|
|
||
|
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
|
|
|
|
Founded 1875 “Populus
felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 12, 2009 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 7:04
pm in honor and memory of Councilmember Herb Katz.
1.
ROLL
CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John
Berley, Chair Pro Tempore
Nina
Fresco
Roger
Genser
Barbara
Kaplan, Chair
Ruthann
Lehrer
Ruth
Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Roxanne
Tanemori, Commission Secretary
Susan
Umeda, Staff Assistant III
2.
REPORT
FROM STAFF:
Ms.
Tanemori reported that Jones and Stokes Associates ICF will present the final
report and summary findings from the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory
Update during the February 9, 2009 Landmarks Commission meeting.
3.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
4.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES:
4-A. November
10, 2008 (Continued from the December 8,
2008 Meeting)
Commissioner
Bach made a motion to approve the amended November 10, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
4-B. December
8, 2008
The
Commission made several corrections to the December 8, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve
the December 8, 2008 minutes.
Commissioner Shari seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
5.
APPROVAL
OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: None.
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. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 08CA-018, 200 Santa Monica Pier, for design
approval of improvements to the Santa Monica Pier in conjunction with its 100th
Anniversary celebration in 2009 including reconstruction of the Carousel
building’s original ‘onion dome’ and restoration of period signage on the
building; installation of historic points of interest plaques; installation of
ocean-themed seating on the deck east of the Carousel building; and
installation of new necklace lighting around the Pier deck. (Continued
to the February 9, 2009 Meeting)
8-B.
Landmark
Designation Application 08LM-006,
Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion
to hear Item 9-A before Item 8-B.
Commissioner Bach seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori presented the staff
report. Staff recommended that the
Commission deny Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006 for
Commissioner Genser asked staff if
additional information from the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update is
forthcoming regarding the status of
Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if buildings
which are associated with historic personages were included in previous historic
surveys. Ms. Tanemori stated that buildings are typically identified during
field surveys based on their architectural merit; however, outreach and
attention has been given in the past to identifying buildings with other types
of significant associations.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher (owners’ representative), Robert Chattel (owners’
representative), Ty Wapato, Lily Ball, Stephen Dietrich, Shelby King, Dish
Taylor, Saundra Wooten, Chris Wallace, Bobbe Houston, Trevor Sterry, Sheriden
Dewees, Kenneth Morrison, Angela Ungurean, James Clark, Christina Clark, Jody
Hummer, and Louis Scaduto. Mr. Wapato, Ms.
Ball, Mr. Dietrich, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Wooten, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Houston, Ms.
Dewees, Ms. Ungurean, Ms. Hummer, and Mr. Scaduto supported the
nomination. Mr. Kutcher, Mr. Chattel, Ms.
King, Mr. Sterry, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Clark did not support the
designation. Mr. Kutcher presented the
rebuttal.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Mr.
Chattel to explain the reason why additional information or connection is required
if the person in question is identified as a historic personage. Mr. Chattel responded that the property must
be clearly associated with the person’s productive life.
Chair Kaplan asked Mr. Chattel if the
location of Mayor Hoover’s residence had an impact on her work as a City
Councilmember and Mayor. Mr. Chattel
responded that based on his professional opinion, the location of the property
did not influence her work since she is associated with a number of citywide issues.
As well, Mr. Chattel stated that other properties, such as City Hall or the
Santa Monica Pier, are associated with her contributions to the community.
Commissioner Fresco asked Mr. Wapato to
identify the artist of the sketch that he submitted to the Commission. Mr. Wapato responded that the sketch is
attributed to Joe Estep and was drawn in 1952.
Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Wapato if
the
Commissioner Genser asked Ms. Hummer to
clarify the criteria which she believes should be used to designate
Commissioner Bach asked staff if a Landmark
has been designated in the past solely on the basis of Criterion 3. Ms. Tanemori responded in the negative.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff if
National Register Bulletin 32 is typically used in a landmark evaluation. Ms. Tanemori responded that National Register
Bulletin 32 has been cited in assessment documents prepared by the City’s
consultants in the past. Chair Pro
Tempore Berley asked staff if National Register Bulletin 32 has been used to determine
whether or not an individual rises to the level of historic personage. Ms. Tanemori responded that the bulletin is
used to determine whether a person is significant and to establish the
relationship between the individual and the property.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that former
Mayor Clo Hoover is a significant historical personage because of the following:
[1] she broke the glass ceiling for women participating in local politics and
[2] conserving the scenic and historic aspects of
Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the
Commission should use the six criteria in the Landmark Ordinance for local designation
and stated that Bulletin 32 should only assist in the determination of a
historic personage. Chair Pro Tempore
Berley stated that
Commissioner Lehrer described the
architectural qualities of the structure and stated that the building is
consistent and harmonious with the courtyard architecture in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Fresco stated that the
Commission needs to separate their affection and respect for Mayor Hoover from her
actual political and social accomplishments which may have shaped the
community. Commissioner Fresco noted
that Mayor Hoover was
Commissioner Bach stated that any
building sited at
Commissioner Shari stated that Mayor
Hoover had a distinct vision for
Chair Kaplan stated that it is difficult
to recognize or understand Mayor Hoover’s contributions by walking past the
building and suggested that a plaque to commemorate her accomplishments is a
more appropriate way to honor her.
Chair Fresco noted that other improvements
were reviewed by the Commission in the past to commemorate other active members
of the community and those individuals were sometimes found to be important but
did not meet the threshold for Landmark designation; therefore, the Commission
must carefully evaluate potential significant historic personages.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that Mayor
Hoover’s significant achievements helped end discriminatory practices against
women who want to serve their community through public office. He stated that Mayor Hoover encouraged other women
to become community leaders by being an excellent example of a successful female
community leader. Chair Pro Tempore
Berley stated that no other area the City is similar to the transition from
Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion
to approve Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006,
Commissioner Genser stated that the
National Register Bulletin 32 is helpful because it gives the Commission
guidelines to determine the significance of a historic personage and it also
clarifies that a strong connection between the historic personage and the
building must be present. Commissioner
Genser stated that the location of Mayor Hoover’s residence could have influenced
her political views. Commissioner Genser
noted that former Councilmember and Mayor Dennis Zane, founder of the
Commissioner Lehrer stated that during
Mayor Hoover’s tenure, the issues concerning the future development of
Commissioner Fresco stated that the
designation should include Mayor Hoover’s excellent performance as a
councilmember and her ability to connect with her constituents. Commissioner Fresco also stated that her
significance is reinforced by the work she did in the community and her support
of many organizations such as the Red Cross.
Commissioner Fresco stated that she is unable to support the designation
based upon Criterion 6. However, Commissioner
Fresco stated that she could support the designation under Criterion 1 because of
the “Soviet Santa Monica” sign that was once on the building since it was
emblematic of the divisive topic of rent control which is part of Santa
Monica’s legacy, and because the property was built in response to the great
need for affordable housing during the 1950s when there was a housing shortage
due to a boom in the aerospace industry.
Chair Kaplan stated that Mayor Hoover
would be commemorated for the first time if
Commissioner Bach stated that she will
not support the designation of
Chair Kaplan stated that she, too,
finds the Teriton to be a much better example of 1950’s architecture and that
the relationship between the building and Mayor Hoover is not strong enough to
warrant designation. Chair Kaplan also stated
that while Clo Hoover should be recognized somewhere in the community, designating
301 Ocean Avenue would not be the best way to honor Mayor Hoover, in part,
because it is not the best representation of her contributions to the City.
Chair Fresco stated that she is in
support of the designation if Criterion 6 is eliminated from the motion.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a substitute
motion to approve Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006 for
A roll call was held for the substitute
motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Lehrer,
NAYS: Bach, Genser, Kaplan
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.
C-6 – Boulevard Commercial District
Automobile Repair Facility
Structure Not Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission: Scott Blake, who represented the owner. Mr. Blake stated that the building is being
demolished because of health and safety issues.
No action taken.
2.
R-1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family
Residence/Garage/Accessory Structure
Structure Not Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory
No action taken.
10.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
10-A. Discussion regarding Structure of
Merit designation application and Certificate of Appropriateness application
procedures and criteria.
Ms.
Tanemori stated that the Commission asked staff to clarify whether the 90-day
time period would apply to a Structure of Merit which was designated because it
is a contributor to a potential historic district and also meets at least one
other stand-alone criterion. Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum replied that the 90-day provision applies when the
structure is only identified as a contributor to a potential historic district and
stated that the 90-day rule would not apply if there is an independent basis,
apart from the structure’s contribution to a potential historic district, for
the Commission to designate the building.
Chair
Kaplan asked staff to clarify whether an applicant could apply for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition at any time. Ms Tanemori responded in the positive and
stated that the ordinance provides a time period for the Commission to work
with the property owner to formulate an alternative to demolition. Ms. Tanemori added that the designation would
stand in the absence of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition.
Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum added that Structure of Merit designation is a
lesser category than landmark designation, which is reflected in the statutory
provisions in terms of the type of work that could be done without requiring a
Certificate of Appropriateness. He added
that a Certificate of Appropriateness is only required if the applicant is seeking
to demolish the structure; additionally, he stated that the structure is
protected for up to one year before the applicant could demolish the structure
without a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff for recommendations about improving the Structure of Merit
ordinance. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum responded that the provisions could be clarified in regard to how the
provisions will be applied and suggested that the Commission consider a
category short of landmark that would provide a lesser protection than landmark
but greater protection than Structure of Merit.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the Commission discussed a lesser level of designation in
the recommendations for the Land Use and Circulation Element, which would preserve
the general features of the structure such as scale, massing, roofline, etc. Commissioner Fresco stated that the
Commission should address this issue in the near future.
Commissioner
Lehrer observed that the criteria for a Structure of Merit are more stringent
than the criteria for a landmark.
Commissioner Lehrer suggested that the Commission formulate an ordinance
that is more useful than the current one.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley stated that either a building rises to the level of
individual landmark or it contributes to an area that has a quality that should
be preserved. Chair Pro Tempore Berley
stated that the Structure of Merit designation could be more useful if the
Commission creates incentives for designation, such as relief for parking, code
requirements, etc., rather than considering the designation as a delay to
demolish the structure.
Chair
Kaplan stated that the Structure of Merit designations that were awarded in the
past couple of years have been related to a potential historic district. She suggested that the Commission formulate
incentives for residents to create a historic district.
Commissioner
Fresco suggested that the Commission submit a letter to the Planning Director
about the possibility of expediting revisions to the ordinance. Chair Kaplan suggested that this item be
continued to a future meeting.
10-B. 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 McKeown reported that Ken Genser was elected Mayor and that a memorial
service for Councilmember Herb Katz was held earlier that day. He added that the City Council has been asked
to augment a contract that would facilitate the creation of a website for the
Historic Resources Inventory, as part of a larger scope of work underway to
update the City’s entire website.
Commissioner
Bach asked City Council Liaison McKeown if the creation of a website for the
Historic Resources Inventory will be promoted through the City’s Seascape
publication. City Council Liaison
McKeown responded that the City will promote the new websites as they become
available to the public and suggested that the Commission could ask for a
budget item to publicize landmark-related issues.
10-C. 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 Pro Tempore Berley presented a
case of a single family residence to the Commission. He stated that this case raises the issue of
the changing built landscape in
Chair Pro Tempore Berley also reported
that the demolition of a church on
10-D. 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.
Commissioner Genser stated that the
budget should include funds for updating the Structure of Merit ordinance. He reported that Marsha Moutrie, City
Attorney for the City of
Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Ms.
Tanemori if she only works on landmark-related issues. Ms. Tanemori responded in the positive. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that
landmark-related work has increased over the past few years and suggested that
the budget include additional staffing to handle this work. Ms. Tanemori stated that a portion of an
Associate Planner’s time is also devoted to landmark-related issues. Ms. Tanemori added that she is unable to
determine the future program workload although she does acknowledge that the
complexity of the work has grown.
Commissioner Fresco stated that
brochures about landmark-related issues should be included in the budget. Commissioner Fresco stated that the budget should
include an allocation for six public benefit plaques for landmarks which are culturally-significant
places in the City.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that a
vehicle should be created so that landmarked buildings are recognized and that
the community understands the value of the built environment. He stated that landmarked properties are not
recognized because of a lack of identification and suggested that a plaque
program would help solve this problem.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley noted that the City relies on the property
owner to erect a plaque; however the property owner is usually a reluctant
participant and is not as enthusiastic about the designation as the Commission
and the community. Chair Pro Tempore
Berley suggested that the City provide plaques for landmarks within the City on
an incremental basis.
City Council Liaison McKeown stated
that private property owners are responsible for the any fees associated with
the erection of a plaque under existing City policy. City Council Liaison McKeown suggested that a
pilot program be created for publicly-owned properties that are landmarked to demonstrate
to the community that plaques are an attractive addition to the property.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley suggested
that the first step would be for the Commission to recommend that the City
provide plaques for all public buildings that have been designated.
Commissioner Genser suggested that a
pilot plaque program should encompass the downtown area. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that erecting
plaques on private buildings with public funds would be against existing
policy.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley suggested
that staff identify the number of public buildings which do not have plaques.
Commissioner Bach suggested that the
Commission develop a small outreach campaign to property owners about the
plaque program.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion
to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm.
Chair Kaplan seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that a
plaque should not be private property even if it is erected on a
privately-owned building. She stated
that a plaque is the public benefit of a landmark designation and is part of
the Citywide education and promotion program. Therefore, she stated that the City should
offer plaques to property owners.
City Council Liaison McKeown stated
that he will ask the City Council for a budget item to develop a plaque program
to improve the visibility of landmarks in
Chair Kaplan stated that the
Preservation Element will need to be revisited and modified after the Land Use
and Circulation Element is completed.
Chair Kaplan asked City Council Liaison McKeown if staff could modify
the existing plan. City Council Liaison
McKeown responded that the Commission should study the existing document and determine
if anything in the Preservation Element needs to be revised.
10-E. Discussion regarding potential scheduling of a Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission to begin at 6:00 PM on Monday, February 9, 2009 for a presentation from ICF Jones and Stokes regarding summary findings from the Citywide Update to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion to begin the February 9, 2009 Landmarks Commission meeting at 6:00 pm. The motion was approved by voice vote.
10-F. Discussion regarding potential scheduling of a Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission to begin at 6:00 PM on Monday, March 9, 2009 for a joint meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission to discuss a draft Regulatory Review Program for Palisades Park.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion to begin the March 9, 2009 joint meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission and the Landmarks Commission at 6:00 pm. The motion was approved by voice vote.
10-G. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only).
11.
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS: None.
12.
FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests
from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)
Chair
Kaplan asked staff to agendize a discussion regarding conservation districts
and Transfer of Development Rights.
Commissioner
Genser asked to agendize a discussion regarding filing a landmark designation
application for the medical building at
13.
NEXT
MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Special Meeting of the Landmarks
Commission: 6:00 PM Monday, February 9, 2009; City
14.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Genser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at
11:12 pm. Chair Pro Tempore Berley
seconded the motion. The motion was
approved by voice vote. Chair Kaplan
adjourned the meeting in memory of Councilmember Katz.