposal to put an ice cream/soda fountain in the Carousel
building which will come before the Commission in the spring because it will
involve minor exterior changes. Also,
Ms. Bar-El reported that the PRC wants to make sure that the Commission is
aware of this process.
The
Ms. Bar-El
reported that there are five appeals that are scheduled to go before the City
Council. The scheduled appeal dates are
as follows: 2617 Third Street (Certificate of Appropriateness) on January 23,
2007, 130 San Vicente Boulevard (Certificate of Appropriateness) on February
13, 2007, 2646 Second Street on February 27, 2007, 2219 Ocean Avenue
(designation appeal) on March 13, 2007, and 423 Ocean Avenue on March 27, 2007.
Ms. Bar-El
distributed copies of a plan for the proposed extension to the rear of City
Hall which is an agenda item for the City Council meeting on January 9,
2007. The City Council will decide
whether or not to go forward with this project.
Ms. Bar-El noted that the Landmarks Commission has the opportunity to
provide input at that meeting.
Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if the addition will require a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms.
Bar-El responded in the affirmative. Commissioner
Lehrer asked staff if the proposal will go before the City Council before it is
brought before the Landmarks Commission.
Ms. Bar-El responded that the City Council will decide whether to go
forward with the project in its proprietary role as “owners” of the
property. If and when the City Council
decides to undertake the project, it would then require a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Landmarks Commission.
3.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chair Fresco
received a flyer for community workshops for the Zephyr Surf Shop. The meetings will be at 7:00 pm on January
11, 2007 and January 25, 2007 at the Ocean Park Library.
4.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
4-A. December 11, 2006
Commissioner
Shari asked for a correction on the bottom of Page 16, specifically that
“skating culture” should be “skateboarding culture.”
Commissioner
Lehrer asked for a correction on Page 10, second line, specifically “it makes
sense to use a non-historic element for the addition to a historic structure” should
be “it makes sense to use a non-historic deck as a footprint for an addition to
a historic structure.” On Page 14, the
word “renovation” should be “rehabilitation.”
Commissioner
Genser asked for a correction on Page 17, specifically that “he is prohibited
from voting on anything in the Historic District” to “he is prohibited from
voting on anything within 500 feet of his home.”
Chair Fresco
asked for a correction on Page 15, specifically that “Randy Ripe” should be
“Randy Wright.”
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to approve minutes with corrections. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
5.
APPROVAL OF
STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
5-A. Certificate
of Appropriateness 06CA-017,
Commissioner Lehrer asked for a correction on the last
paragraph on page 2, specifically “street-facing main entrances and
street-level architectural details” should be “street-facing main entrances and
street-level architectural details as referenced in the guidelines for the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.”
Also, on the last paragraph on page 2, “The dominance of vehicles in the
front yard would be detrimental to the District character” should be “The
dominance of the vehicles in the front yard would be detrimental to the
District character and contrary to the design guidelines.” On the first paragraph on the page 2, “the
residence should incorporate the key exterior features of the prevalent
bungalow development in the District” should be “the residence should
complement the exterior features of development in the district.”
Commissioner Berley made a motion to approve Certificate of
Appropriateness with corrections.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Genser
abstaining.
5-B. Certificate
of Appropriateness 06CA-018,
Chair Fresco asked for a correction on page 1 which should
read “148 square-foot addition” instead of “128 square-foot addition.” On page 2 on the second paragraph, “The
relocation of the structure seven feet forward.” should be “The relocation of
the structure should be no less than 25.4 feet.”
Commissioner Berley made a motion to approve Certificate of
Appropriateness with corrections.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Genser
abstaining.
5-C. Certificate
of Appropriateness 06CA-020,
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
6.
PUBLIC INPUT:
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Mike Deasy and Jerry Rubin (
7.
CONSENT
CALENDAR: None
8.
OLD BUSINESS:
8-A. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 06CA-021,
The Commissioners made ex
parte disclosures regarding their visits to the property. Commissioners Berley, Genser and
Ms. Bar-El
commented that there was not a new staff report but additional information was
provided by the applicant together with letters from members of the
public.
Commissioner
Genser asked if staff included a proposal or outline from BrickImaging,
Incorporated regarding the services it provided. Ms. Bar-El responded that she just included
the website and noted that the applicant provided staff information about a few
websites and that staff was just adding another although there are probably
other companies out there.
Chair Fresco
reopened the public hearing.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Tammy Cameron (owner), Deborah
Levin and Penelope Deihl. Ms. Levin did
not support the project; Ms. Cameron and Ms. Deihl supported the project.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the work on the porch does not meet the Landmark
Commission’s standards and that the Commission is concerned about the integrity
of
Chair Fresco
agreed with Commissioner Lehrer. She stated
that she would not have approved the plans for this porch; the applicant should
have constructed the porch to match the original. She noted that widening the
porch disrupts the mirror effect of walking down the path.
Commissioner
Genser agreed with Chair Fresco and Commissioner Lehrer. He stated that he made a motion to continue
so that an effort could be made to possibly change the look of the bricks; due
diligence was not done in resolving the issue.
Commissioner
Berley stated that a Certificate of Appropriateness should always be brought to
the Landmarks Commission before any work is done so that the Commission could
guide the work and ensure that it is done properly. He stated that it is frustrating to be asked
to justify the project for any reason other than the quality of work that was
done. Commissioner Berley noted that the
Commission needs to be very careful in making sure that historic properties
designated in the City are properly maintained and that any repair work is done
correctly; owners of landmarked properties have the responsibility to make sure
this is done. Commissioner Berley
concluded that the work on the property is not appropriate.
Commissioner
Shari noted that she did not have anything to add but agreed with Commissioner
Berley in regard to reviewing the project after the work has been done. Commissioner Shari stated that she could not
support the project.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff if this becomes an enforcement issue if the Certificate of
Appropriateness is denied. Ms. Bar-El
responded that if the Certificate of Appropriateness is denied either by the
Commission or on appeal by the Council, it would become an enforcement
issue. Ms. Bar-El advised that a
Certificate of Appropriateness for a new proposal would then need to come
before the Landmarks Commission before any further changes are made.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.
A role call
vote was held and the motion was denied by the following vote:
AYES: Berley,
Fresco, Genser, Lehrer,
Ms. Bar-El
stated that the decision could be appealed within the next 10 days.
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.
The Commissioners disclosed the dates and times that they
visited the property.
1.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Family
Residential District
4 unit apartment building
Structure
Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken.
2.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Family
Residential District
4 unit apartment building
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
Single
family residence
Structure
Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10-A. Discussion on whether to file an
application to nominate the
Ms. Bar-El
gave the staff report together with an attachment containing information from
the original designation and from the Pier Ramp Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Bar-El stated that the original
designation resolution of the Santa Monica Pier shows that the ramp and sign are
part of the landmark designation which goes up to
Commissioner
Berley asked staff if this information had been forwarded to the Senior Planner
working on the Pier Ramp. Ms. Bar-El
responded in the affirmative. Ms. Bar-El
noted that information in the EIR does not contradict the fact that the ramp
and sign are designated landmarks; the analysis was done on whether various
proposed configurations were appropriate for the Pier when looking at it as a
historic resource.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked staff if the EIR took the scope of the designation into account as
the consultant who did the historic resources assessment did not know the
designation included the ramp or the sign or that the assessment did not
include moving a landmarked structure or widening a landmarked bridge,
etc. Ms. Bar-El noted that some members
of the consultant’s team may not have been aware that the sign and ramp were
part of the local designation; however, other members of the consultant’s team
were aware as the designation is noted in the EIR. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted
that, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is unnecessary for
something to have been officially landmarked for that structure to be
considered a historic resource; therefore, the ramp and bridge were determined
to be historic resources even if that fact was not fully understood by all.
Ms. Bar-El advised
that the Pier Ramp Project will be going to the City Council and will not come
back to the Landmarks Commission before that meeting; if the City Council approves
changing the ramp, this matter will come back to the Landmarks Commission. Chair Fresco asked staff if the Landmarks
Commission will be notified if the EIR goes to Council in case the Commission
wants to say something to Council. Ms.
Bar-El responded that the Commission will be notified as there will be at least
one more Landmarks Commission meeting prior to the City Council meeting.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin.
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.
Chair Fresco
stated that there is a lot of controversy regarding various projects in the
Third Street Historic District since there is a lack of clarity in guidelines
and process for the Citizen’s Participation Committee (CPC). She noted that the guidelines have inadequate
illustrations and clarifications regarding various points within the guidelines. She also noted that the CPC has many items
they would like to include. Chair Fresco
received a copy of the resolution of the Landmarks Commission that establishes
the Rules of Order for the CPC by a member of the public; it was distributed to
members of the Commission.
Chair Fresco
noted that the guidelines are difficult to obtain. Chair Fresco also noted that the cover of the
guidelines states “Conceptually-Approved Design Guidelines” and asked staff if the
guidelines have not been officially adopted or if this was just poor
wording. Ms. Bar-El responded that it
was poor wording.
Commissioner
Genser asked Chair Fresco about the process of revising the guidelines and if
the subcommittee will meet with existing members of the Third Street Historic
District to refine the guidelines. Chair
Fresco responded that anyone in the district will be invited to help refine the
guidelines; once the guidelines have been completed, they will be brought
before the Commission for approval.
Commissioner
Genser asked Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum how the guidelines will be
formally adopted. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum responded that the guidelines were originally adopted by the
Landmarks Commission; therefore, the Commission is able to adopt new ones.
Chair Fresco
noted that she will convene the subcommittee in the neighborhood after the
appeals currently pending are completed.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum advised the ordinance states that “The Landmarks
Commission shall adopt design guidelines within 180 days of the adoption of
this chapter” which would include the ability to subsequently amend those
guidelines. He will review the matter
with the City Attorney since the ordinance does not expressly say that amending
the guidelines would be included in the Commission’s authority.
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.
Commissioner
Genser proposed promoting a program that will allow owners of multi-family
buildings with historic significance to convert to condominiums. This idea has come up because of the increase
in demolitions of multi-family, potentially historic buildings that are not
landmarks, especially Spanish Courts. He
noted the timing is right because this kind of program may reduce the number of
demolitions of these types of buildings.
Commissioner Genser advised that the ad hoc subcommittee which was
formed several years ago recommended that it might be appropriate to
incorporate this concept into the Landmarks ordinance. Commissioner Genser also noted that the
proposal would not apply to very many buildings in the City. Commissioner Genser added that the following ideas
could be part of the proposal: [1] the proposal could be multi-tiered to
include landmarks and buildings that have historic significance; and [2] the
proposal could create a historic, multi-family district.
Commissioner
Genser asked Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum if a charter amendment is
needed to accomplish this task. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum replied his office’s preliminary review of this
situation was that it would take a charter amendment to authorize it; however, this
should not stop the Commission or City Council from considering whether this is
good policy. He noted that the citizens
of
Chair Fresco noted
that there are very few incentives for property owners who own historic
buildings as investments. She stated that
this would provide an opportunity to welcome a new level of potential voluntary
landmarks into the fold.
Commissioner
Lehrer noted that it is a very meritorious argument but will be a difficult
battle politically.
Commissioner
Shari suggested that the Commission come up with a creative alternate solution
to that concept based upon incentives that are offered to another category of
property because the property is usually an investment. Commissioner Fresco noted that the incentives
would benefit the owner of the property as they would be the ones who would
decide whether to convert the units into condominiums. Commissioner Shari noted that developers want
to maximize their investment by creating larger units with certain amenities
and features; however, many multi-family historic properties will not lend
themselves to this type of conversion.
Commissioner
Genser noted that there are two points which need to be considered: [1] the
protection of the tenants; and [2] the community need for historic
preservation.
Chair Fresco
asked staff what level of detail would be most productive for the Commission to
present to the City Council. Ms. Bar-El
responded that if the Commission is interested in bringing this idea to the
City Council, the Commission should develop a proposal to take forward to them.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum advised that if the Commission would like to recommend
this proposal in some form to the City Council, his office would look into the
procedure that would need to be followed and time could be spent crafting the
specific proposal. He stated that if a
charter amendment is required, it will need to go on a different track than the
land use element or zoning ordinance since they do not need approval of the
voters.
Chair Fresco
asked if the Commission wanted to give Commissioner Genser approval to put this
proposal on the City Council agenda. Commissioner
Lehrer recommended that the Commission investigate the proposal further and suggested
that the idea be brought to the community for feedback before the proposal is
brought to Council. She stated that it
would be appropriate for the Commission to draft a letter to Council after more
research is done.
Commissioner
Genser commented that there is some concern and that he has done some
outreach. Ms. Bar-El suggested that the
Commission do its research and try drafting a proposal. Staff could then look at the information and
help the Commission draft a letter to the Council; the matter could be
reagendized at a later date.
Chair Fresco
noted that part of the strategy of the proposal should include how to protect
tenants who pay very low rent in historic older buildings.
Commissioner
Berley noted that it will be difficult to draft a proposal for structures to
become potential landmarks and safeguard tenants at the same time. He suggested that Commissioner Genser attempt
to write the framework of the proposal to present to the City Council.
Ms. Bar-El asked
the Commission to let staff know when some progress has been made so it could
be put on the agenda.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum advised that the TORCA model should be examined in
regard to its approach and, in particular, protection of tenants. He commented that a similar program, aimed at
historic buildings, should be put forth or modified in light of the perceived
failings of TORCA. He advised that he
will examine how fine tuned the proposal should be before it is presented to
the City Council.
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.
City Council Liaison McKeown arrived later
in the evening and the Commission heard this item at that time.
City Council
Liaison McKeown arrived at 9:35 p.m. and spoke about the proposal to place a
temporary office building at the back of City Hall. This may have been discussed with a few
Council members but was unknown to him before the Council agenda came out. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that he is
concerned that proposals that affect a landmark are not coming before the
Landmarks Commission first as this is the second time this had happened. City Council Liaison McKeown will not approve
the proposal unless it goes before the Landmarks Commission first. Also, the lawsuit against the City in regard
to the Teriton Apartment Building has been withdrawn.
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.
Chair Fresco
advised that this will be heard in February 12, 2007 meeting.
10-F. Discussion regarding Historic District
nomination and designation procedures specified in
Chair Fresco reported
that the only new incentive that would be added to the package would be the one
that was already discussed on Item 10-C; therefore, the same subcommittee would
be used.
10-G. Update from staff regarding conduit
installation on the
Commissioner
Genser commented that there was a letter from Roxanne Tanemori, Commission
Secretary, which stated that the installation of the cameras was not a problem. Commissioner Genser described the
installation of the conduits on the cameras as obtrusive; however, the conduits
were painted and are now less obtrusive. Commissioner Genser stated that he was
concerned because the Commission received incomplete information in regard to
the camera installation.
10-H. Discussion regarding timelines for
submittal of application materials and distribution of Commission meeting
packets.
Chair Fresco
commented that the submittal of application materials and distribution of
packets are acceptable given the burdens of staff.
10-I. Discussion regarding the consideration
of historic character when development applications are reviewed by other divisions
or departments.
Chair Fresco
stated that she was concerned that Transportation Management rules seem to take
precedent over landmark rules. She asked
staff if there was a way to resolve this conflict.
Ms. Bar-El
responded that parking issues are zoning ordinance, not Transportation Management,
rules. The ordinance requires that a
single family home have two usable parking spaces. Ms. Bar-El agreed that compatibility of
historic preservation needs to be taken into consideration in historic districts. Although it will take some time, these
problems will be addressed in the new zoning ordinance.
Chair Fresco
asked staff if there is an interim patch to resolve the situation as there are
two other properties in the Third Street Historic District that would potentially
have the same problem. Ms. Bar-El
responded that applicants should work with the Urban Designer and Landmarks
Commission Liaison early in the process.
Commissioner Berley asked staff if the process is handcuffed by the
zoning ordinance. Ms. Bar-El responded
that the applicant would need to apply for a variance but stronger arguments in
support of the variance could be made if the project was approached in a different
way. Commissioner Lehrer noted that once
the “Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines and
Landscape Survey” is revised, the applicant should meet very early with the
Citizens Participation Committee to find mutually agreeable solutions to these
problems.
10-J. Discussion regarding the City’s policy for
replacement of street lamps and other streetscape elements in districts
identified on the Inventory such as Broadway and
Chair Fresco
received many e-mails noting that many aspects of streetscapes that could be
preserved or maintained in character are ignored. She noted that old street lamps are replaced
with a similar one if Street Maintenance thinks it is a good idea; however, if
they think the neighborhood would be better served by a modern one, the lamp
will be replaced with a modern one. Additionally,
she commented that scoring of sidewalks is always 60” x 60” even if the original
scoring was 24” x 24”. Chair Fresco
stated that replicating old lamps and sidewalk scoring would enhance the
neighborhoods and maintain the character of the district. Chair Fresco requested that street
maintenance policy be changed and some consideration be given to maintaining
the character of the streetscapes. Chair
Fresco commented that, in regard to the lamps, the Commission unsuccessfully
presented this issue to the City Council twice; however, the Commission may
want to present the broader idea of maintaining neighborhood character to the
City Council.
Commissioner
Berley suggested that it might be worthwhile for the Commission to write a
letter or make a presentation to Street Maintenance to resolve this matter. Commissioner Lehrer added that more specific
parameters need to be defined before requesting a new policy for street
maintenance work. Commissioner Lehrer
noted that there will always be color and texture differences in any repair
work. Commissioner Lehrer asked staff
the name of the department that is responsible for street maintenance. Ms. Bar-El responded that she had a brief
discussion about the lamps but not the sidewalks with Joan Akins, the EPWM Administrative
Services Manager. Chair Fresco advised
that she has a summary of the Administrative Services’ policy which states that
“In terms of score line patterns, we install new concrete according to current
standard specifications which usually calls for 5’ x 5’ sections separated by a
single score line.” This has been the
standard installation approach throughout the City for a long time. The only exception to this approach is where
specially-designed sidewalks have been installed such as the Downtown Transit
Mall. Staff will speak to Administrative
Services regarding this policy and continue this discussion once the
information is gathered.
10-K. Discussion regarding how the City applies the
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the Commission should be involved in scoping any kind of
environmental assessment as early as possible to determine if there are
significant adverse impacts that need to be addressed. She noted that the Commission was not advised
of the Santa Monica Pier project at the scoping level and just commented on
issues that were already decided.
Additionally, she noted that there were significant physical alterations
made to the Mayfair Theatre, a historic landmark, and she is unaware of the
CEQA assessment on that project.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that this general topic has been discussed and
the Commission is authorized by ordinance to review or comment on environmental
documents that are prepared by the City.
He stated that it is a question of rearticulating the process regarding
the preparation of documents and the manner in which the Commission is
notified.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that the level of the Commission’s involvement may
vary depending on whether the project will or will not be coming before the
Commission.
Commissioner
Lehrer suggested that the Commission be informed of pending projects that are designated
landmarks or on the Inventory which an EIR is being prepared.
Ms. Bar-El
stated that she will present this to the Planning Division to investigate how
the division could institute a procedure to make sure that the Commission
receives notice of any discussion regarding impact to a cultural resource.
10-L. Planning
Commission Case List (Information Only).
11. WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS: None
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Commissioner
Lehrer advised that the new Planning Director had asked to be on the agenda to
make a presentation.
Commissioner
Berley asked to review the priority designation list that was put together for
the downtown area as the Commission has not looked at this matter recently.
Chair Fresco
asked that the Paul Williams building on
Commissioner
Genser asked that the rules be discussed regarding the time a property owner has
to present his case to the Commission.
13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular
Meeting:
7:00 PM Monday,
February 12, 2007; City
14. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Genser made a motion to adjourn
at 9:50 p.m. on Monday, January 8, 2007.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.