|
|
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
LANDMARKS
COMMISSION
|
|
|
Founded 1875 “Populus
felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 11, 2008 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 7:11 pm.
1.
ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John Berley
Roger Genser
Nina Fresco,
Chairperson
Barbara
Kaplan, Chair Pro Tempore
(arrived at 7:14 pm)
Ruthann Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Susan Umeda,
Staff Assistant III
2.
REPORT FROM
STAFF:
Ms. Tanemori
presented an update on appeals that will go before City Council and advised the
Commission about a community meeting to discuss improvements to
Chair Fresco
asked staff to provide a report on
Commissioner
Genser asked staff for the status of the temporary addition to City Hall. Ms. Tanemori responded that this item will
need to be discussed again at the City Council.
City Council Liaison McKeown added that a report he received that day regarding
this project addresses the potential use of the courtyard.
3.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner
Lehrer reported on the Land Use and Circulation Element workshop regarding the City’s
boulevards held on February 9, 2008.
Commissioner Bach
announced that she recently attended in an advisory capacity a meeting
regarding a significant school district project to renovate public schools in
Chair Fresco
announced that the City dedicated a plaque on February 7, 2008 at
4.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
4-A. January
14, 2008
The Commission
made several corrections to the January 14, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Genser made a motion to approve
the minutes with corrections.
Commissioner Shari seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
5.
APPROVAL OF
STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
5-A. Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 07CA-012, 370
Commissioner Genser made a motion to approve the Statement
of Official Action for the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 07CA-012. Chair Pro Tempore
Kaplan seconded the motion. The motion
was approved by voice vote.
5-B. Landmark
Designation Applications 07LM-008 and 07LM-009, denying the applications to
designate the mature Ficus trees located on the east and west sides of Second
and Fourth Streets between
Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the Statement
of Official Action for the denial of Landmark Designation Applications 07LM-008
and 07LM-009 for the ficus trees located on the east and west sides of Second
and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Commissioner Bach seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
5-C. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 07CA-004,
Commissioner Bach made a motion to approve the Statement of
Official Action technically denying the Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 07CA-004 for
5-D. Landmark
Designation Application, 07LM-005,
Chair Fresco
reported that the Commission received a letter from Kevin Kozal regarding the
use of the structure. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum suggested that the purpose of the letter is for the law firm
to reflect their client’s position that the designation does not protect a
particular use of the building; he stated that the letter does not ask the
Commission to do anything.
Chair Pro
Tempore Kaplan asked if the pattern on the terrazzo floor is original. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the terrazzo
floor pre-dates the removal of the ticket booth which was carefully filled in.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to approve Landmark Designation Application 07LM-005 for
Commissioner
Berley made a motion to hear Item 9-A.1 through 9-A.9 prior to hearing old
business. Commissioner Lehrer seconded
the motion. The motion was approved by
voice vote.
6.
PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not
on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission): None
7.
CONSENT
CALENDAR: None.
8.
OLD BUSINESS:
8-A. Landmark
Designation Application, 07LM-004,
The Commission made ex
parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission
designate the structure at
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
Jay Johnson, who supports designation of this structure and supports the
designation of a historical district in this area.
Commissioner Shari stated that there are few Craftsman
properties in the original townsite of
Commissioner Lehrer stated that she agrees with the staff
report and that she is intrigued by the fact that the two adjacent bungalows
seem as if they were built together, perhaps for one family.
Commissioner Bach stated that she appreciated the detailed
staff report, particularly the effort that was made to put this item in a
broader context. She stated that this
structure represents the first wave of urban development in this neighborhood
of
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that the structure broadened
her understanding of this area of the City.
She stated that this is an important structure.
Commissioner Bach made motion to approve Landmark
Designation Application 07LM-004 designating both the main structure and parcel
based on Criteria 1 and 4. The rear
building was excluded from the designation. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan seconded
the motion with an amendment to include a statement regarding the retaining
wall on the property.
A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Genser, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer,
8-B. Landmark
Designation Application, 07LM-011,
The Commission made ex
parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori
presented the staff report. Staff
recommended that the Commission designate the structure on
Commissioner
Genser asked staff why the PCR report stated that the structure could be
memorialized with a plaque if the structure is not designated. Ms. Tanemori responded that it was Mr.
Kappe’s opinion that a plaque would serve as appropriate commemoration for what
happened at the subject property.
Commissioner Genser asked staff if Mr. Kappe supports designation. Ms. Tanemori responded that a description of
the interview with Mr. Kappe is contained in the consultant’s report.
Commissioner
Bach stated that the staff report discounts any architectural features of the
structure. She asked staff why the band
of windows, which is a beautiful expression of a late Bauhaus, mid-century
fenestration pattern, was discounted in the report. Ms. Tanemori responded that the consultant
found that the building itself did not rise above other comparable industrial
buildings located in the area.
The following members
of the public addressed the Commission: John Arnold, owner representative, who
stated that the owner is supportive of cultural designation but the site and
building should not be designated.
Chair Fresco
stated that the Commission does not have at this time any power to discuss
establishing a kiosk or monument at the site.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that a structure does not need to rise to a high level of
architectural value, but it does need to be a representative example of a type
of architecture. Commissioner Lehrer
stated that this structure meets this criterion as it comes from the Bauhaus
tradition because of the simplicity of its design, its geometry and its band of
windows.
Chair Fresco
noted that almost all of the industrial buildings in the City are one-story
brick buildings with vaulted curved ceilings.
She stated that
Commissioner
Genser stated that if the structure did not have a relationship with SCI-Arc,
the Commission might not consider this building worthy of designation.
Chair Pro
Tempore Kaplan stated that the history of the structure has two periods: the
Drescher period and the SCI-Arc period and that the Drescher period may have
enough significance to designate the building as a cultural landmark. She
noted that the building evolved into a culturally-inventive space.
Chair Fresco
stated that the style of the building and its open plan has a lot to do with
what has happened at the site. She also stated that industrial buildings are an
important part of the City of
Commissioner
Bach noted that the Commission is understating of the importance of this
structure since it embodies many strands of
Commissioner
Shari stated that
Commissioner
Genser stated that the staff report did not state that the structure met
Criterion 4. He asked Commissioner Bach
if the Statement of Official Action should include Criterion 4. Commissioner Bach responded in the
affirmative because there is a lot of historic fabric left; the design intent
together with the expression of horizontality and proportionality are still
left on the structure.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the structure is unique as there are not a lot of
comparables in
Commissioner
Bach made a motion to approval of the Landmark
Designation Application 07LM-011 at
A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Genser, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer,
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 Commission made ex
parte communication disclosures.
1.
R3 – Medium Density Multiple Family Residential
Single Family Residence & Doctor’s Office
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. No
action taken.
2.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence & Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
3.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence & Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
4.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence & Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
5.
R4 – High Density Multiple Residential
Single Story Multi-Family Residence
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
6.
R4 – High Density Multiple Residential
Single Story Multi-Family Residence with Pool
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
7.
R4 – High Density Multiple Residential
Single Story Multi-Family Residence
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
8.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Guest House
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan requested more information from
staff. She stated that this structure
has a lot of integrity.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan made a motion to continue this item
and asked staff to provide more information.
Commissioner Shari seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
9.
OP2 –
Single Family Residence
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action
taken.
10.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
10-A. Consideration whether to file a Structure
of Merit or City Landmark application for the property located at
Chair Fresco
reported that the Commission received a letter from the owner of the property
requesting the Commission file a Structure of Merit or City Landmark
application.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Andrew Lauer, the owner of the
property, who asked the Commission to file a Structure of Merit application.
Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Lauer why he is asking the Commission to file a Structure of
Merit application rather than a Landmark application. Mr. Lauer responded that a Structure of Merit
designation appears to be a more appropriate designation for the house and the
process is less stringent than the other designation category.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Lauer if he is aware that the obligations that he would have
under the Mills Act contract are stringent.
Mr. Lauer responded in the positive.
Commissioner
Bach stated that the Structure of Merit designation is a wonderful vehicle for
encouraging preservation because it broadens the number of structures that can
embrace the values of preservation without having to rise to the level of
landmark status.
Commissioner
Berley stated that a Structure of Merit designation will create an incentive
for owners to maintain valuable historic resources that do not meet landmark
status since it will allow the Mills Act process to have a broader reach; a
Structure of Merit designation could work positively for both owners and the
City.
Chair Fresco, Chair
Pro Tempore Kaplan and Commissioners Bach and Berley encouraged the owner to
file a designation application since the Commission has limited resources and
has already identified a proactive nomination list that is focused on the
downtown area.
Commissioner
Berley stated that the Commission needs to address resources which have already
been identified as important. He noted
that the Commission is also looking at other resources that are brought before
the Commission’s through the demolition process. Commissioner Berley encouraged the property
owner to file the application.
No action was
taken by the Commission.
10-B. Presentation and discussion regarding the
revised project plans for the adaptive reuse of the Mayfair Theater located at
210-216 Santa Monica Boulevard, currently being reviewed by the City’s
Architectural Review Board.
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to hear this item after Item 10-I. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
Chair Fresco
made a motion to grant the applicant 15 minutes to address the Commission. The motion was approved by voice vote.
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission: Robert Chattel, David Hibbert
and Marcello Vavala. Messrs. Chattel and
Hibbert made a presentation to the Commission about the revised design. Mr. Vavala asked the Commission why an
Environmental Impact Report was not required for this project and that the
Santa Monica Conservancy is concerned about the incompatibility of the previous
project design; however they have not yet examined the revised project being
introduced that evening.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Chattel if the scalloped balcony still exists. Mr. Chattel responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner
Genser thanked Messrs. Chattel and Hibbert for addressing the Commission. Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Chattel about
the shoring and stabilization plan for the project. Mr. Chattel responded that the team’s approach
will be sensitive to the historic façade; however the structure will need to be
stabilized during construction.
Commissioner Genser stated that the Commission will want to review the
shoring and stabilization plan. Mr.
Chattel agreed that the project team wants to return to the Landmarks
Commission to discuss that aspect of the project so that everyone knows what to
expect.
Commissioner
Berley asked Mr. Chattel what kind of treatment to the marquee is planned. Mr. Chattel responded that the recommendation
is to restore the marquee to the 1929 to 1939 periods.
Commissioner
Berley asked Mr. Chattel if there is a plan to reincorporate the pylon-type
sign at the corner. Mr. Chattel
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Berley asked Mr. Chattel if that will require a sign
adjustment. Mr. Chattel responded that
he did not know whether an adjustment would be needed.
Chair Fresco
asked Mr. Chattel to explain how the historic building connects to the new
structures. Mr. Chattel described aspects
of the new construction that relate to the historic facade. These features
include the movement of the units
forward to engage the existing façade; the reflection of the rhythm and
proportions of the historic façade in the new construction; the restoration or
reconstruction of the first 24-feet of wall along the alley elevation to give a
sense of the historic massing of the original building; and the selection of
compatible materials for the new construction. Chair Fresco noted that the white
color shown for new structure behind the façade does not create a relationship
with the historic building; she suggested that the color should be more muted.
Commissioner
Berley commended the applicant for their work on this project. He stated that the effort to give the façade
a sense of mass is an important aspect of the redesigned project. He stated that the new intervention is more
quiet and respectful. He also noted that he liked the treatment of the alley
elevations, the palette of materials, and the unifying elements and proportions
of the composition.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Hibbert to describe the ground floor use of the
Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that since the structure was damaged by the
Northridge earthquake, the City entered into a settlement agreement with the
property owner in which the owner agreed to keep the front façade and the City
agreed to relinquish its discretion to deny a demolition permit for the
property except for the front façade. He
also stated that the proposed project has already received administrative
approval and the only aspect of discretion relates to design review.
Commissioner
Genser stated that the Landmarks Commission does not have purview over this
project; the agreement states that the Architectural Review Board will be the
governing body over this project.
10-C. Discussion regarding timeframes,
procedures, and outreach to residents concerning potential nomination of a
Historic District in the South Beach Tract neighborhood (approximately bounded
by Hollister Avenue, Ocean Park Boulevard, Barnard Way, and Neilson Way),
including a report from the ad-hoc subcommittee of Commissioners formed to make
recommendations on this matter.
Commissioner
Genser stated that he had a brief conversation with one of the participants who
said the residents are still discussing this issue.
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 presented updates on the City Hall Space Planning Efforts,
appeals to the City Council, the Green Building Guideline ordinance, a recent
community meeting for a proposed project at
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.
Commissioner
Berley reported that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended that the
owner of
10-F. Discussion of schedule for City Council’s next budget cycle and possible formulation of recommendations to the City Council regarding funding, staffing and implementation of the Historic Preservation Element.
City Council Liaison McKeown reported that this item will go before the City Council on February 19, 2008. He stated that a priority list from the Commission must be written prior to the meeting.
Chair Fresco stated that the work list for staff should include the following: [1] the production of information brochures; [2] workshops for the land use element; [3] support for Mills Act contracts, designations, etc.; [4] training for staff and Commissioners; [5] the addition to staff; [6] the production of a plaque program; [7] the maintenance of detailed consultants reports; [8] the creation of TDRs; [9] funds to complete the Historic Resources Inventory; [10] the reduction of application fees; and [11] training staff in the use of the state historic building code.
Chair Fresco stated that she would write a letter to the City Council with the suggestions listed above.
10-G. Discussion and potential formulation of a request to City Council for funding to retain a consultant to develop and implement a process to prepare an update to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that there has been a lot of controversy in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District because of an inadequate regulatory framework which does not embody the intent of the historic district. She stated that hiring a consultant would be very helpful.
Ms. Tanemori stated that the Planning Manager and staff feel that a consultant will be necessary in this process. She stated that the guidelines will need to reflect a broader community consensus about what is appropriate for the district today.
Chair Fresco suggested that a consultant/facilitator could conduct a study of the situation and recommend a course of action to the Commission.
Commissioner Bach suggested that the Commission define the scope of the consultant’s work before deciding to change the guidelines.
10-H. Discussion and potential appointment of Landmarks Commissioners to address the City Council on pending appeals of Landmarks Commission determinations regarding 2642 2nd Street scheduled on February 12, 2008; the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets scheduled on February 19, 2008; and 2219 Ocean Avenue scheduled on February 26, 2008.
Commissioner Berley stated that he will
represent the Landmarks Commission for
10-I. Discussion regarding the format and content of Landmarks Commission meeting minutes.
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to combine Item 10-I and 10-L. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
After a
lengthy discussion regarding meeting minute formats and the importance of
providing a detailed account of the Commission’s action when decisions are
appealed to the City Council, Commissioner Lehrer suggested that the Commission
try abbreviated minutes which do not eliminate all substance but are more
concise. She also suggested that if there is an appeal, the level of detail of current
minutes should be included in the staff report that goes to the City
Council.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion that the Commission adopts a format for the minutes which
is more abbreviated and concise than current minutes and that a detailed
Commission discussion should be reserved for appeals that go before the City
Council. Commissioner Berley seconded
the motion. The motion was approved by
voice vote.
Commissioner
Bach suggested that Chair Fresco write a letter to the City Clerk stating the
Commissioners should be given additional speaking time to address the City
Council when Landmark Commission decisions are appealed. Commissioner Genser also suggested that Chair
Fresco communicate with other commission chairs in regard to granting commissioners
additional time when an appeal is brought before the City Council.
10-J. Planning Commission Case List (Information
Only).
10-K. Discussion and potential formulation of recommendations to
City staff to forward to the City Council regarding annual Landmark Designation
Application fee increases and application filing requirements.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission: Marcello Vavala, who supports a reduction of fees.
Chair Fresco requested that the
City Council reduce the fees to $500.00 and that fees be reviewed periodically
in lieu of automatic cost-of-living increases.
She also suggested that staff produce the radius map and labels for
public notices instead of the applicant.
Commissioner Genser made a motion
to adopt Chair Fresco’s suggestions.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
10-L. Discussion and potential recommendation to
the City Council requesting that representatives from City Boards or Commissions
be allotted additional speaking time during public comment when an appeal of its
decision is heard by the City Council. (NF)
This item was included in the discussion for Item 10-I.
11.
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS: None.
12.
FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS: (Requests from
Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)
Commissioner
Bach asked staff to agendize a discussion regarding demolition protocol and a
discussion regarding a system of markers across the City.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked staff to provide the Commission with information about city
inspections and follow-up for violations to Mills Act contracts.
Chair Fresco
asked staff to agendize a discussion regarding the formation of a sub-committee
to monitor the changes to City Hall, and an item regarding landscaping and
landmark properties.
Commissioner
Shari asked staff to agendize a discussion regarding the formation of a
sub-committee to consider the loss of the potential historic San Vicente
corridor.
Ms. Tanemori reminded
the Commission of the list of pro-active nominations that are still pending.
13.
NEXT MEETING
DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting: 7:00
PM Monday, March 10, 2008; City
14.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner
Shari made a motion to adjourn the meeting on February 11, 2008 at 10:59
pm. Commissioner Bach seconded the
motion. The motion was approved by voice
vote.