|
|
||
|
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
|
|
|
|
Founded 1875 “Populus
felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 14, 2011 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
7:02 pm.
1.
ROLL
CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John
Berley, Chair
Nina
Fresco
Roger
Genser
Barbara
Kaplan
Ruthann
Lehrer
Ruth
Shari, Chair Pro Tempore
Also Present: Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use
Attorney
Steve
Traeger, Principal Urban Designer
Scott
Albright, AICP, Senior Planner
Susan
Umeda, Staff Assistant III
2.
Presentation from the consultant project team, and
receive and file a final report and summary findings from the comprehensive historic
resources inventory. The result is an update to the 1,284 previously identified
historic resources, the identification of 478 new individual resources and 11
new potential historic districts (containing 1,014 properties that appeared
eligible as contributors), and documentation of these newly identified
resources. A historical context statement for the City as a whole was also
prepared.
Mr.
Albright introduced Peter Moruzzi from ICF International; Mr. Moruzzi was the
lead investigator for the Historic Resources Inventory Survey. Mr. Albright stated that Mr. Moruzzi will
present the Commission with the findings of the Historic Resources Inventory
update. Mr. Moruzzi stated that the
Citywide survey was conducted over a number of years and described some of the
highlights of the new inventory.
Mr.
Moruzzi reviewed the contents of the final report and stated that any structure
that was built before 1969 was surveyed; he added that the document contains a
comprehensive architectural style guide with many examples. He stated that the following architectural
styles were added to the survey: Late Moderne, Minimal Traditional, Ranch,
International, Vernacular Modern, Regency, Dingbat, and Googie. He stated that additional context to the
previous survey was included for the following areas: south of Pico
Boulevard/east of Lincoln Boulevard area, south of Wilshire/north of Pico
Boulevard/east of Lincoln Boulevard area, African-American history, surf and
lifeguard culture, specifically the Cove, Pacific Ocean Park Pier, and
Z-Boys. He stated that particular attention
was given to the potential Gillette Regent Square District. He reported that contexts for the following
were expanded: retail department stores, migration and work patterns, religion
and religious architecture, and current context.
Mr.
Moruzzi reviewed the results of the Historic Resources Inventory survey. He stated that 10% of the addresses in the
City are historically significant, 19% of the properties on the previous survey
were demolished, 31% of the resources that were identified in the current
survey are newly identified, 259 properties appear to be eligible as Santa
Monica landmarks, 270 properties appear to be eligible as Structures of Merit,
and 53 potential historic districts were identified.
Mr.
Moruzzi stated that an update record was produced for properties which were
already identified; a complete report was produced for newly-identified resources. Mr. Moruzzi described some of the properties
which are included, or are eligible for, the National Register and the
California Register. He stated that 159
properties appear eligible for a Santa Monica landmark and 99 properties appear
eligible for both a Santa Monica landmark and a contributor to a historic
district. Mr. Moruzzi stated that 274
properties appear eligible for a Structure of Merit designation; four appear
eligible as potential district contributors.
Mr. Moruzzi also identified and described the eleven new potential
districts that were discovered during the survey. He explained the methodology in determining
whether a property should be included in the inventory.
In
regard to the potential Gillette’s Regent Square District, Mr. Moruzzi reported
that 199 properties appear to be contributors to the district, although none of
them have been designated. He stated
that eighteen properties appear to be eligible to become landmarks or
Structures of Merit. Mr. Moruzzi
described the dates, trends of construction, and architectural styles of the properties
within the potential district; he stated that the 1920s was a significant
period in regard to construction in Gillette’s Regent Square.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Moruzzi to compare the number of historic resources in Santa
Monica to other cities. Mr. Moruzzi
responded that the number of historic resources is dependent upon whether the
particular city adopted a preservation ordinance and added that the Cities of
Santa Monica and Pasadena conduct historic resource surveys more often than
other cities in Southern California. Commissioner
Lehrer stated that a predominant number of buildings in the potential Gillette’s
Regent Square District are non-contributing structures. She asked Mr. Moruzzi to explain the standard
for determining whether a potential historic district exists. Mr. Moruzzi responded that at least fifty
percent of the properties should be contributing structures, although the
reason why this percentage is different in the potential Gillette’s Regent
Square District is explained in the final report.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari asked Mr. Moruzzi if an update was provided for properties
that were previously identified as historically significant. Mr. Moruzzi responded that the current
condition of the previously-identified properties was compared with the descriptions
on the previous survey; Mr. Moruzzi stated that a change in status would most
likely be based upon the current integrity of the buildings. Chair Pro Tempore Shari asked Mr. Moruzzi
what portion of the previous inventory had a change in status code. Mr. Moruzzi responded that the information is
in the final report.
Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Moruzzi if the potential Gillette’s Regent Square District was
previously surveyed. Mr. Moruzzi
responded that this is the first time the entire tract has been surveyed. Commissioner Genser observed that the
potential Gillette’s Regent Square District had the most demolition activity of
any other specific area in the City and asked Mr. Moruzzi how many potential
contributors have been demolished. Mr. Moruzzi
responded he did not have that information.
Commissioner
Bach referred to a previous discussion about infrastructure and urban design
elements in relation to the Historic Resources Inventory. Commissioner Bach asked Mr. Moruzzi if there
was an attempt to identify historic landscapes or streetscapes. Mr. Moruzzi responded that these were
identified only in context of a potential district or anything that was
noticeable when an individual property was assessed. Commissioner Bach asked Mr. Moruzzi if there
was an attempt to study thematic districts.
Mr. Moruzzi responded that a number of thematic districts were
previously identified.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked Mr. Moruzzi to explain the next steps that the Commission may take
to give identified potential districts value because the planning in some of
the districts do not utilize best practices because the character of the
streetscape changed. She stated that
identifying buildings in the Historic Resources Inventory would give them a
level of protection. Mr. Moruzzi stated
that the survey identified individual properties that appear to be eligible as
potential landmarks. Commissioner Kaplan
asked Mr. Moruzzi why the Minimal Traditional District would be a potential
district rather than a neighborhood overlay district. Mr. Moruzzi responded he is not familiar with
a neighborhood overlay district but said that each potential district has a
report which explains why the district is significant.
Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Moruzzi if courtyard buildings were included in the
survey. Mr. Moruzzi responded that a
courtyard district was previously identified so the consultants assessed
whether the district still existed. Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Moruzzi if he could describe the future of potential historic
districts. Mr. Moruzzi responded that
new districts will probably be rare because tracts of buildings are generally
not demolished at the same time.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the report was very good but noticed that the industrial
area was not covered, although she stated that a comprehensive report about the
industrial history of Santa Monica was previously distributed to the
Commission. Commissioner Fresco asked
Mr. Moruzzi if this report could be an addendum to the context of the updated
Historic Resources Inventory.
Commissioner Fresco noted that kit homes are not mentioned in the
updated inventory, as well as a large tennis club near the downtown area. Mr. Moruzzi responded that those are good
areas for additional research. In regard
to kit homes, Mr. Moruzzi stated that the only way to identify these homes is
to research building permit to identify the builder. Commissioner Fresco asked Mr. Moruzzi if any
kit homes were found in the potential Gillette’s Regent Square District. Mr. Moruzzi responded in the negative.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari asked Mr. Moruzzi if an apartment courtyard district was
identified in Sunset Park. Mr. Moruzzi
responded that an actual district was not identified.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked Mr. Moruzzi if potential districts were identified by both
architectural style and cultural associations.
Mr. Moruzzi responded that the African-American Church District is a
thematic district that was identified, although there are not many potential
districts that were identified based on cultural associations.
Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Moruzzi to discuss the cultural aspects of the Z-Boys in
regard to context in the survey. Mr.
Moruzzi responded that the only property associated with the Z-Boys was the surf
shop but the Z-Boys were identified in the overall context of the City.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari asked Mr. Moruzzi to describe the origins of the Marina Ranch
Estates. Mr. Moruzzi responded that the
developer named the tract the Marina Ranch Estates; the name probably
originated for sales and promotional purposes.
Chair
Berley asked Mr. Moruzzi if any features were included in the district reports
that address neighborhood or landscape composition. Mr. Moruzzi responded the report referenced street
amenities such as the trees and topography.
Chair Berley asked Mr. Moruzzi if this information is included in the
report for historic districts. Mr.
Moruzzi responded in the positive. Chair
Berley asked staff how the database for the inventory will work. Mr. Traeger responded that the new inventory
will work in a similar fashion as the previous inventory and that staff is
working with the Information Systems Department so that members of the public
can access the database.
Commissioner
Fresco asked staff to provide the following information to the Commission: [1]
a printout of each district and the contributors to the district; [2] a colored
map to identify concentrations of contributors; [3] a list of potential
National Register contributors; [4] a list of all potential landmark and
Structure of Merit contributors; and [5] a list of apartment courts.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff when the new inventory will become effective. Mr. Albright responded that the Commission’s
direction is to receive and file the report and all of its associated data this
evening; staff and the public will begin using the updated inventory on
February 15, 2011.
Chair
Berley asked Mr. Moruzzi if the updated inventory is a comprehensive Citywide
inventory research exercise which included the entire City with the exception
of the light industrial area. Mr.
Moruzzi responded in the positive and added that a previous survey was
conducted in the North of Wilshire Boulevard area and that information was
integrated into the update. Chair Berley
asked Mr. Moruzzi if windshield surveys were conducted for this area. Mr. Moruzzi responded in the positive.
Chair
Berley thanked Mr. Moruzzi and ICF International for their work on the
inventory.
3.
REPORT
FROM STAFF:
Mr.
Albright reported that additional information was received about 2501 Second
Street and 2219 Ocean Avenue. Mr.
Albright reported that Item 10B was continued by staff.
Commissioner
Genser asked staff about the status of the development agreement for 710
Wilshire Boulevard. Mr. Albright
responded that staff is in the process of preparing the environmental
documents.
Chair
Berley asked staff if there are any developments to the property at 927-929
Lincoln Boulevard. Mr. Albright
responded that staff has not been in contact with the applicant since the
schematic presentation was given to the Commission.
4.
COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner
Lehrer announced that the Santa Monica Conservancy is sponsoring a lecture
called “If Walls Could Talk, A Free Lecture” on February 27, 2011.
Commissioner
Bach announced that Commissioner Lehrer and she attended the Architectural
Review Board meeting on February 7, 2011.
5.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES:
5-A. December
13, 2010
The
Commission made several corrections to the December 13, 2010 minutes. Commissioner Genser made a correction to Page
17 – the date of the Pier Bridge should be 1939. Commissioner Fresco made a motion to approve
the minutes with corrections.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
5-B. January
10, 2011
The
Commission made several corrections to the January 10, 2011 minutes. Commissioner Bach made a motion to approve
the minutes with corrections.
Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
Chair
Berley stated that Eileen Fogarty, Director of the Planning and Community
Development Department, indicated during the January 10, 2011 meeting that the
Commission was not required to take any action in adopting the updated
inventory. Chair Berley asked staff if
the Commission should take any action on the inventory. Mr. Albright responded stated that the
Commission is to consider, receive and file the reports. Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if the
Commission is required to vote on whether the Commission should consider,
receive and file the inventory. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded that the Commission could vote on this
but the Commission would need to reopen the item to vote on the action.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to reopen the discussion regarding the update of the
Historic Resources Inventory in order to vote on receiving and filing the
report. Commissioner Fresco seconded the
motion. The motion was approved by voice
vote.
Commissioner
Lehrer made a motion to receive and file the comprehensive Historic Resources
Inventory that has been completed.
Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion.
A
roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Bach, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Berley
6.
APPROVAL
OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Landmark Designation Application
10LM-004,
Commissioner
Bach made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for Landmark
Designation Application 10LM-004, 2009 La Mesa Drive. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. Commissioner Genser abstained from the vote.
6-B. Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 10CA-024,
Commissioners Fresco and Lehrer recused
themselves from this discussion because they are members of the Santa Monica
Conservancy.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commisson: Mike Salazar. Mr.
Salazar expressed concerns about the potential demolition of the structures at
2501 Second Street.
Commissioner Bach made a motion to
approve the Statement of Official Action for Certificate of
Appropriateness Application 10CA-024, 2520 Second Street. Chair Pro Tempore Shari seconded the
motion. The motion was approved by voice
vote. Commissioners Fresco and Lehrer
abstained.
7.
PUBLIC
INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)
8.
CONSENT
CALENDAR: None.
9.
OLD
BUSINESS:
9-A. Landmark Designation Application
10LM-002, 2501 2nd Street, to determine whether the existing residential
cottages, in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark. (continued from December 14, 2010)
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Mr. Albright presented the staff
report. Staff recommended denial of Landmark
Designation Application 10LM-002, 2501 Second Street based upon the
draft findings in the staff report.
Chair
Berley asked staff to explain why the application should be denied when the
consultant’s report stated that the structure meets two landmark criteria. Mr. Albright responded that it is staff’s
belief that there are other extant examples of this type of structure in Ocean
Park that better portray this particular era in the City’s history. Chair Berley noted that the consultant’s
report indicated that there is a dwindling number of comparables in the City
but staff believes that there are a sufficient number of comparables. Mr. Albright stated that the extant
comparables are protected by a designation or in a historic district.
Chair
Berley stated that the owner’s team has requested that they be given ten
minutes to make their presentation.
Commissioner Bach made a motion to approve this request. Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher, who
represented the owner, Liz Lord, Dr. Anne Meyer, Steve Galloway, Mike Salazar
(architect not associated with this project), Lou D’Elia, and Sylvia
Gentile. Mr. Kutcher presented a
rebuttal to public testimony.
Mr.
Kutcher stated that he supports staff’s recommendation to deny landmark status
to 2501 Second Street because there are other extant examples in the City and
the proposed structures are in disrepair.
Ms. Lord stated that the she supports the designation of the property
and added that the house could be restored.
Mr. Galloway stated that the house was neglected by the owner and
supported designation. Mr. Salazar
supported designation and described some of the significant features of the
house; he added that the house could be rehabilitated to retain historic
characteristics of the building. Mr.
D’Elia stated that designation would preserve the character of the neighborhood
and noted that the property owner is the owner of Signature Homes, a home
builder based in Nevada. Ms. Gentile supported
designation and described the character-defining features of the
structure. Dr. Meyer supported
designation of the property.
Chair Berley noted that Mr. Kutcher
stated that the property was never listed as individually eligible for landmark
status. He stated that a continuation
sheet, which was prepared by the Historic Resources Group in 2003, indicated
that 2501 Second Street met Criteria 4.
Mr. Kutcher stated that the evaluation conclusions that were presented
had a status code of 5D1 or 5D3.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that the
reports submitted by the owner indicated that the process of rehabilitating the
structure could endanger the lives of construction workers. Mr. Kutcher replied that the structural
moving company and the engineering company indicated that there is a risk of
personal injury if the structure is lifted.
Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Kutcher if there is a safe way the house could
be lifted. Mr. Kutcher responded that
there would be hazards in doing this type of work but does not know whether
this would be in violation of the Occupation Safety and Health Act. Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Kutcher if it
would be feasible to lift the structure in a safe way if costs are not factored
into the project. Mr. Kutcher replied
that it would be feasible to lift the structure in a safe manner at the right
cost.
Commissioner Fresco clarified that it
is important for the Commission to review the quality of the structure in terms
of landmark criteria and not base any judgment on the cost of rehabilitation;
she noted that buildings that are subject to benign neglect are usually the
structures with the most integrity.
Commissioner Fresco stated that Ocean Park has the highest concentration
of potentially historic buildings in the City.
She stated that 2501 Second Street is in a potential historic district
and there are only three hipped-roof cottages in this district; she stated that
2501 Second Street is the most intact hipped-roof cottage in the potential
district. She stated that these cottages
were prevalent in Ocean Park at one point in time and that these cottages
should be preserved to retain the feeling and character of the Ocean Park
neighborhood. She stated that
determining what should be replaced is subjective because, as one of the
speakers testified, a person who considers a new building as a desirable
approach for the property would want to replace the old house with a newly-constructed
one. However, she stated that there is
always someone who wants to rehabilitate the existing structure to retain the
historic character of the building.
Commissioner Fresco stated that 2501 Second Street is an important
structure in the neighborhood as a whole and as an example of this type of
structure, which is becoming extremely rare.
She stated that this structure is one of the original prevalent housing types
in Santa Monica.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that this
building is part of a neighborhood complex and stated that she supported
designation of the property. She stated
that she was persuaded by the testimony of neighborhood residents who expressed
interest in saving and restoring these types of structures because they are
very important to the history of Santa Monica.
She stated that turn-of-the-century cottages are a key component to
neighborhood character and added that the building has distinguishing
architectural features. She stated that
it is not unusual to install internal shoring to lift the building and she
stated that this operation does not pose any particular hazard to construction
workers. She stated that demolition by
neglect is tragic because this is how historic neighborhoods are
decimated. She stated that this structure
is a critical part of Ocean Park’s historic fabric; the designation could be
based on Criteria 1, as part of Ocean Park’s historic built development and in terms
of being a typical example of a turn-of-the-century Victorian cottage. She stated that the alterations are insignificant.
Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern
about the reports submitted by the owner because their criteria for demolition
was primarily based on cost, which is why the owner’s representative was asked
if workmen would be endangered during the lifting process; she stated that
lifting houses is standard practice in restoring buildings. She stated that she did not notice as much
damage to the house during her site visit, as described in the reports
submitted by the owner; she noted that the photographs under the house showed
beams that were split and piles that were deteriorated but stated that the
problems with the house were not more extreme than other deteriorated
structures that have been rehabilitated.
She noted that the owner’s representatives made statements such as
“Restoration of old construction is more expensive per square foot than new
construction.” Commissioner Kaplan
acknowledged that the statement made by the owner’s representative regarding the
cost of restoring historic buildings as being less than new construction is
correct. However, she stated that she is
not convinced that most of the historic features would need to be
replaced. Commissioner Kaplan stated
that there were a number of comparables which were built during the same period
but the consultant’s report stated that this building is a rare example of this
type of structure; additionally, the neighbors have extensive knowledge about
this property and affirmed that this structure is a rare example. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was
impressed with Commissioner Fresco’s research regarding the number of
comparables of each type, style and roof type in the area. Commissioner Kaplan also stated that she did
an informal windshield survey of South Beach and noticed that the integrity of
some areas was diminished. Commissioner
Kaplan stated that she supports designation of the property.
Commissioner Bach stated that she
toured the property with the owner’s representatives and observed the
deteriorated condition of the building.
She stated that the Commission generally would like to see a similar
property restored. She stated that the
neighbors clarified that the Commission may want to consider designating the
property under Criterion 6 because the building is an anchor to the
neighborhood. She stated that the
Commission is dealing with a very fragile architectural fabric in Ocean Park. She stated that she supports designating the
property with modifications to the findings.
Commissioner Genser stated that
Criterion 6 could apply to this property because it is in a unique location
since it dominates the intersection of Mills and Second Streets. Commissioner Genser watched the building
deteriorate; he stated that the structure is a wonderful example of the
architecture in Ocean Park. He stated
that the problems with the property are not insurmountable. He stated that the structure in the back of
the property is less interesting than the front structure. He stated that there is a potential district in
the area that still survives today and that the structure contributes to the
historic fabric of the area. He stated
that there is a cluster of landmarks which are close to 2501 Second Street such
as the Shotgun House (which will be sited on Second Street), Merle Norman
Building, Brown House, and Ocean Park Library.
Therefore, he stated that he supports designation under Criteria 1, 4
and 6. He stated that the Commission
must give a very clear direction to staff and have a very clear set of findings
that are defensible.
Chair Berley thanked Commissioner
Fresco for using the new inventory to help evaluate this property. He stated that this structure is a rare
example of this type of building in an important area in the City; it also
possesses a high degree of integrity. He
added that the resource benefited from neglect because the structure is highly
intact. He stated that the property is
located in a unique and prominent location in the City, which is one of the
reasons why this project is noticeable. Chair
Berley stated that this structure has the potential to be a representative of
this type of architectural style. He
stated that he supports a landmark designation.
Commissioner Bach emphasized the point
made by Mr. Salazar regarding the double-hung, diamond-pane windows and the
dual shingle and horizontal siding.
Commissioner Kaplan pointed out Mr. Salazar’s statement confirmed that
the structure is the only one of that period with a continuous sill around the
house.
Commissioner Fresco made a motion to
approve Landmark Designation Application 10LM-002, 2501 Second
Street to designate the parcel and front structure of the property; the garage
and rear building are excluded from the designation. She stated that the following should be added
to the designation: [1] under Criterion 1, this was not just the housing type
that connected the Victorian era as a transition into the twentieth century but
it was also the most prevalent style of the original development in the Ocean
Park and the architectural style is already quite rare and this building has a
very high degree of integrity; [2] under Criterion 4, it is a fine example of
this type of building and the continuous sill is a notable feature that should
be included in the findings; and [3] under Criterion 6, the building is a
recognizable feature in Ocean Park and is an anchor to the community since
members of the community had knowledge of the location of the diamond-paned
cottage. Commissioner Lehrer added that
the shaped rafter tails under the eaves should be added under Criterion 4. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that
Criterion 1 could be a generic discussion; however, the structure relates to
the history of Ocean Park and the first wave of housing which occurred in this
area since it is one of the early examples of residential development in Ocean
Park.
In regard to Criterion 1, Commissioner
Genser added that the cluster of historic buildings in the area add to the
context of the property.
Chair Pro Tempore Shari stated that not
all of the comparables cited in the Consultant’s report are on Second Street
and this fact should be factored into the language for designation. Additionally, she stated that the corner location
and open space should be included in the designation since the fabric of the
neighborhood would be altered if the corner or open space of the property is
changed.
According to public testimony,
Commissioner Bach noted that the diamond pane is part of a double-hung window,
which is unique element to the structure.
She added that identification of unique or rare features should be
included in the designation.
Commissioner Bach asked the Commission why the back house and the garage
should not be included in the designation.
Commissioner Lehrer responded that the garage and rear house are not significant;
she stated that the front building has the highest level of architectural importance
and historical value out of the three structures. Commissioner Lehrer added that it is
advantageous to leave some flexibility in regard to the future of the site and
how it might be managed by a new owner; however, the Commission would have the
purview to review any new development that take place.
A
roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Bach, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Berley
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.
1817 Dewey Street (11PC0002)
R1
– Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence and Garage
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken.
2.
R2
– Low Density Multiple Residential
One
One-Story Building/One Two-Story Building
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken.
3.
R1
– Single Family Residential
Detached
Garage, Garden/Laundry House
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: Derrick Burnett, the
architect of the new project.
Commissioner
Bach asked Mr. Burnett if the project will retain portions of the
structure. Mr. Burnett responded in the
positive.
No
action taken.
4.
R1
– Single Family Residential
Partial
First Floor of Residence and Garage
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: Clay Savage, the
owner of the property. Mr. Savage asked
the Commission to allow demolition of the garage prior to the sixty-day waiting
period. Mr. Traeger stated that the
Building Official could order the garage’s demolition if it is declared a
public hazard or nuisance.
No
action taken.
5.
R1
– Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence and Garage
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken.
10-B Consideration
of making a supplemental determination as an addition to the Landmark
Designation determination LC-01-019,
Commissioner Genser asked staff to
explain why this item was continued. Mr.
Albright responded that staff was unable to review the consultant’s report
because it was received too late.
Chair Berley asked staff if the
consultant’s report could be distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Albright responded that the Commission
will receive a copy of the report as soon as it could be released.
10-C Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 11CA-001, 2219 Ocean Avenue, to consider design
approval for the construction of a new garage with studio unit above in the
rear of the Landmark Parcel at 2219 Ocean Avenue. The Landmarks Commission will determine
whether the proposed work is appropriate and architecturally compatible with
the Landmark “Turn-of-the-Century” cottage” located on-site.
The
Commission made ex parte
communication disclosures.
Mr.
Albright presented the staff report.
Staff recommended that the Commission approve Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 11CA-001, 2219 Ocean Avenue based upon the draft findings in the
staff report.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff if there are any code requirements in regard to height restrictions. Mr. Albright responded that the building
meets code requirements since it is in a multi-family district; staff will
conduct a thorough code analysis during the plan check process.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari asked staff to describe the height of the proposed structure
in relation to the highest point of the landmark. Mr. Albright responded that the proposed
structure is twenty-four feet high and the landmark structure is sixteen-feet
high.
The
following members of the public addressed the Commission: Michael Folonis (architect
and applicant’s representative of the project), Mark Gorman, and Carla
Becker. Mr. Gorman and Ms. Becker asked
the Commission to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness of 2219 Ocean
Avenue. Mr. Folonis presented the
project to the Commission and discussed the reason why the unit is being built
on the garage and the materials that will be used.
Mr.
Folonis additionally asked for an additional minute to present the project to
the Commission. Commissioner Bach made a
motion to allow Mr. Folonis to have an additional minute to present his project
to the Commission. The motion was
approved by voice vote.
Commissioner
Bach asked Mr. Folonis to clarify the various elevations such as the ridge,
roof of the accessory building and the parapet and also address the roof versus
the parapet discrepancy. Mr. Folonis
responded that the parapet will block the mechanical unit of the roof; he also described
the heights of the proposed and adjacent buildings. Commissioner Bach asked Mr. Folonis to
describe how much space the mechanical package occupies on the roof. Mr. Folonis responded that the mechanical
package is 2-1/2 feet tall; hence, the parapet is 2-1/2 feet tall to block the
view of the equipment. Commissioner Bach
asked Mr. Folonis if another strategy for concealment of the mechanical
equipment could be considered. Mr.
Folonis responded in the positive.
Commissioner Bach asked Mr. Folonis to describe the ceiling heights in
the garage and the upstairs apartment.
Mr. Folonis responded that the height of the garage and the apartment is
ten feet; the parapet is 2’7”.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari noted that the finish material chosen for the accessory
structure could not be altered and asked Mr. Folonis to explain the benefits of
the finish. Mr. Folonis responded that
the front house requires a tremendous amount of maintenance; therefore, he
tried to develop a material which would not require maintenance and would not
be affected by a new owner painting the accessory structure another color.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Folonis to explain why copper was chosen as a cladding
material and to clarify historic antecedents regarding the installation of
copper. Mr. Folonis responded that he
was trying to use another material other than wood or stucco since stucco would
be inappropriate on the proposed structure and wood would compete with the
cottage. Mr. Folonis stated that the
brownish tone of the copper will provide a backdrop for the cottage. Mr. Folonis added that copper does not
require any maintenance.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked Mr. Folonis to describe the landscaping in terms of softening the
wall. Mr. Folonis described the
landscaping on the site and stated that the low wall on the first floor is a
board-formed wall; this wall will be covered with a vine that would result in a
tight, sculpted edge. He stated that
there may be other areas where vines would be appropriate but vines will not be
used underneath the roof of the garage. Mr.
Folonis stated that the landscape will be developed in a careful manner.
Commissioner
Bach stated that composition of the building from the alley side is
beautiful. Commissioner Bach asked Mr.
Folonis to explain the rationale for the ten-foot high ceiling in the garage
and apartment. In regard to the garage,
Mr. Folonis responded that the owners plan to store sporting equipment above
the automobiles. In regard to the
apartment, Mr. Folonis stated that a ten-foot ceiling would be an appropriate
height for a continuous space.
Commissioner Bach asked Mr. Folonis if any strategies exist to reduce
the overall height and mass of the building; there is an offset to the north
side where where mechanical equipment could be located. Mr. Folonis stated that mechanical equipment
does not belong in the side yard because of the noise. Commissioner Bach asked Mr. Folonis if the
owner would consider alternative horizontal siding strategies in lieu of
copper. Mr. Folonis responded that the
owner would like to use copper and stated that copper is an appropriate
material to use.
Commissioner
Genser asked Mr. Folonis if the existing garage could be used. Mr. Folonis responded in the positive. Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Folonis if the existing
garage could be structurally enhanced for more permanence. Mr. Folonis stated that the current garage is
not a legal parking garage for two cars.
Mr. Folonis stated that the garage does not have any studs; therefore, the
siding is holding up the roof.
Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Folonis if the historic building code
would apply. Mr. Folonis responded in
the negative because the garage is not historic.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked Mr. Folonis if any parking is lost because of construction. Mr. Folonis responded that two cars could be
parked in the garage.
Commissioner
Bach asked Mr. Folonis the width of the copper cladding. Mr. Folonis responded the copper cladding is
sixteen inches wide.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari asked Mr. Folonis if the copper cladding will retain its
color. Mr. Folonis responded that the
color will not change once it has patinaed.
Chair Pro Tempore Shari asked Mr. Folonis to describe the differential
between the top of the accessory structure and the landmark. Mr. Folonis responded that the difference is
roughly about five feet.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked Mr. Folonis if there is a gate to the alley from the concrete
wall. Mr. Folonis responded in the
positive and described the gate.
Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Folonis if a person standing in the alley
could look through the gate and see the ocean.
Mr. Folonis responded in the negative.
Chair
Berley asked Mr. Folonis if the accessory structure will be built to the
maximum allowable height. Mr. Folonis
responded in the negative.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked Mr. Folonis if a fireplace will be installed. Mr. Folonis responded in the negative.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the design of the accessory building is attractive and the
height of the building is acceptable; however, she stated that it is not
compatible with the historic cottage since the design of the accessory
structure is too extreme. She stated
that concrete block is not compatible with lap siding and copper is not
compatible with a hipped-roof vernacular cottages. She stated that compatibility of the two
structures come before differentiation; she stated that the two structures must
be similar in some way for them to be compatible and suggested that the
exterior of the structure could be made of wood since concrete and copper are
too different from the historic structure.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari stated that the proposed rear structure does not complement
the landmark structure. She stated that
the front house is the last extant beach bungalow facing the ocean and it needs
to be honored; the rear structure does not honor the historic structure. She stated that the landmark structure is very
graceful and the contrast between the rear and historic structure is too
extreme. She suggested that the
architect submit another iteration with something that is compatible in
materials and colors. She added that
there should be a slight retrenchment of height if possible.
Commissioner
Bach stated that she is comfortable with the overall spirit and composition of
the structure but made the following suggestions: [1] the horizontal copper
cladding is overwhelming and out of scale; [2] the height of the accessory
structure could be reduced and the mechanical equipment could be obscured; and
[3] the ceiling height on both the garage and the apartment should be reduced. She stated that the project still needs refinement
before it is approved.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the composition of the building is bold and simple and does
not intrude on the landmark structure.
She stated that copper is too assertive for this context. She stated that the cement boards that have
spaces between them produce an interesting visual effect – a modern but clearly
horizontal use of boards. She stated
that window proportions could be more referential to the windows on the cottage
by grouping windows that have the same proportions as the windows on the
cottage and eliminating the horizontal bands that appear as a different
element. She stated that she approves of
the scheme if these improvements are made to the project.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that the
accessory structure is beautifully proportioned but the design of this
structure may not be the right approach for the site. She stated that the use of copper will be
compatible with the site once it weathers.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that there will not be a lot of space between
the proposed structure and the landmark structure, which will make the height
of the proposed structure more imposing, especially when viewed from the
alley. She suggested that the height of
the proposed structure be reduced to make it less imposing. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the use of
board-formed concrete is a strong element as opposed to the delicate and light
design of the landmark structure. She
stated that the appearance of the concrete could be softened if landscape is
growing against the wall.
Commissioner
Genser stated that the building is beautiful but it does not belong at that
particular site. He stated that the
height of the proposed accessory structure dominates the landmark because of
the scale; he suggested that the height of the accessory structure and garage
be lowered. He stated that the scale
should be reduced.
Commissioner
Genser made a motion to hold the meeting past 11:00 pm on Monday, February 14,
2011. Commissioner Kaplan seconded the
motion. The motion was approved by voice
vote.
Chair
Berley reviewed the comments made by the Commissioners. Chair Berley stated that the Commission is
concerned about the juxtaposition of the landmark structure and the proposed
accessory structure because there is too much of a contrast between the two
buildings. Chair Berley stated that the
accessory structure is beautifully designed and the proportions are
wonderful. He suggested that the height
should be reduced and the design needs to create a relationship with the
historic structure.
Commissioner
Fresco stated that the accessory structure will be the entrance that the
visitors will use; she stated that the accessory structure should be very
compatible since the landmark structure and the surrounding buildings need to
feel like one place, not two buildings from different centuries. Commissioner Fresco stated that she does not
support the project.
Commissioner
Bach suggested that this project should be continued and asked the applicant
for refinements to the project and a detailed description of the landscape.
Commissioner
Kaplan stated that the proposed accessory structure will create an elegant
juxtaposition with the landmark structure; they both have strong characteristics. She stated that the landscape may provide a
layer of softness over the project which may connect it to the landmark
building.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari made a motion to continue this item and asked the applicant
to address some of the issues provided by the discussion, including reviewing
the landscape plans. Commissioner Lehrer
seconded the motion and added that the applicant should address the parapet
hiding the mechanical equipment.
Chair
Berley reviewed the comments made by the Commission.
A
roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Bach, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Berley
NAYS: Fresco
11.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
11-A. Discussion, and possible action, including
formation of a subcommittee, to develop and implement a public outreach
strategy regarding the updated Historic Resources Inventory.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari stated that the public must be educated about the merits of
appreciating and working with historic resources and that the Commission and
liaisons in the community will need to oversee how the information is
distributed and used in a most positive context. She also asked staff how each owner, whose
property has been identified, will be informed that their property is on the
Historic Resources Inventory; the owner should not discover this information on
a database. Mr. Traeger stated that staff
will probably hold a series of workshops to discuss the ramifications of the
Historic Resources Inventory. Chair Pro
Tempore Shari asked staff if a consultant will be present at the community
meetings. Mr. Traeger responded that
staff will attend these meetings and, budget permitting, consultants will
attend as well.
Commissioner
Genser stated that many members of the community have a negative reaction
toward landmarks issues. Mr. Traeger
stated that there is a lot of fear and anxiety in the community about landmarks
issues which is why education is a critical component to the rollout. Commissioner Genser stated that the public
should be educated about the advantages of owning a historical resource.
Chair
Berley asked staff to describe the past rollouts of the Historic Resources
Inventory. Mr. Traeger responded that a
letter was sent to property owners, which ended up being problematic. In regard to holding workshops to introduce
the community to the Historic Resources Inventory, Chair Berley asked staff if
it would be beneficial to target people whose properties are on the Historic
Resources Inventory or the general public.
Mr. Traeger stated that the general public is always welcome to attend
community meetings; staff had preliminary plans to involve various neighborhood
groups and hold a series of workshops in each neighborhood. Chair Berley asked staff how many
neighborhood groups exist. Mr. Traeger
responded that approximately ten neighborhood groups exist.
Commissioner
Bach mentioned that there is an interesting confluence of several issues that
might be of interest to the broader community which may relate to architectural
resources and urban design such as the Urban Forest Master Plan. She stated that this will help the community
address broader issues and opportunities in the City.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that one of the strategies that Survey LA used was to create a
fact sheet on their website; this information was designed to diffuse any anxiety
by the community about the presence of their property on the Historic Resources
Inventory.
Chair
Berley asked the Commission if the consultant or staff should take the lead in
being the illuminator of this information.
Commissioner Lehrer responded that the consultant should be present at
the community meetings because of their knowledge about the survey. She stated that staff should handle the
meetings if the consultants are not available.
She added that it would be helpful for the Commission to help with the
community meetings.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari stated that the owners of newly-identified properties should
be personally advised that their property is listed on the Historic Resources
Inventory and that they should be provided with a list of all of the benefits
that inclusion on the inventory can offer.
She stated that the Commission must formulate a solution to combat the
community’s resistance toward owning a property that is listed on the Historic
Resources Inventory.
Chair
Berley stated that the goal of community outreach is to diffuse anxiety in the
community and the Commission must ensure that a personable approach is used in
the outreach to relay the benefits of historic preservation, which is generally
not communicated to the community.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari stated that not everyone could attend community meetings;
owners of newly-identified properties need to be informed in a special,
personal way.
Commissioner
Genser stated that a consultant can only give a factual analysis of the
inventory but is unable to relay the political context of the inventory. Mr. Traeger stated that staff and the
Commission would relay the political context to the public.
Chair
Berley stated that outreach should begin with the neighborhood groups since
that would encompass specific geographic areas in the City. Chair Berley asked staff how many
Commissioners should attend each meeting.
Mr. Traeger responded that three or less should attend so that any
community meeting would not constitute a Landmarks Commission meeting; he
suggested that the Commissioners decide who should attend each meeting.
Chair
Berley stated that the following would be helpful to the Commission: [1] identification
of the neighborhood groups; and [2] breakdown of the inventory in a way that
would be meaningful for each group.
Chair
pro Tempore Shari suggested that identification of the neighborhood groups
should follow the pattern set forth in the Land Use and Circulation Element.
Commissioner
Kaplan stated that there are only a small group of potential districts that
were identified and those are a subgroup of the neighborhood organizations; she
suggested that the Commission may want to gently introduce this material to
these neighborhoods because the inventory will affect their personal property. She stated that the Commission may want to
meet with residents of newly-identified potential districts.
Commissioner
Bach suggested that the Commission form a subcommittee to study this
issue. She also suggested that the
Commission either form a subcommittee to study this issue or continue this item
to a future meeting.
Chair
Berley stated that the best course of action would be to appoint a subcommittee
to work with staff directly on a strategy to introduce the Historic Resources
Inventory to the public; he stated that the subcommittee should also discuss
how community meetings should be structured.
Chair
Berley, Chair Pro Tempore Shari, and Commissioner Lehrer volunteered to be on
the subcommittee. The Commission
approved the subcommittee.
11-B. Discussion on the Urban Forest Master Plan relative to the city’s
historic landscape and identifiable existing planting patterns, and possible
selection of a Commission member to attend future meetings of the Urban Forest
Master Plan Task Force and subsequently update the Commission on pertinent
issues.
Commissioner
Bach stated that there was an attempt to plant additional trees along her
street in January as part of the AQMD/greenhouse gas grant program prior to the
adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan.
She stated that there seems to be a need for representation from the
Commission regarding historic public landscapes in the Urban Forest Master
Plan. She proposed that the Commission
formulate a way to provide this representation during the Urban Forest Master
Plan process.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari recommended that Commissioner Bach be appointed as a liaison
to the Urban Forest Task Force.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff to clarify the difference between a representative and a
liaison. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum stated that the City Council did not establish a formal
representation role for the Landmarks Commission on other boards or
commissions; he stated that the Commission may designate a member of the
Commission to attend any other Commission’s proceedings and participate in
those proceedings as a member of the public.
He added that the Commissioner who is chosen would not have a formal
role in another Commission’s meetings.
Commissioner
Bach stated that she will be attending these meetings; however, the Urban
Forest Task Force’s Draft Statement of Guiding Principles does not contain a
strong statement or goal about a sense of place. Commissioner Bach asked staff if the City
Council would consider giving the Landmarks Commission a formal role in the
Urban Forest Task Force if the Task Force requested the Landmarks Commission
presence during their meetings. Senior
Land Use Attorney responded that the City Council would need to formally revise
the action that created the task force.
Chair
Berley asked Commissioner Bach if she could attend Urban Forest Master Plan
Task Force meetings as a Commission representative and report back to the
Commission. Commissioner Bach agreed.
Commissioner
Kaplan stated that the Pier Restoration Corporation was enthusiastic about the
idea of selecting a Landmarks Commissioner to attend their meetings. She stated that this dialogue set up a
relationship between both bodies.
11-C. Update from staff on recent
administratively-approved Certificate of Appropriateness applications.
Mr. Albright reported that staff did
not approve any Certificates of Appropriateness during the last month.
11-D. Update
and report from liaisons on the Palisades Garden Walk/Town Square project.
Commissioner
Genser was asked by Karen Ginsberg, Assistant Director at Community and Cultural
Services Administration & Planning Services, to submit the photographs of
City Hall that were displayed to the Commission during the January 10, 2011
meeting; he reported that her requested was granted. He stated that Community and Cultural
Services will review the parameters and the historically-important features of
the City Hall area.
Commissioner Kaplan
reported that she attended the January 26, 2011 landscape workshop for
Palisades Garden Walk. She stated that everyone
was aware of the fact that the Rose Garden in Town Square was identified as a
contributing feature but the presentation did not address this fact. Commissioner Kaplan stated that one of the
issues discussed was the type of grass that should be planted in front of Town
Square. She advised the Commission that
there was an issue about how Town Square will be used, how it has been used
historically, and the park’s potential to hold large gatherings; the consultants
did not address these issues during the workshop. Commissioner Kaplan reported that the next
workshop will be held on February 26, 2011 to show the development of the
design of the parks.
11-E. Discussion on suggestions and
recommendations for implementation of the recently adopted Land Use and
Circulation Element of the General Plan (LUCE) and for consideration in the
formation of an applicable Interim Zoning Ordinance, update from subcommittee
formed to address the Planning Commission and City Council on the initial
Interim Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Berley reported that the
Planning Director presented the Interim Zoning Ordinance for the downtown area
before the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission unanimously approved
the ordinance. He stated that the City
Council also approved the ordinance. He
stated that the Interim Ordinance was created to act as a bridge for ongoing
development in the downtown area. Chair
Berley asked staff to keep the Commission informed in regard to developments in
upcoming interim ordinances so the Commission could have a voice in that
process.
11-F. 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.
Chair
Berley stated that the Commission does not have a City Council Liaison because
of a recent City Council action to disband the liaison position. Chair Berley asked staff to agendize a discussion
about the elimination of the City Council Liaison.
11-G. 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 Berley stated that the
Architectural Review Board reviewed the project at 301 Ocean Avenue;
Commissioners Bach and Lehrer also attended the meeting. Chair Berley stated that the Chair Folonis
had significant concerns about the project.
Chair Berley reported that another Board Member stated that the design
was pushing the parameters of what a Spanish-Colonial Revival would mean in
2011. He stated that there was a general
consensus on how important the site is to the City and the Board Members
recognized this fact. Chair Berley
stated that the project was continued to future meeting. Chair Berley also reported that there was a
project on Georgina Avenue in which the Commission has not reviewed a
demolition application as of this date.
Commissioner Bach reported that the house to be demolished is probably
less than forty years old.
11-H. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to
the Pier Restoration Corporation (PRC) on recent PRC activities and action
taken on proposed projects involving the Landmark Santa Monica Pier.
Commissioner Genser stated that he
informed the Pier Restoration Commission that the Landmarks Commission filed a
Landmarks Designation Application for the Santa Monica Pier Bridge and
Sign. He stated that the Pier
Restoration Corporation was surprised that the Commission filed an application
for the bridge. Commissioner Genser
reported that the Pier Restoration Corporation wanted to discuss these filings
but Commissioner Genser advised them that he was unable to discuss this matter
during the public input item of the meeting.
The Pier Restoration Corporation expressed concern about their inability
to discuss the matter; Commissioner Genser suggested that they agendize an item
in which the Landmarks Commission liaison gives a report to them. Commissioner Genser reported that the
construction of the onion dome is over budget; he distributed a copy of the
onion dome design.
11-I. Planning
Commission Case List (Information Only).
12.
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS: None.
13.
FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests
from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)
Commissioner
Genser asked staff to agendize a discussion about the elimination of the City
Council Liaison position, the effect that this will have on the Commission and
the action the Commission may pursue.
Commissioner
Bach asked staff to agendize a report from the representative to the Urban
Forest Task Force.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the Historic Resources Inventory report expressed concerns
about the Structure of Merit category and its usefulness; she asked staff to
agendize a discussion about the Structure of Merit designation and possible
revisions in the ordinance to make it a more useful tool for preservation.
Commissioner
Kaplan asked staff to agendize a discussion about the Interim Zoning Ordinance and
the inclusion of Landmarks on development agreements that involve landmarks.
Chair
Pro Tempore Shari asked staff to agendize an update from staff regarding the
rollout of the Historic Resources Inventory to the public. Chair Berley stated that the subcommittee
with be meeting with staff regarding this issue. Mr. Traeger stated that the subcommittee
should provide an update regarding the rollout of the Historic Resources
Inventory.
Chair
Berley asked staff to agendize a discussion regarding what legal measures the
Commission could establish to protect a resource when the Commission grants
flexibility to the owner of a landmark structure such as the ability to move a
property to accommodate development on a parcel.
14.
NEXT
MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00
PM Monday, March 14, 2011; City Council Chambers, Room 213, City Hall.
15.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Bach made a motion to adjourn the meeting on
February 15, 2011 at 12:06 am.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by voice vote.