|
|
||
|
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
|
|
|
|
Founded 1875 “Populus
felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 9, 2009 6:00
PM |
City
Council Chambers, Room 213 |
|
|
|
CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The Commission was called to order at
6:13 pm.
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.
PRESENTATION
OF FINAL REPORT AND SUMMARY FINDINGS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE
CITY’S HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY FROM CONSULTANT PROJECT TEAM ICF JONES
& STOKES.
Richard
Starzak and Peter Moruzzi from ICF Jones and Stokes gave a presentation of the
final report and summary findings from the comprehensive update to the City’s
Historic Resources Inventory.
Mr.
Starzak reported that the field survey, inventory forms, and final report have
been completed and that the consultants are finalizing the results with staff. He also reported that the research team
prepared new context statements, particularly for properties of a more recent
age, and that work on six newly-identified potential districts has been
completed. Mr. Starzak stated that some
of the tools that were used in preparing the surveys will be very useful for
future planning.
Mr.
Moruzzi summarized the findings within the final report, which includes the
executive summary, objectives, reports on various parts of the City, etc.
Mr.
Moruzzi stated that many structures on the new survey were not previously
identified because the timeline of the survey was expanded through 1968 and
many architectural styles that are on the new survey, such as Late Moderne,
were not previously explored. He stated
that new information was procured for various areas of the City such as the
south of Pico Boulevard/east of
Mr.
Moruzzi presented statistics regarding the findings on the survey and stated
that the consultants found approximately 200 structures which are eligible for
landmark status. Mr. Moruzzi stated that
the City has forty to fifty potential historic districts.
Mr.
Moruzzi described the forms which were created for the inventory, presented a
map showing the location of historic resources, and showed photographs of
landmarks and potential landmarks. Mr.
Moruzzi stated that a primary record and a building, structure, object record were
created for newly-identified properties.
Mr. Moruzzi described the newly-identified districts in various parts of
the City.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley asked staff to describe the medium in which the inventory
will be available to the public. Ms.
Tanemori responded that the inventory will be included on the City’s
webpage. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked
the consultants if the previous Inventory data and methodology influenced the
new survey. Mr. Moruzzi responded that
the evaluation code for a structure which was previously surveyed could be
revised and that potential districts identified in previous surveys were reevaluated
to determine whether they are still viable.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked the consultants if a new perspective was
used for properties which were evaluated in the previous surveys. Mr. Moruzzi responded in the positive and also
added that the previous survey’s context was used if it is still
appropriate. Chair Pro Tempore Berley
asked the consultants if every architect who is represented in
Commissioner
Genser asked the consultants if the
Commissioner
Lehrer asked the consultants to describe the criteria used to identify a
potential district. Mr. Moruzzi responded
that the criteria are included in a report for each potential new district. Commissioner Lehrer asked the consultants to
define the number of contributing structures to the potential
Ms.
Tanemori clarified that the consultants evaluated every parcel built prior to
1969, whether or not the structure was included in previous surveys. Mr. Moruzzi added that the only part of the
City which was not surveyed again was the north of Wilshire tract since it was
surveyed two years ago.
Commissioner
Bach stated that it is important to identify non-architectural features such as
streetscapes and infrastructure resources and asked the consultants to describe
how non-architectural features are recorded in the new survey. Mr. Moruzzi stated that the consultants
reconfirmed the information in the previous survey and added that street trees,
etc., that may be located within a district are included on district forms. Commissioner Bach asked the consultants if
these features are identified in the previous or new survey. Mr. Moruzzi responded that these types of
features were identified in the original surveys from the 1980s.
Commissioner
Fresco asked staff when the context statements will be available to the
Commission. Ms. Tanemori stated that she
will inform the Commission when the context statements are ready for
distribution since all of the data is still being reviewed and finalized.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked staff to describe the material that the Commission will receive. Ms. Tanemori responded that, once finalized,
the Commission will receive the Final Report which includes the updated and
expanded historic context statement and all of the summary tables, a copy of
the database printout, and copies of the newly-identified potential district
forms. She also noted that all of the
DPR forms for individual properties and districts are currently available.
Commissioner
Shari stated that the new inventory is a wonderful informational document and
tool and requested that the Commission provide staff with input regarding the
content of public outreach material and information to be provided on the City’s
website.
Commissioner
Genser stated that a structure’s historic status must be disclosed to a
potential buyer and asked staff to explain if the new inventory would
complicate the process. Ms. Tanemori
responded the disclosure procedure would not change; once the new Inventory is
finalized it will replace the current Inventory and be used in the same way.
Commissioner
Bach asked the consultants if there were any additions to the industrial lands
in the update. Mr. Moruzzi responded that
there very few properties added in the industrial lands.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff to agendize a discussion regarding opportunities for outreach
to the community.
Chair
Kaplan thanked the consultants for the presentation. She stated that the City of
3.
REPORT
FROM STAFF:
Ms.
Tanemori presented an update on pending City Council appeals.
4.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner
Genser announced that “L.A. Unfolded: Maps from the Los Angeles Public Library”
will be at the Los Angeles Central Public Library from December 6, 2008 through
March 29, 2009. He reported that old maps
of
5.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES:
5-A. January
12, 2009
The
Commission made corrections to the January 12, 2009 minutes. Ms. Tanemori stated that the draft minutes
need to be brought back to the Commission for review and approval.
6.
APPROVAL
OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Landmark
Designation Application 08LM-006,
Commissioner Fresco stated that it was
her understanding that the reason the Commission found Clo Hoover to be
significant was because of her relationship to the political ‘glass ceiling’,
because she was the first female mayor, served for fourteen years on the
Council, and she championed the participation of women and minorities in local political
discourse. Commissioner Fresco also
stated that she believed the Commission did not determine that her votes related
to issues such as the Santa Monica Bay and the Pier were part of her historical
significance since those votes were taken as part of her regular role as a
Councilmember. Commissioner Fresco reiterated that she voted for designation
based on what she understood to be a more narrow statement of significance as
opposed to what is contained the draft Statement of Official Action before the
Commission for approval this evening.
Commissioner Lehrer asked Commissioner
Fresco if she thinks it is appropriate to exclude from the Statement of
Official Action discussion of
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that both he and Ms. Tanemori reviewed the audio of the Commission’s
discussion and that the Statement of Official Action before the Commission
reflects the action the Commission took with respect to designation of
Commissioner Lehrer stated that one
association between Mayor Hoover and the subject property that was discussed by
the Commission was not included in the findings: Mayor Hoover used her home as an
office and conducted meetings and research related to her work as a
Councilmember at the property.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that while that association was discussed, staff listened to the audio
to confirm the basis for the motion to designate the property and it was not
elaborated upon further and was not relied upon as a rationale for the motion
to designate made by Commissioner Berley, which was then discussed further by
the Commission.
Ms. Tanemori stated that staff
carefully reviewed the audio of the meeting and stated that the Commission
found that the association between Ms. Hoover and the building was a result of
her long-term residency at the property and because she and her husband
developed the building, not because she may have conducted some work while
residing in the building.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that
some of the discussion regarding whether Mayor Hoover conducted work from her
residence could not be substantiated, though the Commission did discuss that it
seemed likely that Mayor Hoover would have conducted meetings and done
City-related work at her residence. However, Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated
that there was no factual evidence that had come to light, that he is aware of,
to substantiate these points. Finally,
he stated that the connection between
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that while there was oral evidence submitted suggesting that
Commissioner Genser made a motion to approve
the Statement of Official Action for Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006,
A roll call was held for the motion and
was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Genser, Kaplan,
Lehrer,
NAYS: Fresco
7.
PUBLIC
INPUT: (Public comment is permitted only on items listed on this agenda. No other business will be considered.)
8.
CONSENT
CALENDAR: None.
9.
OLD
BUSINESS:
9-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 March 9, 2009 Meeting)
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.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory
Commissioner Genser asked staff if
Commissioner Shari stated that there is
a preponderance of well-maintained Spanish-style homes in the area but would
not support filing a landmark designation application for this property because
Commissioner Bach stated that she is
reluctant to make a decision about the property without consulting the new
Historic Resources Inventory.
Commissioner Genser made a motion to
continue this item until March 9, 2009 and asked staff to provide information
about the property from the new Historic Resources Inventory. Commissioner Bach seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
2.
R2 – Low Density Multiple Residential
One-Story Wood Frame Duplex on Raised
Slab
Structure Not Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory
No action taken.
3.
OP3 –
Courtyard Apartment Building
Structure Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory
(Previously
designated by the Landmarks Commission on June 14, 2004. Designation overturned by the City Council on
July 26, 2005.)
The following members of the public addressed
the Commission: Ralph Mechur, representing the property owner, who stated that
he could answer questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Mechur if
the demolition is proposed in conjunction with the same project previously-proposed
for the site. Mr. Mechur responded in
the positive. Commissioner Genser stated
that it is unfortunate that the City Council overturned the designation and
strongly supports a landmark designation.
Chair Kaplan stated that it would be
unproductive for the Commission to review the structure again since a
designation would be overturned by the City Council. She recommended that the Commission should not
take action on this application.
No action taken.
11.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
11-A. Consideration
whether to file an application to designate the commercial building located at
11-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 Liaison McKeown presented
updates on
Chair Kaplan suggested that one
Commissioner should attend the February 10, 2009 City Council meeting to
address the budget. Chair Pro Tempore
Berley stated that he will attend the meeting.
Ms. Tanemori added that she will e-mail a copy of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Expo Light Rail project to the Commission
before the City Council meeting.
11-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 report for the design of apartments and
condominiums on
Commissioner
Lehrer complimented Commissioner Berley on his work with the Architectural
Review Board.
11-D. Preliminary
discussion regarding a Draft of the
Ms.
Tanemori stated that a regulatory review program must be drafted for
Ms.
Tanemori stated that the Recreation and Parks Commission will serve in an
advisory capacity. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum added that the Regulatory Review Program must be approved by
the Landmarks Commission, not the Recreation and Parks Commission.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff to describe the process by which the draft was created and to
identify staff involved in creating the document. Ms. Tanemori stated that few models exist in
which a separate document is drafted to address specific processes or
procedures for designated improvements such as parks or cultural landscapes. Ms. Tanemori added that staff reviewed the
interim exemptions that were provided by the Commission as a starting point and
met with Community and Cultural Services, Cultural Affairs, Community Forester,
and Community Maintenance staff to discuss the draft.
Commissioner
Genser noted that
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the section of the ordinance pertaining to Certificate of
Appropriateness review should be added to the document and that relocation of
elements within the park should be reviewed by the Commission.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley added that the Commission should review the relocation of
non-contributing elements within the park but does not need to review the
removal of non-contributing elements.
Commissioner
Lehrer suggested that any proposed work involving contributing features should
be placed on the Consent Calendar so that the Commission would be apprised of
any changes to the park.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley noted that the Commission does not typically review
maintenance schedules for any City Landmark and asked Commissioner Lehrer if there
should be an exception to this policy.
Commissioner
Lehrer responded that the Commission is now the steward of
Commissioner
Bach stated that the document proposes activities which are exempt from the
Certificate of Appropriateness process and activities which require a staff-approved
Certificate of Appropriateness. Commissioner
Bach suggested that the Commission should be notified of any activity that
would trigger a staff Certificate of Appropriateness review.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that Installation of New
Plaques is exempt from the Certificate of Appropriateness review. Ms. Tanemori stated that the City has a
tribute program and that a small plaque, which will be placed next to a bench
or water fountain, could be purchased; Ms. Tanemori stated that these plaques
would be exempt from a Certificate of Appropriateness review. Commissioner Lehrer stated that this is
acceptable to the Commission.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the Commission, not staff, should review the On-site relocation of Contributing Features
and the Installation of New Features,
Objects, or Landscapes. Ms. Tanemori
asked the Commission if there were additional subcategories that appear to be problematic. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the park
should not be cluttered with too many elements.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the replacement of contributing features, when it is not
reasonably feasible to repair the element, should be reviewed by the
Commission. Chair Kaplan stated that any
replacement or proposed work should meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
standards.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the attachment which lists “Contributing Longitudinal
Features” should include open green lawns in the park. Also, she stated that the walkway referenced
under “Paved Sidewalk” should refer to the curved walkway that is adjacent to
the fence on the west side of the park.
Commissioner
Lehrer made comments regarding an error in the North Section I and II maps of
Commissioner
Genser suggested that any change that the Commission reviews should be placed
on the Consent Calendar. Ms. Tanemori
stated that the Commission would review any proposal which staff does not
believe is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Commissioner
Bach stated that the hierarchy of individually-significant features should be
further clarified.
Commissioner
Shari asked staff to define “Temporary Exhibits.” Ms. Tanemori responded that the duration for
temporary exhibits is usually defined in guidelines already established through
other processes. In regard to public
art, Ms. Tanemori stated that the Arts Commission and staff have strict and
detailed review criteria for the selection and placement of art. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated
that the duration of an exhibit is linked to the Community Events Permit. Commissioner Shari stated that the Commission
should be notified of the placement of new exhibits in the park. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that there
are already safeguards in place regarding temporary exhibits and additional
review by the Commission could make the approval process more cumbersome. Commissioner Fresco stated that it is
important for the Commission to understand the Arts Commission process.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the Commission should review changes or replacements in the
park which are not in-kind. She added
that the Commission does not need to review landscape features that are diseased
or moved but the replacement plan developed by the landscape manager should be
reviewed by the Commission, especially if the replacement is not in-kind.
Chair
Kaplan suggested that the City use a historic consultant to review materials
since replacement of some of the contributing features would need to be
evaluated.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley suggested the following: [1] the Commission does not need to
be notified of the relocation or replacement of non-contributing features
unless they will be relocated within the park; [2] staff should review the
relocation or replacement of lesser-threshold elements of the park and inform
the Commission of their findings on the Consent Calendar; and [3] the
Commission should review major changes of contributing features in the park.
Chair
Kaplan stated that the installation of permanent non-contributing features
should also be reviewed by the Commission.
Commissioner
Bach stated that any improvements are part of a plan and budget process and suggested
that the Recreation and Parks Department suggested
that any improvements that are part of an annual plan by the Recreation and
Parks Department be submitted to the Landmarks Commission as a point of
information. Ms. Tanemori stated
that Installation of New Features, Objects,
or Landscape is prescriptive and defines what could be installed such staff
review or as an exemption.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff if there is a summary of the public art program
administrative guidelines. Ms. Tanemori
responded that she will provide that information to the Commission before the
next Landmarks Commission discussion of the park. Commissioner Genser stated that artists are
always looking for places to locate art and the Arts Commission carefully
considers the placement of art.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley stated that there are instances when the Commission should
review the Certificate of Appropriateness application and asked staff if the
Consent Calendar will provide sufficient oversight. Ms. Tanemori responded that the Consent Calendar
is reserved for review of discretionary applications which are not eligible for
staff approval and added that reporting out on staff-approved Certificates of
Appropriateness can be added noted as information items; the Commission could
agendize any item for future discussion.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the Commission should create a
mechanism to address any concerns about the park. Ms. Tanemori stated that there are still opportunities
to incorporate provisions into the Palisades Park Regulatory Review
Program to include Commission review.
Commissioner
Bach asked the Commission if there are any examples of other situations within
the City when there is an overlap of Commission interest. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the
regulatory review program was intended to act as a bridge between the Landmarks
Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission.
Ms.
Tanemori also clarified that she will be attending the Recreation and Parks
Commission on February 19, 2009 to provide an overview of the draft document
and answer questions. She stated that
she will not revise the document for the forthcoming joint meeting; rather her
intention is to provide a list of both Commissions’ comments so that both
bodies are discussing the same draft document at the joint meeting.
11-E. Information from staff regarding an update of the City’s urban forest master plan.
Ms. Tanemori provided information on the background material and current status of the RFP (Request for Proposal) for the update for a new urban forest master plan. She noted that the RFP provides discussion of the major categories of information to be included in the new plan, and it also notes that significant out reach to both the public and boards and commissions will be required for the establishment of the new plan.
Commissioner Genser asked staff if there is a heritage tree program being implemented. Ms. Tanemori responded in the negative.
Chair Kaplan stated that the RFP did not include a proposal for a heritage tree program and a heritage tree program should be included in the RFP.
Commissioner Genser stated that the
Commissioner Fresco stated that trees in a historic district should be replaced with historically-appropriate trees that would enhance the district.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff to explain the importance of biodiversity in the City. City Council Liaison McKeown responded that a monoculture of trees would be more susceptible to diseases that capitalize on the intense location and proximity of the same species; however, the City recognizes that the aesthetic value of allees of trees that are identical in species, size, etc., is somewhat lost.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff to explain
City policy regarding the mix in a tree canopy.
City Council Liaison McKeown responded that City policy does not define
the mix of trees. Chair Pro Tempore
Berley stated that certain parts of the City have allees of trees which are
character-defining features of the streetscape and stated that a balance must
be struck between biodiversity and the aesthetic value of the streetscape. Chair Pro Tempore Berley added that
Ms. Tanemori stated that the Community Forester would be willing to attend a Commission meeting to answer additional Commission questions prior to the implementation of outreach specifically for the forthcoming, new master plan.
11-F. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only).
12.
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS: None.
13.
FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests
from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)
Commissioner
Shari asked to agendize a discussion regarding the effectiveness of the
Structure of Merit designation.
Ms.
Tanemori reviewed future agenda items with the Commission.
14.
NEXT
MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Special Meeting: 6:00 PM Monday, March
9, 2009; City
15.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Bach made a motion to adjourn the meeting at
9:27 pm on February 9, 2009.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.