|
|
||
|
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
|
|
|
|
Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, June 8, 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
7:08 pm.
1.
ROLL
CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John
Berley, Chair Pro Tempore
Nina
Fresco
Barbara
Kaplan, Chair
Roger
Genser
Ruthann
Lehrer
Ruth
Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Roxanne
Tanemori, Commission Secretary
Scott
Albright, Senior Planner
Susan
Umeda, Staff Assistant III
Mark
Cuneo, Principal Engineer with the Public Works Department, made a presentation
regarding the Pier Infrastructure assessment study and its recommended urban
design program.
Mr.
Cuneo reported that the infrastructure assessment was completed in November
2008. He stated that the assessment
identified three phases of work: [1] the evaluation of existing infrastructure
conditions; [2] the creation of recommendations and cost schedules; and [3] the
evaluation of operations and maintenance guidelines.
In
regard to Phase I, Mr. Cuneo stated that visual inspection of the site
facilities of the pier was used to evaluate the existing infrastructure conditions. He stated that all of the information gathered
was entered into the Geographical Information System (GIS).
In
regard to Phase II, Mr. Cuneo stated that staff evaluated different portions of
upgrades such as fire, lighting, etc. together with a recommendation for a
comprehensive urban design theme. He
stated that the information was used to develop a ten-year capital improvement
plan and to guide funding and projects in the future.
In
regard to Phase III, Mr. Cuneo stated that staff evaluated current operations
and inspection guidelines.
Mr.
Cuneo stated that the Existing Conditions Report was extensive and includes a
new pile numbering system. In general,
Mr. Cuneo reported that the structural system is in fair to good condition with
a few exceptions; the utilities were in bad to poor condition and need to be
replaced; the fire protection system is relatively new and is in good condition
although there are a few deficiencies; and the electrical system is in fair
condition and will require maintenance.
In
regard to urban furnishings, Mr. Cuneo stated that staff evaluated garbage
cans, railings, curbs, etc. He stated
that the furnishings are in fair condition and will need maintenance. However, Mr. Cuneo stated that the
furnishings are uncoordinated which leads to maintenance problems.
Mr.
Cuneo reported that the information that was gathered was inputted into the
City’s GIS system. Mr. Cuneo described
the operation and the advantages to using GIS integration for management of the
project.
Mr.
Cuneo stated that the upgrade studies provided cost estimates to determine the
scope of the project, to improve the systems, and to prioritize the elements of
the project. He stated that systems which
were in poor condition will be given a higher priority for repair and
replacement. Mr. Cuneo described the
recommended upgrades for the pier such as lighting and utility systems. Mr. Cuneo also described the upgrades for the
structural, fire safety and utility systems.
Mr.
Cuneo stated that there are various systems and types of lighting at the pier
and described the various lighting systems.
He stated that the preferred necklace lighting will have a stainless
steel fixture which will go around the edge the pier; however, this fixture is
expensive and is not recommended for use.
He stated that the existing poles for the perimeter lighting will need
to be replaced and presented the Commission with a photograph of the
recommended fixture. He stated that
parking deck lighting will use a standard cobra-head fixture; this will be
recommended for the parking areas since it will provide enough lighting for
safety and security. He stated that the
inclusion of lighting on existing facilities is recommended for public gathering
areas.
Mr.
Cuneo stated that the urban design theme was created by Wallace Roberts &
Todd, LLC. He stated that the
consultants provided some visual clarity to improve comfort and maintenance
using a complementary family of furnishings and to utilize the furnishings to
direct circulation and define spaces.
Mr. Cuneo described the recommended upgrades to the urban furnishings
and added that some of the recommended furnishings have been used in other
areas of the City that have been good from a maintenance standpoint.
Mr.
Cuneo reported that there are a number of costs associated with different systems
and the systems will need to be prioritized as follows: [1] replace or repair
urgent elements; [2] upgrade structural elements; [2] upgrade fire safety
systems; and [4] upgrade utility systems.
He added that later phases include the remainder of structural, urban
design/architectural and lighting system upgrades.
Mr.
Cuneo stated that the phased project will span ten-years and have an
approximate cost of $27,000,000.00. He
added that structural upgrades will be implemented during each year. Mr. Cuneo described the elements of the
ten-year plan.
Mr.
Cuneo reported that the last phase of the report addressed operation and
maintenance guidelines. He stated that
the report is broken down into the following areas: [1] regular inspection
schedule, [2] routine maintenance and repairs; and [3] upgrade to the GIS
database.
Mr.
Cuneo stated that upgrades to the utility, fire, and structural are currently
in the design process. Mr. Cuneo stated
that a new “onion dome” on the Looff Hippodrome
Carousel building is also in the design phase.
Mr.
Cuneo stated that the Pier Infrastructure Assessment Study is on the City’s
website.
Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Cuneo to explain the structural
difference between the pier reconstruction in 1983 and the pier prior to the
reconstruction. Mr. Cuneo responded that
the piles are now made of concrete and added that the piles are unable to carry
the heaviest fire equipment safely. Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Cuneo to give the Commission the
status of the bridge and access to the parking lot. Mr. Cuneo responded that a draft EIR was
circulated a few years ago and is being coordinated with the Civic Center and
light rail project. Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Cuneo if the location of the benches will
affect the location of the commemorative plaques on the pier. Mr. Cuneo responded that he did not have that
information.
Commissioner
Fresco asked Mr. Cuneo to explain the reason that a different cobra lamp is
specified for the parking structure rather than the overhanging “tear drop” lamp
that is currently in use. Mr. Cuneo
responded that he agreed with Commissioner Fresco and added the pole will
likely be similar to the ones that are shown around the perimeter but the
fixture may be slightly different.
Commissioner Fresco stated that concrete trash receptacles are
practical. Commissioner Fresco stated
that trash receptacles, seating, lamps and picnic tables do not create a
unified theme and asked Mr. Cuneo if the urban design for the pier will have a
unified theme. Mr. Cuneo responded in
the positive and stated that the implementation of the themes will go through
additional design and design review. Commissioner
Fresco suggested that appropriate items should be selected for the pier and
that staff should not base any selections upon maintenance criteria alone.
Commissioner
Bach stated that the Pier Restoration Corporation (PRC) plans to install tables
by the Carousel; however, she suggested that the PRC delay a decision until a
consensus has been made since, in view of the broad recommendations, a specific
style has not been selected.
Commissioner Bach stated that the there were suggestions about the
location and mounting strategies of the plaques and stated that the design may
need additional refinement. She
suggested potential themes that could be used when refining the design.
Chair
Kaplan asked staff if security issues will affect the selection of the necklace
lighting. Mr. Cuneo responded that the
necklace lighting will be strictly decorative.
Chair Kaplan stated that she spoke to Ben Franz-Knight, Acting Executive Director
at Resource Management Pier Restoration Corporation,
who showed her mock-ups of the necklace lighting and asked Mr. Cuneo to comment
on the mock-ups. Mr. Cuneo responded
that the system Mr. Franz-Knight showed may be within the budget allotted for this
lighting; the recommended system is more expensive than the one Mr.
Franz-Knight showed. Chair Kaplan stated
that there is an overlap between the Centennial upgrades and the ten-year
infrastructure project. She suggested
that a liaison from this Commission to the Pier Restoration Corporation should
create a dialogue between the two bodies.
Mr. Cuneo stated that the PRC would welcome the involvement of the
Landmarks Commission.
Commissioner
Shari stated that urban furnishings will receive the least amount of
money. She asked Mr. Cuneo if the urban
furnishings will be replaced on an as-needed basis. Mr. Cuneo responded that these elements will
be replaced on an as-needed basis until a theme is finalized.
3.
REPORT
FROM STAFF:
Ms.
Tanemori presented an update on upcoming City Council appeals.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff if a resident filed the appeal for
236 Adelaide Drive. Ms. Tanemori
responded in the positive. Commissioner Genser asked staff to explain the appeal of 1012 Second
Street. Ms. Tanemori explained that
property owners are requesting a variance for modifications to the developments
for a project that included the retention of the designated landmark coupled
with new construction on the property along with a tentative map for a
subdivision. She stated that three
appeals were filed challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of the
entitlements.
4.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner
Lehrer announced that a she attended a presentation regarding the
sustainability of historic buildings on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 1740 Stewart
Street, which is the headquarters of Red Bull.
She stated that the building on Stewart is an adaptive-reuse project of
a brick industrial building.
Chair
Kaplan announced that this meeting marks Ms. Tanemori’s
last meeting as liaison to the Commission and thanked her for her service.
Commissioner
Bach presented an update of events that will be held to celebrate the Santa
Monica Pier’s centennial. She also
announced that Commissioner Lehrer, Fresco and Bach attended a community
workshop regarding neighborhood conservation on June 2, 2009.
5.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES:
5-A. May
11, 2009
The
Commission made several corrections to the May 11, 2009 minutes. Commissioner Genser
made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
6.
APPROVAL
OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 09CA-006, 236 Adelaide Drive, approving the project design for
rehabilitation of the Landmark residence and two contributing accessory
structures on the property.
Chair Kaplan made a motion to approve
the Statement of Official Action for Certificate of Appropriateness Application
09CA-006, 236 Adelaide Drive.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
6-B. Structure of Merit Application 09SM-001,
3018 Third Street, designating the single-family residence as a Structure of
Merit.
Ms. Tanemori reported that a revised
Statement of Official Action has been submitted to the Commission for their
review.
Commissioner Bach made a motion to
approve the amended Statement of Official Action for Structure of Merit
Application 09SM-001, 3018 Third Street.
Commissioner Genser seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
6-C. Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 09CA-009 and Sign Adjustment Application
09ARB-161, 200 Santa Monica Pier, approving signage and exterior modifications
at the northeast corner of the Looff Hippodrome
Carousel Building in conjunction with a new ice cream/soda fountain vendor
Commissioner Fresco made a motion to
approve the Statement of Official Action for Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 09CA-009 and Sign Adjustment Application 09ARB-161, 200 Santa
Monica Pier. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
7.
PUBLIC
INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission): None
8.
CONSENT
CALENDAR: None.
9.
OLD
BUSINESS: None.
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.
OPD –
Single Family Residence
Structure Not Identified on Historic
Resources Inventory
No action taken.
2.
R1 – Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence with Garage
Structure Not Identified on Historic
Resources Inventory
No action taken.
10-B. Landmark Designation Application 09LM-002,
1501 Fourth Street, to determine whether the commercial building should be
designated as a City Landmark.
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Mr. Albright presented the staff
report. Staff recommended that the
Commission approve Landmark Designation Application 09LM-002, 1501 Fourth
Street, based on the draft findings in the staff report.
Commissioner Fresco noted that Elzie Crisler Segar, the creator of
Popeye, was a tenant in the building according to oral history; however, actual
documentation does not exist.
Commissioner Fresco asked staff to explain why the oral history of a
building is not important enough to include on a designation. Mr. Albright responded that oral history is
an important consideration but there should be documentation that supports the
claim that Popeye was in fact created while Mr. Segar was occupying the
building.
Chair Kaplan suggested that the oral
history regarding Popeye could be included in the designation as long as the
designation makes it clear that the statement is undocumented.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that several
independent sources have concluded that Mr. Segar was an occupant of the
building.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley
asked staff if the Commission ever landmarked a residential property that had significant
interior elements. Ms. Tanemori
responded in the negative.
Commissioner Bach stated that public
access issue is ambiguous because the lobby was open to the public at the
building’s inception and stated that public access to the lobby may once again
happen sometime in the future. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the public access issue must be
considered under the current context of the building.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission: Jerome Fleischman (applicant’s representative) who
made several requests of the Commission regarding the designation, and Carol Lemlein (Santa Monica Conservancy), who supported the
designation of the building.
Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Fleischman
if the name of the building is “Bay Builder’s Exchange” or “Builder’s
Exchange.” Mr. Fleischman responded that
the tenants do not have a name for the building. Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Fleischman what
he would call the building. Mr. Fleischman
stated that he would call the building “Fourth and Broadway.”
Commissioner Fresco stated that most of
Mr. Fleischman’s request to exclude certain items would normally not be
included in the designation. In regard
to the windows, Commissioner Fresco asked Mr. Fleischman if he only wanted to
be able to replace the glass or the window systems. Mr. Fleischman responded that he wanted to be
able to replace the glass. Commissioner
Fresco stated that the glass should be replaced in-kind.
Commissioner Bach commended the owner
for maintenance of the building because the building is very beautiful.
Commissioner Fresco asked Ms. Lemlein if she could substantiate that Popeye was created
in the building. Ms. Lemlein
responded that she was unable to substantiate this fact at this moment in time
but believes that there is evidence that Mr. Segar was connected to the
building.
Commissioner Genser
stated that the building is very exciting and he strongly supports the
designation. Commissioner Genser stated that he is excited that Popeye was created by
a Santa Monica resident but testimony based on hearsay is not strong enough to
be included in the designation. He
stated that the deletion of the lobby from the designation is unfortunate. Commissioner Genser
stated that further clarification of the windows is needed because any
potential changes to the windows must be done in the context of the landmarked
building.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley
stated that any changes to the exterior of a landmarked building would be
reviewed by the Commission. Chair Pro
Tempore Berley stated that the Commission does not
have jurisdiction over the interior of the building. He stated that the name of the building (Bay
Builder’s Exchange) might be a contraction of “Santa Monica Bay Builder’s
Exchange.” He stated that the building
that now stands is called the “Builder’s Exchange.” Chair Pro Tempore Berley
asked staff to explain the procedure for handling new evidence after a
Statement of Official Action has been created for a landmarked building. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded
that the Commission bases its determination on the evidence that is before them
but there is a provision in the code which allows the Commission to make a
supplemental determination.
Commissioner Lehrer suggested that the
designation use the name “Builder’s Exchange” since the building is so referred
to on a plaque in the lobby.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that “a mixed-use
commercial plan and layout” and “original casement windows” are unclear and suggested
staff clarify these bullet points. Commissioner
Lehrer stated that there are other examples of the Churrigueresque
style in Santa Monica. She added that
there is not enough evidence that the building was erected to promote fair
building practices in Santa Monica. Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the building exemplified the transition of Fourth Street
from a residential to a commercial district and the expansion of the Central
Business District. She stated that a
variety of professionals, who were not necessarily prominent members of the
community, occupied the building and that professionals in the building trades
probably occupied the building during the 1920s and 1930s. She stated that the building is connected
with the economic boom of the 1920s in general when there was a tremendous
amount of construction and economic development within the City.
In regard to Criterion 2, Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the building meets this criterion on two accounts: [1] the
nature of the ornamentation, particularly the archway entryway because of the
references to sea life and [2] the beautiful grill work, especially above the
transom windows on the ground floor.
Commissioner Bach stated that the
building has a sophisticated design and massing with an exemplary and sophisticated
fenestration strategy. She stated that
the building is one of the most beautifully-designed buildings in the downtown
Santa Monica area.
Commissioner Lehrer made corrections to
Criterion 4. In regard to Criterion 5, Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the architect, M. Eugene Durfee,
practiced many different architectural styles and that the style of the
building is not unusual. She stated that
the Builder’s Exchange building is an excellent example of his work.
In regard to Criterion 6, Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the three-story mass at the corner responds to the corner
location at Fourth Street and Broadway; the linear element of the building is a
two-story element along Fourth Street.
She stated that these elements refer to that particular location in a
very special way. She stated that the
Popeye connection should not be included in the designation and left to the
oral history of the building.
Commissioner Bach suggested that the
Popeye connection could be included in Criterion 1 since Mr. Seger apparently lived in Santa Monica.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley
stated that the building is remarkable.
He added that the appreciation of the oral history of the building in
regard to Popeye is satisfactory.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley
made a motion to approve Landmark Designation Application 09LM-002, 1501 Fourth
Street based on the draft findings in the staff report together with
suggestions made by Commissioner Lehrer.
Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bach stated that
“cast-iron storefronts” should not be used in the designation.
Commissioner Genser
stated that Popeye could be referenced in Criterion 3 but it must be carefully
worded.
Commissioner Fresco stated that oral
histories connect Mr. Seger, creator of Popeye, to
the building. Commissioner Lehrer stated
that Popeye was based on a fisherman at the pier according to Jim Harris’ new
book on the pier. Commissioner Lehrer
stated that Popeye should be included in the Statement of Official Action.
Commissioner Berley
modified his motion to include references to Popeye and its creator in
Criterion 3.
A roll call was held for the motion and
was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley,
Fresco, Genser, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Kaplan.
11.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
11-A. Consideration whether to file an
application to designate the industrial building located at
Ms.
Tanemori presented a staff report.
The
Commission made ex parte
communication disclosures.
The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher (owner’s representative), who asked the Commission
not to file an application for landmark designation, and Marcello Vavala, who asked the Commission to file an application.
Commissioner
Genser stated that the consultant’s report is an
amazing document and a valuable reference and resource for the City’s
Industrial Corridor.
Commissioner
Bach stated that the building has potential importance as a representation of a
particular era in Santa Monica’s industrial development and illustrates how
much change the industrial corridor has undergone. Commissioner Bach added that Papermate was part of the economic development strategy
that the City actively pursued. She
stated that the structure could possibly be eligible for landmark designation under
Criterion 1.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff if portions of buildings could be landmarked. Ms. Tanemori responded in the positive.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the office portion of the building exemplifies the period
very strongly and that the alterations are superficial. She added that the Papermate
signature was placed on the building, which has since been removed.
Chair
Kaplan stated that it would be difficult to include the original finish in the
designation because the integrity of the building is in question.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the diamond scoring is still visible and stated that the
original finish is accessible.
Commissioner
Genser stated that the office portion of the
structure required support enhancements, which were set forth by law. He stated that these enhancements
substantially alter the integrity of the building.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the structure is very large, which gives it a certain degree
of monotony. However, she stated that
building has a lot of integrity and the additions to the structure are
coordinated. She stated that the windows
located on the Stewart Street echo the front main entry. Commissioner Fresco stated that the Water
Garden site and the Papermate building constituted
Mr. Stoll’s original development. Commissioner
Fresco stated that there is probably a connection with the King Gillette as
well. Commissioner Fresco stated that
additional information is needed before the Commission could decide on whether
to file an application.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff to provide an analysis of the King Gillette connection.
Commissioner
Shari asked staff if the subject property was identified in the Historic
Resources Inventory. Ms. Tanemori
responded in the negative.
Chair
Kaplan stated that she does not support filing an application at this time.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff if this building could be nominated in the future if the
Commission did not file an application during this meeting. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded
that the Commission could review the property in the future.
Chair
Kaplan stated that the Commission must determine whether the structure rises to
the level of landmark. She stated that
there is a difference between saving a building because it rises to the level
of landmark versus saving a building because of sustainability reasons. Chair Kaplan stated that more information is
needed before the Commission could decide whether to file an application.
Commissioner
Bach stated that more investigative due diligence should be conducted by the
Commission for this building since it is not under threat of demolition.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the exploration of the production of the Papermate
pen as a product of its time and what it exemplifies about the cultural history
of industrial production and consumer products was not sufficiently covered in
the report. Also, Commissioner Lehrer asked
staff to provide additional information about industrial architectural styles in
Europe.
Commissioner
Genser stated that aside from the Gillette and Papermate issue, the Commission should discuss the
architectural integrity of the building which is as important as the cultural
significance of the building.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley stated that the building is a
strong expression of modern architectural ideas such as ribbon windows and the
way form is used in the function of the building. He added that the use of porcelain panels as
a way of expressing a feature and adding color was more common in modern
architecture. He stated that the
integrity of the office portion of the structure is still intact upon casual
observation. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that it is unclear whether an application
should be filed and stated that the Commission’s due diligence regarding the
analysis of the structure should be very thorough.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the Commission would need to understand more about less-conceptual
industrial buildings to determine whether an application should be filed.
Chair
Kaplan made a motion to continue this item until the August 10, 2009 meeting
and asked staff to provide the Commission with additional information regarding
local architectural comparables, the architect, the history of the development
of the Papermate pen, and the King Gillette
connection. Commissioner Bach seconded
the motion. The motion was approved by
voice vote.
11-B. Update from staff regarding the status of
the Greyhound Bus Sign formerly located at 1433 Fifth Street.
Ms.
Tanemori reported that the Greyhound Bus sign was removed by the tenant prior
to the Architectural Review Board hearing.
She stated that the owner is seeking the return of the sign; however, the
sign will be retained by the contractor until a decision is made regarding its
fate.
Commissioner
Fresco noted that she witnessed the sign being driven away from the site.
Commissioner
Bach stated that she is stunned that the tenant removed the sign.
Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that there is nothing in place that could
have prohibited the tenant from removing the sign and added that there is no
basis for landmarking the sign because it has been
removed.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley stated that the sign was a non-meritorious,
non-conforming sign and that code enforcement did not seek to remove the sign
for nine years. He stated that the
building was adaptively reused as a gym after Greyhound vacated the building. Chair Pro Tempore Berley
asked staff if there is any record that the gym incorporated the sign into the
project; if so, the sign would have value in the adaptive reuse of the
building. Ms. Tanemori responded that
staff has not completed that level of research.
11-C. Discussion and potential appointment of
Landmarks Commissioners to address the City Council on pending appeals of
Landmarks Commission determinations regarding 301 Ocean Avenue scheduled on
June 9, 2009 and 236 Adelaide Drive scheduled on July 14, 2009; and an appeal
of the Planning Commission determination regarding 1012 Second Street scheduled on July 28, 2009.
The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher (owner’s representative). If a representative of the Commission attends
the City Council meeting in regard to 301 Ocean Avenue to explain the
designation, Mr. Kutcher asked the Commission to also
send a Commissioner who voted against the designation to the meeting. He also reported that new evidence from
former Councilmembers who served with Clo Hoover was included in the City Council packet; the new
evidence does not support the designation.
Commissioner
Bach asked Mr. Kutcher if a dissenting Commissioner
has attended a City Council meeting in the past regarding an appealed
decision. Mr. Kutcher
responded in the positive.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the Commission could send a representative to the City
Council meeting to deliver a balanced report that explained the reasons for designation.
Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Commission, by majority vote, made
a decision that will be reviewed by the City Council. He stated that Commissioners who did not
support the designation could address the City Council as individuals.
Chair
Kaplan suggested that the Commission should not send a representative to the
meeting since staff could represent both sides of the argument.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley stated that perspective on the
decision-making process should be presented to the City Council. He stated that the facts presented during an
appeal may not include the process the Commission undertook in formulating a
decision.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the Commission has a certain level of expertise in
historical resource matters and suggested that a representative attend City
Council meetings when a decision made by the Commission is appealed as a matter
of policy.
Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the staff report explained the
reasoning of both the decision of the Commission to designate the property as
well as a basis for the dissenters to conclude that it should not be
designated. Therefore, he stated that
there is a fairly complete basis for the determination.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked if the staff recommended that the City Council uphold the
appeal. Ms. Tanemori responded in the
positive. Commissioner Lehrer stated
that the Commission’s majority voted for designation.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley stated that he will represent the
Commission at the June 9, 2009 City Council in regard to 301 Ocean Avenue.
Commissioner
Bach stated that a Commissioner who did not agree with the designation should
not represent the Commission.
Ms.
Tanemori stated that the Commission’s opinion is described in the staff report.
Chair
Kaplan agreed to attend the July 14, 2009 City Council meeting in regard to the
appeal of the decision for 236 Adelaide Drive.
Commissioner
Lehrer agreed to attend the July 28, 2009 City Council meeting in regard to the
appeal of the decision for 1012 Second Street.
11-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 an update on upcoming City Council
appeals. He also stated that the City
Council welcomes any Commission to provide expert testimony when that body’s
decisions are appealed.
City
Council Liaison McKeown also reported that the budget will be discussed during
the June 23, 2009 City Council meeting and added that the City Council will
also be reviewing the Commission’s work plans during this meeting.
City
Council Liaison McKeown reported that he will not be attending the July 13,
2009 Landmarks Commission meeting since he will be out of town.
11-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.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley and Chair Kaplan stated that there is nothing to report regarding recent ARB actions.
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)
Staff presented the Commission with a
list of items to be heard in future meetings.
Commissioner Shari
stated that July 13, 2009 agenda should include a discussion regarding the
joint meeting with the Recreation and Parks Commission to discuss a draft
Regulatory Review Program for Palisades Park and a discussion regarding ways to
publicize the City’s preservation program together with information and data
from the forthcoming completion of the Citywide Historic Resources Update.
Commissioner
Bach reported that she will be unable to attend the July 13, 2009 Landmarks
Commission meeting.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley asked staff if landmark
designation applications for 2125 Arizona Avenue and 405 Palisades Avenue will
be ready to be heard on July 13, 2009.
Ms. Tanemori responded in the positive.
Chair Pro Tempore Berley suggested that the
Commission should hear landmark designation applications for 2125 Arizona
Avenue and 405 Palisades Avenue during the July 13, 2009 because the discussion
regarding two designation applications will be lengthy.
Commissioner
Fresco asked staff if there are any upcoming lengthy items that need to be
addressed by the Commission. Ms.
Tanemori responded that only Mills Act contracts are forthcoming.
Chair
Pro Tempore Berley asked to agendize an update on the
pending project at 130 San Vicente Boulevard.
In regard to the joint meeting with the Recreation and Parks Commission,
Chair Pro Tempore Berley suggested that the meeting could
be scheduled to begin at 6:00 pm if that start time is amenable to the
Recreation and Parks Commission. Ms.
Tanemori stated that this issue will probably not be resolved within the next
few months but staff will offer this time slot to the Recreations and Parks
Commission. Chair Pro Tempore Berley directed staff to do whatever could be done to
facilitate this meeting.
Ms.
Tanemori stated that a new Chairperson will need to be selected during the July
13, 2009 meeting. Ms. Tanemori reported
that two members of the Commission are up for reappointment. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that the
City Council will not be addressing this issue until after the June 30, 2009
City Council meeting and asked that all of the Commissioners remain in their seats
until the appointments are made.
Commissioner
Shari asked to agendize an update on the status of the Citywide Historic
Resources Inventory Update for July 13, 2009.
14.
NEXT
MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the Landmarks
Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, July 13, 2009; City
15.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Genser made a motion
to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 pm on June 8, 2009. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.