|
MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus
felix in urbe felici” |
|
Monday, February 12, 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 7:06 pm.
1.
ROLL CALL: Present: John Berley
Nina Fresco,
Chairperson
Roger Genser
Barbara Kaplan
Ruthanne
Lehrer
Ruth Shari
(Arrived at 7:10 pm)
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry Rosenbaum,
Senior Land Use Attorney
Jing Yeo,
Senior Planner, Acting Commission
Secretary
Susan Umeda,
Recording Secretary
2.
PRESENTATION BY
EILEEN FOGARTY, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, REGARDING
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO PLANNING PROCESS.
The
presentation by Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development,
was postponed.
3.
REPORT FROM
STAFF:
Staff reported
on items to be brought forth at future Landmarks Commission meetings,
rescheduling of upcoming appeals, progress on the Historic Resources Inventory,
recruitment efforts for the Third Street Citizen Participation Committee, and
the upcoming CPF Conference.
Commission
Genser inquired as to whether the vacancy on the Landmarks Commission has been
filled and the outcome of the extension in the back of City Hall that came
before the City Council. City Council
Liaison McKeown responded that this will come before the Council on February
13, 2007.
Chair Fresco inquired
on the progress of streetscape issues that were discussed in previous meetings.
4.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
5.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
5-A. January
8, 2007
Commissioner
Shari arrived at 7:10 pm.
Commissioner
Genser asked for a correction on Page 10, specifically “he has done some outreach
and has general support for the idea” should be changed to “there is some
concern and that he has done some outreach.”
On the bottom of Page 11 regarding the cameras at the Carousel, his
concern was the conduits, not cameras, were obtrusive.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked that her name be changed on the cover from “Lehrere” to “Lehrer”
Chair Fresco
asked for a correction on Page 12, specifically, “if they think the
neighborhood would be better served by a new one, the lamp will be replaced
with a new one” should be “if they think the neighborhood would be better
served by a modern one, the lamp will be replaced with a modern one.”
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to approve minutes with corrections. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote with
Commissioner Kaplan abstaining.
6.
APPROVAL OF
STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A.
Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 06CA-021,
Commissioner Lehrer stated that the rationale behind
negative findings should be clear and specific as this issue will go before the
City Council. Commissioner Lehrer made
the following suggestions: [1] the sentence on the first page, second line from
the bottom, specifically “would disturb the balance of the spatial
configuration of units within the courtyard,” was not the central issue as the
work would introduce a modern intrusion into the unified and consistent design
and materials of the historic porches in the courtyard; [2] the last two words
on the first page, “does not replace the removed solid-color red bricks
in-kind” should be “does not match the removed solid-color red bricks in-kind,
as required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.” Commissioner
Lehrer stated that she would like to add a quote from the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically
“Deteriorated historic fixtures will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires
replacement of the distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design,
color, texture and, where possible, materials.”
Commissioner Berley asked that the first sentence be changed;
specifically “the proposed project at
Chair Fresco made a motion to continue this matter until the
March 12, 2007 Landmarks Commission meeting.
7. PUBLIC
INPUT:
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Marjorie Campbell (landmarking of
8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
9. OLD
BUSINESS:
9-A. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application, 04CA-009, 320 Santa Monica Pier, for design
approval of a new public restroom facility and ice cream kiosk, and for minor
modifications to the existing Pier Maintenance/Police Substation Building on
the Santa Monica Pier. (Continued from
October 9, 2006)
Ms. Yeo gave
the staff report. Staff found that the
project is consistent with the requirements and regulations listed within the
Pier Design Guidelines and recommends approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Chair Fresco
asked that the material of the doors on the east side of the storage buildings be
clarified. Ms. Yeo responded that they
are aluminum-framed doors with glass in the middle.
Commissioner
Berley asked if a materials samples board was prepared and also asked staff
about the placement of the exterior lighting.
Lighting has been proposed but is not provided in the screen area as the
ambient light was deemed sufficient. Commissioner
Berley asked if staff received a photometric study to verify the light in the
screen area. Ms. Yeo responded that
staff has not received a study yet.
Commissioner
Kaplan inquired about the solar panel array on the roof and differences between
the line drawing and axonometric drawing. Ms. Yeo responded that the axonometric
drawing had a rendering error where the kiosk and the restroom do not touch;
the line drawings are correct.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that she was under the impression that the solar panels were the
proposed material for the roof. Ms. Yeo
responded that this is not the case at this time due to possible budgetary constraints;
the roof will be standing seam metal.
Chair Fresco
reopened the public hearing.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin and Halil Parlar.
Commissioner
Berley made a motion to continue this matter until March 12, 2007 and request
that the applicant be present for that meeting.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10-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 Commission made ex
parte communication disclosures.
1.
C3 – Downtown Commercial
Multi-Family Residence
Structure
Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: A.J. Jarasunas and Craig Jones. No action taken.
2.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
3.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
4.
BSC3 – Bayside Commercial
Structure
Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
The following members of the public addressed the
Commission: John Reed who is the architect on the project.
Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Reed if a demolition permit
was required because the project is a substantial remodel. Mr. Reed responded that the applicant was
going to remodel the building; however, there is a zoning problem because the
existing building is an office building but zoning regulations require the
space to be leased to a commercial enterprise, therefore, it was decided to
demolish the existing building.
Commissioner Lehrer commented that building is
architecturally wonderful. She noted
that the building has wonderful design features such as the glass blocks and
canopy. She also noted that the use
issue is puzzling; the Commission often works to preserve landmarks by
variances and discretionary permits to make a building viable. Commissioner Lehrer recommends not approving
the demolition at this meeting.
Commissioner Berley asked staff if this relates to the idea
of zoning requirements, such as retail structures must be 75% transparent to
the street, working in concert with historic preservation. Ms. Yeo responded that there is a requirement
in the zoning code for ground floor pedestrian orientation and transparency;
however, there is also a provision that some of those requirements could be
potentially overridden for concerns such as historic preservation or
insurmountable design issues and each situation would be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. Commissioner Berley asked Mr.
Reed if the applicant would modify the façade in a manner that accommodated the
code. Mr. Reed responded that even if the
transparency issue is resolved, there is a problem with leasing the space; the
small doors and curved glass blocks make the building difficult to lease to a
retail tenant as the building was not designed to accommodate that type of
use.
Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Reed if the façade is
original. Mr. Reed responded that the
façade is not original. Mr. Reed advised
that the building was probably remodeled over the last fifty years.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that she is not persuaded that a
use cannot be found for this building; the building might be suitable for
design studios, offices, and other professional uses.
Commissioner Berley stated that he is in favor of getting
more information in regard to alterations to the building which will help the
Commission understand whether or not this building is a resource that should be
preserved.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue this matter
until March 12, 2007 and that staff provide the Commission with additional
historic information. Commissioner Shari
seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was held and the motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
5.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Residential
Two Each Two-Story Buildings with Five Residential Units
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Commissioner Kaplan recused herself. No action taken.
6.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Residential
Two Each Two-Story Buildings with Five Residential Units
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
7.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Residential
Single Residential Structure with Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. No
action taken.
8.
OP2 –
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
9.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Existing Two-Story Residence and Detached Two-Car Garage
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
10.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Residential
2-Unit Apartment Building
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
11.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Residential
3-Unit Apartment Building
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
12.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
Commissioner Lehrer recused herself. No action taken.
13.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
Commissioner Lehrer noted that this is a Spanish revival
house which has wonderful and unique design features. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the
Commission should investigate the matter even if the building is not on the Historic
Resources Inventory.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the building is somewhat
eclectic in regard to period as some of the details that were added were not a
pure example of a
Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to continue this item and
request further information on the builder and integrity of the building. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was held and the motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
11. DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
11-A. Discussion on whether to file an
application to nominate
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that the following are a few main avenues
which the Commission could take in reviewing this matter: [1] assess whether an
application to nominate the property should be filed; and [2] decide not to
make determination during this meeting. He stated that the Commissioners should
not interject themselves into the community process that might be currently ongoing
if a determination is not made.
The Commission made ex
parte communication disclosures.
Commissioner Lehrer
made a motion to grant each member of the public two minutes to present their
case. Commissioner Shari seconded the
motion.
The motion was
approved by voice vote
AYES: Berley,
Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer,
NAYS: Genser
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Jacob Samuel, Chris King, Doug
Ehlers, Jeff Ho, Allen Sarlo, Halil Parlar, Deborah Levin, Britt Allcroft, Josette
Leroy, Ken Kutcher (attorney for owner), John English, Paul Hoffman, Shannon
Leavey, Marcello Vavala, Jenna Linnekens, Abby Arnold, Josh Serrano, Blair
Calderhead, Jerry Rubin, Carlos Pires.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Samuel if the petition has first names, last names and
addresses. Mr. Samuel responded that
only the written petition has that information; however, the on-line petition
has only comments and names.
Commissioner
Genser asked Ms. Levin if the “soul” of the building would survive if it had a
different use. Ms. Levin responded it
will be easier to keep the “soul” of the building alive if the surf shop
remains than to have a mural celebrating skateboarding and surfing.
Commissioner
Genser noted that Mr. Kutcher wrote a letter to Barbara Stinchfield regarding
possible input or funding from the Arts Commission and asked Mr. Kutcher if he
received a response to that letter and if he spoke to the Arts Commission about
this matter. Mr. Kutcher responded that
he did not receive a response and has not been to the Arts Commission. Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Kutcher if he
would keep the Commission apprised of any development of continuing the
existing use without the existing building if the Commission does not take
action. Mr. Kutcher responded in the
affirmative. Commissioner Berley asked
Mr. Kutcher if the historic consultant is present. Mr. Kutcher advised that he is not present.
Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Vavala if he is suggesting that the Commission get further
information without filing an application.
Mr. Vavala responded that the Commission should go forward with the
assessment. Commissioner Lehrer noted
that the Commission could file an application and then decide what action is
appropriate.
Chair Fresco
received two late chits from members of the public. Commissioner Genser made a motion to hear
these members of the public.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Richard Wechsler, Juli Doar
(owner).
Commissioner
Genser asked Ms. Doar about the direction of the project. Ms. Doar responded that the City would be
better served to integrate a work of art that commemorates the Z-Boys and the
Chair Fresco
noted that an overwhelming number of people were interested in this topic;
however, a consensus on how to proceed could not be made. She noted that Ms. Doar’s offer to
commemorate the Z-Boys in the new building is extremely generous and
community-minded. Chair Fresco stated
that the Landmarks Commission’s only job is to landmark buildings if the
building meets the Commission’s criteria.
Chair Fresco recommended that the Commission nominate the building for
landmark status and investigate further whether it meets landmark criteria.
Commissioner
Berley asked Commissioner Lehrer if there are precedents in other parts of the
country where something significant occurred at a site or improvement which
became part of the cultural history of the community. Commissioner Lehrer responded that she cannot
site a specific instance; however, there are many instances where
cultural/ethnic history is commemorated with a simple vernacular house. Commissioner Lehrer advised that cultural
history and social impact must be researched and discussed.
Commissioner
Genser asked Commissioner Lehrer whether the quote from Robert Chattel, who
submitted a historical evaluation of the property and states “since this is
relatively recent and with living people,” has any bearing on cultural
significance. Commissioner Lehrer
responded that this quote applies to this case as there is no age criteria in
evaluating cultural significance.
Commissioner
Lehrer recommends that the Commission nominate the building for landmark status
as
Chair Fresco
noted that if architecturally insignificant buildings must rise to a certain
level, it will eliminate a large number of important buildings that represent
Commissioner
Lehrer noted that John Balderssari’s art studio is also important as he is a
major artist; therefore, there are two uses of the building which have cultural
significance and should be included in the evaluation.
Commissioner
Genser noted that a consultant would probably report that the site is
culturally important but architecturally unimportant. He stated that he does not support a
nomination because there are other possibilities that are unique to this
situation even if the Commission might not have purview of those possibilities.
Commissioner
Kaplan noted that the owner has not filed for a demolition permit and the
building is not in danger yet.
Commissioner Berley noted that the owner is looking for clarity in
regard to what course they could take to achieve the goals of the community.
Commissioner
Shari noted that the new development would assure a place in skateboarding and
surfing history for many years to come.
Commissioner Shari stated that she would prefer commemoration in
partnership with the owner rather than landmarking the building.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum advised that there are two courses – one is to make a
preliminary assessment about whether the Commission will nominate the property;
the other is to forebear on that based on the determination that the Commission
is able to do it. The Commission is
acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and is not in a position to give direction
to the owner as to use of the property.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to continue this matter for two months for staff to prepare
a more thorough assessment of the property in accordance with the landmark-designation
criteria. Commissioner Kaplan seconded
the motion.
A roll call vote was held and the motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
11-B. Discussion on whether to file an
application to nominate
Chair Fresco
broke proceedings at 9:55 pm and commenced again at 10:04 pm.
Commissioner
Genser asked if staff contacted the owner.
Ms. Yeo advised that outreach has been done prior to this meeting and
will be done again.
Commissioner
Genser made a motion for staff to send the owner a registered letter to
indicate the Commission’s interest in possibly landmarking his property and
that this matter is on the Commission’s priority list. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
11-C. Discussion whether to file an application to
nominate the
Ms. Yeo
advised the Commission that the building has undergone several address changes;
the actual addresses on the building are 1458 and
Commissioner
Lehrer asked staff if the owner has been contacted in regard to this
discussion. Ms. Yeo responded in the
affirmative; however, the owner did not respond. Commissioner Lehrer stated that she would
like to put this matter on the next agenda.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that the building is one of the most
important on the downtown walking tour that the Santa Monica Conservancy has
been preparing. She noted that an
application was filed for storefront modification and went to the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) but did not come to the Landmarks Commission. Commissioner Lehrer stated that everything
that happens to this building should go before the Landmarks Commission.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked if a nomination would interfere with scheduling of the Big Blue
Bus retail modification as it has already been approved by the ARB. Commissioner Lehrer responded that it would
not be retroactive.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the issue before the Commission is whether
or not to nominate this building; however, nomination has the effect of staying
future actions by both the property owner and the City while the process is
ongoing.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that if the Commission defers moving forward with the nomination,
any problems that the applicant has will emerge during the course of the
Commission’s debate.
Commissioner
Berley stated that it is important to not burden the process as the Commission
already knows that some plans have already gone through a certain level of
approval.
Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum advised that once the Commission files a nomination, the
Commission would need to make a determination as to whether or not the building
will be landmarked. He stated that the
record needs to be clear that the owner knew the Commission might proceed with
a nomination.
Commissioner
Berley asked the Urban Designer if he knows the status of the ARB
application. Mr. Traeger responded that
he did not know the status of the application.
Commissioner Berley asked to continue this matter until the status of
the application is known.
Commissioner
Berley moved that the Commission continue this item until March 12, 2007 and
request additional information regarding potential permits for modifications
that may be ongoing as well as continued outreach by staff to the property
owner. Commission
11-D. Discussion regarding Landmarks Commission Rules
of Order pertaining to time that owners and applicants are allotted to speak on
potential landmark designations that are not initiated by the property owner.
Commissioner
Genser noted that an owner should have ample time to respond to public
testimony if the Landmarks Commission files an application; the code should read
“If the application is filed by the Landmarks Commission, the property owner or
his/her representative shall be allowed five minutes to present his case and
three minutes for rebuttal to public testimony.”
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that there could be situations in which the
Commission or another party who is not the owner has filed the application. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum advised
that this change is done by resolution; he will bring back a resolution that
has this kind of language for the next meeting.
11-E. Discussion regarding Landmarks
Commissioner attendance at upcoming City Council hearings regarding appeals of
Landmarks Commission decisions.
Ms. Yeo
advised the Commission that the City Council meeting dates are in flux because
two appeals moved off the March schedule dates; she will inform the Commission
of the upcoming dates.
Commissioner Berley
will attend the City Council meeting for the appeal of
11-F. 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 reported that
there is an item on the City Council’s agenda for the February 13, 2007 meeting
in which they will be discussing a proposal to build a temporary office
building behind City Hall.
Chair Fresco asked Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
if the City can appeal a denial for a Certificate of Appropriateness if the
City “owns” the site. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum responded that the City operates as the owner of the
property and as a regulator.
City Council Liaison McKeown reported that
the City Council approved the budget priorities for the year. One of the expressed priorities is culture in
the context of the Creative Capital Report.
Commissioner Lehrer asked City Council Liaison McKeown if there is a
cultural master plan in progress. City
Council Liaison McKeown responded that the plan will be presented before the
City Council on February 27, 2007 and the final draft will be published by
February 16, 2007.
City Council Liaison McKeown noted that
there is an opening on the Landmarks Commission as the resignation of the
previous Commissioner has been formally accepted by the City Council. The selection of a new Commissioner will be
on the City Council’s agenda fairly soon.
It would be helpful if the Commissioners
review the applicants and make suggestions to Council members.
11-G. 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.
Commissioner
Berley reported that the applicant for the Zucky’s building went before the ARB
for approval of their signage; the applicant wanted to change the colors of the
building to accommodate same. The ARB
was not able to make a decision at that time as they showed concern that the signage
was double the allowable square footage; the application for the signage will
be going before the ARB on February 28, 2007.
Commissioner Berley stated that he was concerned about the color of the
Zucky’s sign as the applicant was given guidance by the ARB in regard to a
temporary pallet of colors to use; the pylon is now painted green. Commissioner Berley stated that the color
needs to come before the Commission for approval since the sign is landmarked;
if the owner of the building painted the sign in the original color (dark
chocolate brown), the matter would not need to come before the Commission for a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Commissioner Berley stated that it would be helpful if the Commission
had a discussion about the color of the sign.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked Commissioner Berley if the size of the signage was double the
square footage because of the Zucky’s sign.
Commissioner Berley responded that the owners felt they needed a greater
presence because of the Zucky’s sign.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if the owners should be given some flexibility
because they have a landmark to work around.
Urban Designer Traeger responded that the Zucky’s sign is not calculated
in the allowable area; the owner is allowed larger signage because it is around
a corner.
11-H. Planning
Commission Case List (Information Only).
12-A. Information
on how property owners can order a Landmark Designation plaque.
Chair Fresco
commented that it is graphically well done; however, it is difficult for an
owner of a landmark to find the information to order the plaque. She commented that the information in regard
to the verbiage on the sign comes too soon.
Chair Fresco stated that the size, cost and where to order the plaque
should be on the second paragraph; in smaller print, the brochure should
include comments regarding appropriate verbiage on the plaque which will need
to come before the Landmarks Commission for approval.
12-B. Letter from Pier Restoration Corporation
to Landmarks Commission regarding
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin
Commissioner
Lehrer noted that she went to the Pier Restoration Corporation (PRC) because
she was advised that they were going to give a visual presentation of the
project; she is still waiting for the “virtual reality” drawings. She noted that the PRC did not give this
presentation. She also noted that the
schematics in the environmental impact report are very difficult to
decipher. She stated that the Commission
regretted that it did not work with the PRC much earlier in regard to the
Commissioner
Berley stated that the PRC should have a representative speak to the Commission
about this issue and present the slide presentation.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that the issue of the Landmarks Commission’s role
in issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness may impact the propriety of having
a joint meeting.
Commissioner
Genser asked Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum if it is appropriate for the
Commission to place this issue on the agenda as a presentation. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated
that the Commission could ask staff to investigate this issue.
Commission
Genser made a motion to ask staff to find the most appropriate way for the
Commission to interface with the PRC.
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
Commissioner
Genser stated that the PRC referenced this process and plan at the Board and
Commission meeting and not in a public forum; it is not an appropriate
reference.
Commissioner
Berley asked staff if there is a timeline related to this item coming before
the Commission. Ms. Yeo responded that
the next step of the project is to go before the City Council for certification
of the environmental impact report and staff will provide copies of the final
environmental impact report to the Commission when it is available.
13. FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS: (Requests from
Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)
Commissioner
Berley asked to have a discussion about the criteria which consultants use to
evaluate structures within the City and whether it would be worthwhile to form
an ad hoc subcommittee to meet with some of the consultants to discuss their
concerns.
Commissioner
Berley asked that Marjorie Campbell be invited to file an application to
landmark her building and put this on a future agenda. Ms. Yeo responded that staff would work with
the property owner.
14. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular
Meeting:
7:00 PM Monday,
March 12, 2007; City
15. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to adjourn at 11:05 pm on Monday, February 12, 2007. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion.