|
MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus
felix in urbe felici” |
|
Monday, March 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 7:08 pm.
1.
ROLL CALL: Present: John Berley
Nina Fresco,
Chairperson
Roger Genser
Barbara Kaplan,
Chair Pro Tempore
Ruthanne
Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Secretary
Susan Umeda,
Recording Secretary
1-A. Oath
of office for new Commissioner Margaret Bach
Ms. Bach took
the oath of office. City Council Liaison
McKeown noted that Commissioner Bach is a founding member of the Landmarks
Commission.
2.
PRESENTATION
BY EILEEN FOGARTY, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, REGARDING
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO PLANNING PROCESS.
Chair Fresco
welcomed Ms. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development. Ms. Fogarty gave a presentation regarding her
strategy in creating a more inclusive planning process which could be embraced
by the community. She also stated that
staff, boards, commissions and community need to build a partnership.
Chair Fresco
thanked Ms. Fogarty for her presentation.
3.
REPORT FROM
STAFF:
Ms. Yeo gave
an update on upcoming City Council appeals and actions. Ms. Yeo reported that the Certified Local
Government annual report was sent out on March 1, 2007 and that preliminary
results were received for areas one and five for the Historic Resources
Inventory.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff if the goal of the inventory is to identify individual
structures or is any attention paid to larger urban design features. Ms. Yeo responded that the primary focus is
on structures.
4.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner
Lehrer announced that the California Preservation Foundation will have a
workshop on Friday, March 30, 2007 in
5.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
5-A. February
12, 2007
Chair Pro
Tempore Kaplan asked for a correction on Page 3, specifically that “axiometric”
be changed to “axonometric.”
Commissioner
Berley asked for a correction on Page 13, specifically that “pillion” be
changed to “pylon.”
Chair Fresco
asked for a correction on Page 9, second to the last paragraph, specifically
“Chair Fresco stated that the Landmarks Commission only landmarks buildings”
should be “Chair Fresco stated that the Landmarks Commission’s only job is to
landmark buildings.” On Page 10, third
paragraph, specifically, “She also noted there is a strong reaction from people
who wanted to visit the building” should be “She also noted there is a strong
reaction from people because people wanted to visit the building.” On page 14, specifically “the brochure should
include comments in appropriate verbiage on the plaque” should be “the brochure
should include comments regarding appropriate verbiage on the plaque.”
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan seconded the
motion. The motion was approved by voice
vote.
6.
APPROVAL OF
STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 06CA-021,
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote with
Commissioners Bach and Kaplan abstaining.
7.
PUBLIC INPUT:
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion for the
Commission to hear Tony Haig.
Commissioner Genser seconded the motion.
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
February 12, 2007)
Ms. Yeo gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the Certificate
of Appropriateness as it is consistent with the Pier Design Guidelines and the
Secretary of the Interior Standards.
Commissioner Genser asked staff if there are any plans to
have solar panels per the old design. Sam Aslanian, the Project Manager and
applicant, responded that solar panels may be added in the future.
Commissioner Berley asked the applicant about plans for
lighting the restrooms and kiosk. Mr.
Aslanian responded that there will be light fixtures in the space between the
new and existing building; however, the interior lighting scheme has not been
developed. Commissioner Berley asked the
applicant if light fixtures have been specified for the exterior and if sufficient
light will come from the restrooms to adequately illuminate the pathways behind
the screen walls. Mr. Aslanian responded
that light fixtures have been specified and more could be added in the future. Commissioner Berley noted that all of the
buildings along the Pier front the street but the kiosk does not. Mr. Aslanian stated that the retail portion
of the kiosk was moved to the corner as there is plenty of pedestrian traffic
from the parking lot.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan noted that the color scheme is
attractive and asked the applicant if there is a door to the restroom corridor
next to the entrance. Mr. Aslanian
responded that there will be security doors that will close at night after the
restrooms are closed. She noted that
there is a problem with circulation in the area and that people will be eating
ice cream while passing the restroom stall.
Mr. Aslanian responded that the stalls will be private. In regard to the roof, she noted that the
wave-shaped roof butts awkwardly into the wall and there needs to be a flat
transition between the wave and the kiosk.
Ms. Aslanian responded that kiosk needed to be differentiated from the
restrooms. She noted that the screen has
3/8” diameter holes; the screen would be more private if the diameter was
¼”. Mr. Aslanian responded that the
screen will be painted which will shrink the diameter of the holes.
Chair Fresco stated that the front street-facing façade is
too solid and that higher windows and an open front may improve the project. She noted that the primary screens west of
the restrooms should be waist-high which would solve security issues as the
screens block the most interesting part of the building. Mr. Aslanian responded that it is important
to install full-height screens as pedestrians will look at the screen rather
than the restroom doors.
Commissioner Bach asked the applicant the rationale for the
windows not extending along the whole façade of the kiosk. Mr. Aslanian responded that there needs to be
a service area to store equipment; wall space is also needed.
Commissioner Genser stated that he does not have strong
objections to the proposal.
Commissioner Lehrer asked if the banners are made of fabric
and if they are noisy. Mr. Aslanian
responded that the banners are fabric and may make noise on a windy day.
The following members of the public addressed the
Commission: Ben Franz-Knight.
Commissioner Berley stated that the restroom building is
well-designed and will be a great feature to the Pier. He noted that it might be worthwhile to
consider lowering the privacy screen to 5-feet or 6-feet. He stated that he would have difficulty
supporting the kiosk because it should front the pier. He stated that the side should be left as it
is but be inoperable.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that she is supportive of the strong
design and made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion.
Commissioner Berley made an amendment to the motion that the
applicant work with staff to place more emphasis on relating the front of the
kiosk to the main circulation path of the Pier.
A roll call was held for the motion to approve the
Certificate of Appropriateness by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
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.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained the purpose and
content of disclosures. The Commission
made ex parte communication
disclosures.
1.
BSC3 – Bayside Commercial
Structure
Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
(continued
from February 12, 2007)
Discussion held. The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: John Reed (architect
of the project) and Scott L. Shafer. The
Commission discussed that the façade of the building was remodeled in 1984. No action taken.
2.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
(continued
from February 12, 2007)
Discussion held. The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: Kevin McCauley
(owner). 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.
LMSD – Light Manufacturing Studio District
One-Story Type 5I Structure
Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
5.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage, Shed, Landscape
Structure Not Identified on Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
6.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
7.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on Historic Resources Inventory
Chair Fresco noted that she would like to see more
information about this structure.
Commissioner Lehrer noted that the building is a classic
period piece but probably does not rise to the level of a landmark.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan made a motion for staff to provide
the Commission with more information about the property. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
8.
R3 – Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
4-Unit Apartment Complex with Garage
Structure Not Identified on Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. No
action taken.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to move up Discussion Item
11-A after the demolitions were discussed.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
9.
R3 – Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
4-Unit Apartment Complex with Garage
Structure Not Identified on Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
10-B. Landmark
Designation Application, 06LM-009, 200–1500 block of
Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if the consultant’s report was
submitted to the Recreation and Parks Commission for any comments. Ms. Yeo responded that the report was given
to their staff liaison.
Commissioner Berley asked staff to get information on the
Peace Tree that was dedicated on April 22, 1983.
10-C. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application, 07CA-001 and Sign Adjustment 07ARB-074 at
The Commission made ex
parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Yeo gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the Certificate
of Appropriateness and the sign adjustment.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan asked staff if a wood header is on
the window where the awning will be attached.
Steve Jones, the architect on the project, stated that there will be an attachment
to a header on the inside of the awning.
She asked Mr. Jones if the awning will cover the face of the vertical
chevron elements. Mr. Jones responded
that two penetrations will be on the outer frame on either side of the chevron
pattern. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan noted
that the menu board looks like it is 64” from the base of the building or the
top of the wainscot; however, the board in the drawing is 53” from the
bottom. Mr. Jones responded that he will
check the dimensions and correct any errors; he added that the menu board could
be lowered.
Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Jones if he considered light
fixtures which would be more deco in character.
Mr. Jones responded that the applicant is trying to stay true to the
aesthetic of a French brasserie.
The following members of the public addressed the
Commission: Yuwen Peng (project architect).
Chair Fresco stated that she liked the blade sign and that moving
the door on the west elevation is a good idea.
She noted that the awnings block the zigzag detail of the street view
and the globes on the light are too round and not elongated. She stated that she is unable to support the application
because of the awnings.
Commissioner Genser stated that he had objections to the
sign and awnings. He also stated that
the lighting should be more deco in its orientation.
Commissioner Berley stated that he does not have any
objections to the project. He noted that
the awnings are reversible. He also
noted that the Commission should give buildings as much life as possible.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that she liked the blade
sign and does not have any objection to moving the door on the west
elevation. She stated that she is
concerned about the awnings because she likes the repetition of the deco
element above each door. She noted that
the menu board should be lowered so that it is readable and the lights are
acceptable because they are differentiated from the original building.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that the sign is the strongest
aspect of the design but has regrets about the awnings as the doorway entry is
a strong design element of the building.
Commissioner Shari stated that the awnings are in keeping
with the theme of the adaptive use of the restaurant; however, the globes on
the lights are too round for the vertical space. She supports the project.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to approve the Certificate
of Appropriateness. Commissioner Shari
seconded the motion.
A roll call was held and the motion to approve the
Certificate of Appropriateness by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
NAYS: Fresco
11.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
11-A. Discussion on whether to file an
application to nominate 227 Broadway as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit. (continued from February 12, 2007)
The Commission
made ex parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Yeo gave an
update on the memo that was written to the Commission; the owner expressed
support for filing an application to nominate the property as a landmark but
was concerned that any action taken does not affect the Big Blue Bus transit
store project.
Commissioner
Berley made a motion to continue this item until the permits have been issued
for the work that is going to be done regarding the tenancy of the Big Blue
Bus.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to hear the late chits from Messrs. Aslanian and
Washer. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
seconded the motion.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Sam Aslanian, Warren Washer.
Chair Fresco
asked Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum if the Commission has any jurisdiction
regarding building permits, street-use permits, public right-of-way permits,
etc. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
responded that any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, and
demolition are prohibited upon the filing of a landmark application and no
permits shall be issued; if permits have already been issued, the law requires
that the work not proceed.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff if there is any record of the two prior rejections regarding
landmarking of this property. Chair
Fresco advised that she has notes on the property from the Landmarks Commission
meeting in June, 1985 in which the building was up for designation; David
Cameron cited a December 10, 1892 article from the Santa Monica Outlook
newspaper, “The improvements are quite credible. The three-story brick block of H.W. Keller is
now in the hands of plasterers and in a few weeks it will be completed at the
cost of about $25,000.00.” Chair Fresco
noted that the Landmarks Commission approved a resolution to reconsider
designating the Keller Block building in 1977, implying a third consideration
prior to 1977.
Commissioner
Genser noted that the building may have had stucco on the outside; the stucco
was removed which is why the bricks are exposed.
Chair Fresco
stated that the Architectural Review Board Liaison alerted the Commission to
changes that the Big Blue Bus was going to make and was concerned about these
changes. She asked if the Commission
feels comfortable moving forward with the Big Blue Bus project.
Commissioner
Berley stated that he would like to modify the previous motion to continue the discussion
of this building until staff has been informed that the work is completed on
the Big Blue Bus project. Commissioner
Genser seconded the motion. The motion
was approved by voice vote.
11-B. Discussion regarding the City’s policy for
replacement of street lamps and sidewalks. (continued
from January 8, 2007)
Commissioner
Bach noted that if the City is replacing sidewalks, it is a simple matter to
incorporate the existing sidewalk scoring pattern and that policies be put in
place to help preserve this visual landscape.
City Council
Liaison McKeown noted that solving the problem will be a matter of education
and sensitivity. He suggested that the
Commission add this to the upcoming Land Use Element.
Chair Fresco
advised that a report from Craig Perkins, Director of Environmental and Public
Works Management, stated that they have a policy of replacing street lamps in
kind if they were historic; however, when a representative from that department
came to speak to the Landmarks Commission a long time ago, the speaker stated
that the department will decide the style of street lamp to be installed if a
large area will be developed. City
Council Liaison McKeown advised that there is some loss of institutional memory
because the City has a
Commissioner
Berley suggested that the subcommittee, who will make recommendations to staff about
the Land Use Element, reconvene to review the document that was previously
produced and modify it to include new elements in this discussion. He noted that this document should be distributed
to all of the Commissioners so that they could make suggestions. Chair Fresco noted that Commissioners Berley
and Genser and Chair Fresco were on the committee.
11-C. Appointment
of Three Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Residents to Serve
Two-Year Terms on the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District’s Citizen’s
Participation Committee (CPC).
Chair Fresco
stated the criteria in which she based her recommendations. She nominated Maria Godfrey, Ed Harker, and Lawrence
Graber.
Commissioner
Genser noted that there should be geographic diversity in the nominations.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that Ms. Godfrey has an excellent application, Mr. Graber has
negotiation/conflict resolution experience and is active with community
outreach, and Deborah Levin is a property owner who is familiar with old house
problems. She noted that several of the
applicants have had projects reviewed recently and the timing would not be
right for them to join this group right now.
Chair Pro
Tempore Kaplan nominated Mr. Graber, Mr. Harker and Ms. Godfrey; however, she
would be comfortable with Mr. Graber, Ms. Godfrey, and Ms. Levin. The Commission discussed the nominations and
noted that ownership is irrelevant since there are long-term, stable renters
and that a design professional should serve on the Committee.
Chair Fresco
noted that the purpose of the CPC is to receive and broadcast City notices,
organize meetings, and take notes; the CPC should consist of people who work
well together and are interested in making sure that as many people as possible
attend the meetings. She noted that
since Mr. Graber and Ms. Godfrey are not property owners, they may be able to
be more objective since they will not be seen as holding a position and being a
threat.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to nominate Mr. Graber, Ms. Godfrey, and Ms. Levin. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.
A roll call was held and the motion to approve the
Certificate of Appropriateness by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
11-D. Discussion of possible meeting or other
communications between the Landmarks Commission and the Pier Restoration
Corporation regarding the Pier Access Improvement project.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that it was not clear to him during the last
meeting if it would be appropriate for the Commission to meet with the Pier
Restoration Corporation (PRC); the City Attorney advised it would be
problematic as the Commission will be operating in a quasi-judicial function and
should not be viewed as pre-judging the project. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
recommended that the Commission review the project when it comes before them.
Chair Fresco
asked Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum if the Commission could remain
impartial if the PRC gave their report and the Commission only asked questions. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded
that the Commission’s decision should only be based upon evidence and materials
that are presented at the time the project is reviewed by this body. He noted that there are certain exceptions;
the Commission should use ex parte
communications in revealing those communications.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin.
Commissioner
Lehrer noted that the PRC and the Landmarks Commission should have communicated
before alternatives were crystallized and that it is unfortunate that the
Commission cannot speak to members of the PRC regarding issues such as access,
traffic, signage, etc. She stated that
Mr. Franz-Knight’s presentation was very
informative. Commissioner
Lehrer stated that she attended only one PRC meeting; she wanted them to know
that a member of the Landmarks Commission attended the meeting and that the
Commission would like to speak to the PRC about this issue. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that
a presentation will be made to this body when the Commission reviews the
Certificate of Appropriateness; the problem would be what happens after the
presentation.
Commissioner
Berley stated that issues the Commission has regarding the project will be
rendered moot because the PRC thought these issues did not need to come before
the Commission. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum noted that an environmental document has been completed but has not
been certified and that the Commission commented on the adequacy of the
document. Commissioner Berley asked
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum if the Certificate of Appropriateness could be
appealed once a decision has been made.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded in the affirmative and
clarified that the matter would be appealed to the City Council.
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to continue after 11:00 p.m. Chair Fresco seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
11-E. Consideration of Resolution amending the
Landmarks Commission rules of order to increase the time that owners are
allotted to speak on potential landmark and structure of merit designations
that are not initiated by the property owner.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that Rule 14(b) establishes that a project
applicant shall be allowed five minutes initially and three minutes in rebuttal
to conclude a public hearing; it is silent on the property owner to address the
Commission when the property owner is not the applicant. He stated that the Commission discussed this
omission at the February 12, 2007 Landmarks Commission meeting and directed the
City Attorney’s office to come back with a possible amendment to the rules
which would establish that the property owner be given the same opportunity to
speak as the applicant; therefore, the proposed change is on Pages 11 and 12 of
the Resolution.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff to identify the “application proponent.” Ms. Yeo responded that the “application
proponent” could be a supplemental speaker.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum advised that the verbiage should be
changed to “his or her representative.”
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to adopt the language in the Rules of Order as
modified. Chair Fresco seconded the
motion.
A roll call was held and the motion to approve the Resolution
by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
11-F. Discussion regarding criteria used by the
City’s consultants in the assessment of potential landmark designations.
This item was continued
to another meeting.
11-G. Correction to Third Street Neighborhood
Historic District Map to properly reflect that
Ms. Yeo stated
that this was an information item.
11-H. 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 advised the Commission that the City Council was going to hear
the City’s own application for a temporary office behind City Hall on February
13, 2007. That will now be heard on
March 13, 2007.
The City
Council heard an appeal for the Certificate of Appropriateness for
The Commission
has been asked to provide input into designing space in the old City jail. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that he
is not sure if this is under the Commission’s purview since it will not change
the external space.
11-I. 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 ARB approved modifications and colors to the building
where the Zucky’s sign is located. He
explained that one week prior to the Landmarks Commission filing an application
to nominate the Zucky’s sign as a landmark, the ARB approved a change in the
color of the pylon to green. He stated
that he was told that the ARB was not reviewing the color of the pylon, which
was not in the ARB’s purview, and the color they approved was the color that is
currently on the pylon. A Certificate of
Appropriateness would currently be required if the applicant proposed a change
in the color of the pylon. Commissioner
Berley asked the City Land Use Attorney to investigate whether the current color
is the color which was landmarked and if the matter should have come before the
Landmarks Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that Commissioner Berley may want to make this a
topic of discussion for the next meeting.
11-J. Planning Commission Case List (Information
Only).
12.
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS:
12-A. E-mail from Anthony Hirsch regarding the
project at
Ms. Yeo
reported that this is an active code compliance case in regard to whether the
fence was built with or without permits; a code compliance officer is doing
research. Ms. Yeo also reported that the
fence did receive a Certificate of Administrative Approval.
13.
FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS: (Requests from
Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)
Commissioner
Genser asked staff to provide a status report on the Shotgun House.
Commissioner
Berley asked to agendize whether or not the current color of the Zucky’s sign
should come before the Landmarks Commission for a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Chair Fresco
asked to discuss amending the CPC Resolution to clarify their function and to
agendize discussion of filling the vacant Landmark Commissioner’s seat.
14.
NEXT MEETING
DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting: 7:00 PM Monday, April
9, 2007; City
15.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner
Genser made a motion to adjoin the meeting at 11:29 pm on Monday, March 12,
2007. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the
motion. The motion was approved by voice
vote.