[00:00:03]
WE'LL BE GETTING STARTED IN JUST A MINUTE, BUT WE ARE HERE FOR THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION MEETING.
[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD EVENING.I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR OCTOBER 29TH, 2024.
[ROLL CALL]
CALL THE ROLE COMMISSIONER BODAK PRESENT.COMMISSIONER CHRISTOFF PRESENT, COMMISSIONER HUNTER.
PRESENT, ENTER YOUR MICROPHONE PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER PRYOR PRESENT VICE CHAIR GUI.
COMMISSIONER HUNTER IS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? IF THERE ARE NONE, UH, I'D LIKE TO
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
HAVE EVERYONE STAND AND RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC.
STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL LIBERTY.
IT IS NOW TIME FOR SWEARING OF THE WITNESSES.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION MEETING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
[1. 24-55362 Recommendation to receive and file Director’s Report. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PRYOR.I WILL TURN THINGS OVER FOR THE STAFF REPORT.
UM, THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT FOR OUR OCTOBER MEETING OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION.
UH, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO ENGAGING, UM, THE COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC THIS EVENING, UM, BOTH ON OUR FORMAL HEARING AS WELL AS A VERY SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AND TRAINING.
UM, TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW HISTORIC PRESERVATION WORKS AND, AND THE ROLE OF THIS COMMISSION.
UH, FOR THOSE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THE FIRST ONE OR TWO PARTS.
THEY ARE ALL RECORDED AND AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE.
SO I DO RECOMMEND THOSE AS RESOURCES TO HISTORIC DISTRICT LEADERS AND RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHO MAY BE, UM, OF INTEREST.
I BELIEVE THAT, YES, THAT CONCLUDES OUR DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? IF THERE ARE NONE, CAN WE OPEN UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT SPEAK AT THIS TIME? IF THERE ARE NONE, ARE THERE ANY ON THE VIRTUAL THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO DO ME NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
[2. 24-55361 Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting of Tuesday, September 24, 2024. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2024.MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM? WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PRYOR AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BODAK.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MINUTES? IF THERE ARE NONE, WE CAN NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.
[00:05:02]
IF THERE ARE NONE VIRTUALLY.IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MINUTES, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MINUTES.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
[3. 24-55363 Recommendation to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval thereto, to allow a 569 square foot rear addition of a Craftsman single-family dwelling. 1502 E. 8th Street is located within the Hellman Craftsman Historic District, is a contributing structure, and is located in the R-2-S zoning district. (District 1) Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
THREE, RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL THERETO TO ALLOW 569 FOOT REAR ADDITION OF THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1502 EAST EIGHTH STREET, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE HELLMAN CRAFTSMAN HISTORIC DISTRICT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE R TWO S ZONING DISTRICT.MAY HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THIS ITEM.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PIEZO AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GIFE.
UM, COULD WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION FROM THE STAFF? THANK YOU.
SO HERE AT THE STAFF TABLE, UM, WE HAVE JUST REALIZED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRIMARY REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS RELATED TO A REAR ADDITION, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED SCOPE RELATED TO MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT FACADE.
HOWEVER, UM, WE'RE SEEING NOW THAT THAT COMPONENT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA, WHICH, UM, IS A NOTICING ISSUE.
AND SO, UM, IN CONFERRING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, IT APPEARS, UM, THAT WE BELIEVE THE BEST PATH FORWARD WOULD BE TO HOLD THIS ITEM OVER UNTIL IT CAN BE PROPERLY NOTICED SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS, UH, THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THE FRONT FACADE COMPONENT.
ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD ADD TO THE ATTORNEY? NO, WE JUST WANNA ENSURE THAT WE ARE BEING FAIR, OPEN, AND TRANSPARENT AS REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.
AND SO WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS A FRIENDLY MOTION TO LAY THIS ITEM OVER UNTIL IT'S NOTICED PROPERLY.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PIZZA AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BODAK TO LAY THE ITEM OVER.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? WE SURE DO.
AND WE ARE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NEW MOTION, WHICH IS TO LAY THIS ITEM OVER AT THIS TIME, WOULD ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA? IF YOU WOULD LIKE, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, THANK YOU VICE CHAIR MAGU AND COMMISSIONERS FOR LETTING US SPEAK TONIGHT.
THANK YOU TO THE FAMILY AND THE ARCHITECT FOR, UH, BEING INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.
MOSTLY THANK, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR, UM, REALLY TAKING CARE AND LOOKING OVER THIS PROJECT VERY CAREFULLY.
AND INVOLVING CRAFTSMAN VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT, I'VE PROVIDED THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE STAFF AND, UM, THE FAMILY WITH PACKETS SO WE CAN KIND OF GO THROUGH IT ALL TOGETHER.
SO PART ONE IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST PHOTO, AND THIS SHOWS THE HOUSE IN THE EXISTING CONDITION AS IT IS TODAY.
IT'S STUCCO HAS NON-ORIGINAL, UH, POSTS, PIERS, UM, A PORCH THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SECOND PICTURE THE FRAMING AT THE TOP OF THE WINDOWS AND THE APRON AT THE BOTTOM HAS BEEN CUT OFF.
I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTOS.
UM, SORRY, CAN WE STOP TIME? I DON'T WANNA INTERRUPT YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I MAY HAVE FAILED TO DO A GOOD JOB EXPLAINING THAT.
THE MOTION BEFORE THE, THE MOTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION RIGHT NOW IS NOT TO HEAR THE, IS FOR THE REAR IS FOR, IS FOR IT TO BE RESET.
THIS STUDY HELD OVER FOR THE NEXT TIME.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S OKAY IF YOU STILL, IF THERE'S, YOU STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO ADDRESS THIS COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION RIGHT NOW.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE, IN THE REAR, SO I CAN'T COMMENT.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADVOCACY FOR LONG BEACH HERITAGE AND I'M AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN.
UM, I'VE BEEN TO LOOK AT THIS HOUSE AND I I THINK THAT THE REAR ADDITION IS FINE.
I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE FRONT.
UM, 'CAUSE I HAVE BEEN TO LOOK AT THAT ALSO.
AND I WOULD SAY THE COLUMNS ARE NOT ORIGINAL.
THERE'S SOME KIND OF RESIN COMPOSITE AND THE PORCH DOESN'T APPEAR TO
[00:10:01]
BE ORIGINAL EITHER.IT'S VERY SLOPPILY POURED CONCRETE.
AND MY BEST GUESS IS THAT PROBABLY THE ORIGINAL PORCH WAS MADE OF WOOD BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1912.
HOUSES FROM THAT PERIOD USUALLY HAD WOODEN PORCHES.
THE CONCRETE PORCHES DIDN'T COME ALONG UNTIL LATER IN THE TEENS AND ALSO TUSCAN COLUMNS, WHICH ARE THERE NOW.
I IT MAY HAVE HAD WOODEN TUSCAN COLUMNS, BUT THERE'S NO BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PORCH AT ALL.
UM, AND SO I'M JUST MAKING AN EDUCATED GUESS THAT THE HOUSE MAY HAVE HAD A WOODEN PORCH WITH TUSCAN COLUMNS, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
SO WHATEVER
SO I, IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT ON THAT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OKAY.
AND WE ALSO ARE A RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER TOO.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE REAR EDITION AT THIS TIME? RIGHT CHAIR.
TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THE REAR EDITION.
WE'RE TAKING NO ACTION ON THE REAR EDITION.
WE ARE SEEKING TO HAVE THIS ITEM LAID OVER ONCE IT'S NOTICED IN FULL WITH THE REAR EDITION AND ANY CHANGES TO THE FRONT FACADE.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME? UH, BEFORE WE CAN WE CHECK WITH OUR ONLINE ATTENDEES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
AT, AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
UH, COMMISSIONER PRYOR, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
BY LAYING OVER THE ENTIRE PROJECT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT KICKS THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ANOTHER MONTH THAT THE BUILDER AND THE THEY ALL HAVE TO WAIT? THAT'S RIGHT.
IS THERE, IS THERE NO WAY THAT WE CAN APPROVE THE BACK AND NOT THE FRONT? THAT WAS, 'CAUSE IT WASN'T, THE BACK WAS ALREADY IN OUR PACKET.
SO YOU COULD SPLIT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND POTENTIALLY BRING THAT BACK.
I LEAVE THAT QUESTION TO STAFF.
SO I THINK AS OF NOW, THAT IT WAS ONE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UM, FOR BOTH THE, UM, THE QUESTION OF THE FRONT FACADE, UM, AND THE REAR.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT IN PUBLIC, UM, IS HERE FOR THE REAR PORTION, UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF WOULD BE AMENDABLE TO, UH, SPLITTING THE CERTIFICATE.
UM, AND BRINGING BACK THE QUESTION OF THE FRONT FACADE ONCE IT CAN BE DULY NOTICED SINCE WE, WE HAVE MET OUR BROWN ACTED NOTICING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE REAR PORTION, UH, COMMISSIONER PIZZA.
UM, DOES THAT COMPLICATE THE, THE PROCESS TO SPLIT THIS, UM, IN ANY FASHION? I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO HAVE THIS AS ONE WHOLE, UM, SUBMISSION BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A GRAY AREA BETWEEN THE ADDITION, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE SIDE ELEVATIONS THAT GET AFFECTED.
AND SO ARE WE THEN TO LOOK AT THOSE IN THE REAR, QUOTE UNQUOTE REAR? UM, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M BRINGING.
I'M JUST BRINGING THAT TO YOU.
YEAH, I, I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME COMPLICATIONS FROM SPLITTING IT IN ADDITION TO SORT OF YOUR ANALYSIS.
IT WOULD BE CLEANER FOR IT TO COME BACK AS A WHOLE.
ADDITIONALLY, IT, IT COULD BE CHALLENGING ON, ON THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE TO NAVIGATE POTENTIALLY HAVING TO SPLIT IT.
UM, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO ASK THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
UM,
UM, NOW I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
UM, I, I WAS GONNA SAY WHAT EXACT, 'CAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE HERE THAT WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FRONT.
SO OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE KNEW THAT THE FRONT WAS BEING, UM, ADDRESSED.
CAN WE JUST KIND OF ELABORATE ON HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT? ABSOLUTELY.
SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE JUMPING INTO THE TRAINING, UM, HERE IN THE HEARING.
THERE ARE DEFINITELY PEOPLE HERE.
UM, AND WE VALUE EVERYONE'S TIME AND BEING, BEING HERE TONIGHT.
SO, UM, JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT.
UM, CERTAINLY THIS IS AN OVERSIGHT AND ERROR AND NOT INTENTIONAL IN ANY WAY.
'CAUSE CLEARLY THE, UM, STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO IT ADDRESS BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE SCOPE, THE ENTIRETY.
UM, THE ISSUE IS A, A BROWN ACT ISSUE, WHICH IS THAT THE PUBLIC, ALL OF THE PUBLIC HAS TO HAVE DUE NOTICE, UM, OF THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED BEFORE THIS BODY PRIOR
[00:15:01]
TO THE MEETING.THE FIRST IS THE, UM, THE PUBLIC NOTICE PORTION, WHICH REQUIRES MAILED NOTICES AND POSTERS TO BE PROVIDED TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND POSTED ON THE SITE AT LEAST 14 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME.
AND IF THERE WAS SOMEONE WHO SAW THAT IT WAS ONLY A REAR ADDITION AND WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ONLY REAR EDITION CHANGES, THEY MIGHT'VE DECIDED TO SKIP OUT ON THIS MEETING.
UM, SIMILARLY FOR THE AGENDA, IT REQUIRES THAT, UM, ALL THAT INFORMATION BE INCLUDED 72 HOURS AHEAD OF TIME, UH, SO THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD DECIDE WHETHER THEY WERE INTERESTED ENOUGH TO, TO COME OUT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.
UM, BEFORE WE AMEND THE MOTION, IF, IF WE HAVE TO, UM, IF THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD THEY LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS TO, UH, REGARDING SPLIT SPLITTING THE COA, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M THE ARCHITECTURAL OF ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE DESIGNER, UH, MY ADDRESS IS 3 0 3 8 6 ESPERANZA A RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 8 8.
UM, I WAS JUST TALKING WITH OUR CLIENTS, WITH MY CLIENT AND, UM, WE BOTH AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO KEEP IT TOGETHER.
UM, IT'S THE FRONT FACADE THAT HAS BEEN IN QUESTION AND UM, I THINK IT WILL COME TO RESOLUTION BECAUSE, AND WHAT I HEARD, UM, MICHELLE SAY, AND IE LOUISE, UM, THEY BOTH AGREE THAT THE COLUMN, THE EXISTING COLUMNS IN FRONT ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL COLUMNS.
THEY WERE RETROFITTED AT SOME TIME, PROBABLY IN THE NINETIES WOULD BE MY GUESS, WHEN THE STUCCO WAS ADDED TO THE HOME.
SOMEBODY WENT FOR A MEDITERRANEAN STYLE.
UM, IT WAS NOT A A, A GOOD FIX, BUT SOMEBODY THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD AT THE TIME.
AND THAT'S WHAT, UH, THEY DID.
SORRY, OUR OWNERS WANT TO BRING IT TO THE ORIGINAL, UM, THE ORIGINAL CONDITION.
I, I NEED TO LIMIT DISCUSSION ON THE FRONT FACADE BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN NOTICED UNDER THE BROWN ACT.
SO WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED PLAY ON WHAT CAN BE SPOKEN IN FRONT OF THIS BODY.
UM, SO YOUR COMMENTS RELATIVE TO BREAKING THE COA UP BETWEEN THE TWO ARE VERY HELPFUL.
BUT AGAIN, IF WE WANNA HAVE CONVERSATIONS RELATIVE TO THE FRONT FACADE, THAT NEEDS TO BE NOTICED.
SO, SO, UM, IT WOULD BE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE WOULD LIKE IT UNDER ONE APPLICATION.
I, I DO APOLOGIZE TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE DELAY OF 30 DAYS.
I HOPE THAT DOESN'T, UM, PUT YOUR CONSTRUCTION IN THE RAINY SEASON, BUT REGARDLESS, UH, WE WANNA DO OUR BEST ON THIS.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENT? YEAH, COMMISSIONER GFI, I JUST, THE TRADITION HAS BEEN WITH THE CHC THAT WE HAVE NOT NECESSARILY HAD NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER MEETINGS BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAYS.
SO THIS MAY PUSH IT INTO NEXT YEAR.
SO ASK THAT IS, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE COULD HAVE A, UH, SPECIAL HEARING FOR IT AND WE COULD EXP EXPEDITE DRAWINGS FOR, UM, ANY KIND OF MODIFICATION THAT HAS TO BE DONE? SO, UM, YES, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, UM, STAFF WILL LOOK AT A COUPLE OF OPTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS HEARING AS SOON AS FEASIBLE.
SO WE'LL LOOK AT EITHER HOSTING IT, UM, IN NOVEMBER OR DOING A SPECIAL DATE, UM, JUST AFTER THE HOLIDAY.
IF, IF WE DON'T BELIEVE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET QUORUM THAT THANKSGIVING WEEK, WHICH IS, UH, THE WEEK THAT THE LAST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH FALLS ON.
SO WE COULD EITHER DO IT, UM, THEN, OR, OR, UM, EARLY IN DECEMBER.
BUT WE'LL, WHAT WE'LL DO IS LOOK FOR, UM, UH, WHERE WE CAN HAVE THE AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION NEEDED AND THEN GO THROUGH THE FULL NOTICE, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEN GO THROUGH THE FULL NOTICING PROCESS TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING.
MR. COMMISSIONER GFI, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE AT THIS TIME? YES.
COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ HERE.
I JUST NEED A CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE COA FOR THE PAINT.
I THINK I READ SOMEWHERE THAT THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
CAN THAT BE CONFIRMED? HAS THAT APPLICATION BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED? UM, NO.
THAT, UM, THE, THE PAINT IS STILL PART OF THIS APPLICATION HERE.
[00:20:05]
AT THIS TIME.ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? DID WE DO A VIRTUAL REQUEST? WE DID.
OKAY AT THIS TIME, MADAM CHAIR CLAIRE, COULD WE CALL FOR THE ROLL? I MOTION CARRIES TO LAY THE ITEM OVER.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR,
[4. 24-55366 Recommendation to receive and file a training regarding the Long Beach Cultural Heritage Commission and Preservation Project Reviews. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE TRAINING REGARDING THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION AND PRESERVATION PROJECT REVIEW.MAY WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PRYOR AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ.
CAN WE COMMENCE WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION? WONDERFUL.
SO AS WE'RE PREPARING, UM, SO I WANT TO INTRODUCE BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC, JOHN LISA AND FLORA CHOW, UM, FROM, UH, PAIGE AND TURNBULL TO HELP US, UM, IN, IN FACILITATING A THIRD PART OF OUR TRAINING FOR THIS YEAR, UH, REGARDING OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION AND PRESERVATION PROJECT REVIEWS.
SO I'D LIKE TO WELCOME THEM BACK HERE.
THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS EVENING, UM, AND LOOK FORWARD TO EVERYONE'S, UH, PARTICIPATION IN THIS THIRD AND FINAL PART IN THE SERIES.
IT'LL BE, UM, A BIT MORE OF AN INTERACTIVE TRAINING.
I'M A PRINCIPAL OF PAIGE TURNBULL.
UM, WE'RE PLEASED TO BE BACK TODAY.
THIS IS, UH, FLORA, YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF? I'M FLORA CHU.
I'M ALSO ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL AT PATIENT TURNBULL.
WANNA DO THE HONORS THERE? SURE.
SO, UH, WE HOPE YOU REMEMBER, UH, THE TRAINING FROM LAST TIME, BUT WE ALWAYS THINK IT'S GOOD TO REINFORCE, UH, THINGS.
SO WE'LL DO A A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE COVERED LAST TIME, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO, UH, APPLY THIS TO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CASE STUDIES.
SO, UM, ONE WOULD BE UPPER STORY ADDITIONS.
THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO, AND THEN, UH, AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK, UH, AND HOW ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THAT LANDMARK MAY OR MAY NOT, UM, UH, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS.
SO, UH, THE TRAINING OBJECTIVES AND BRIEF, UM, JUST TO UNDERSTAND ROLE AND AUTHORITY AND WHERE YOU FIT IN THE, THE OVERALL CITY PROCESSES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THINKING ABOUT BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION WITH OTHER PROJECT GOALS, UM, RECOGNIZING, UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIND OF MUSTS AS FAR AS, UH, MAKING FINDINGS AND SHOULDS, WHICH ARE MORE RECOMMENDATIONS OR GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS.
UM, LEARNING A RANGE OF ACCEPTABLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPROACHES.
THERE IS NOT, DEFINITELY NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL, UH, TO, UH, PROJECTS AND SOLUTIONS.
AND THEN, UM, HOPEFULLY, UH, GETTING THROUGH THE TRAINING, YOU FEEL EMPOWERED TO ASK QUESTIONS AND, UM, BE WILLING TO DISCUSS TRADE-OFFS TO GET TO A YES WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, FINDINGS.
SO THE, UM, LONG BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OUTLINES 10, UH, PRIMARY DUTIES FOR THE, UM, COMMISSION.
AND THE TWO PRIMARY ONES ARE REALLY, UH, RECOMMENDING DESIGNATION OF LANDMARKS AND LANDMARK DISTRICTS TO COUNCIL AND, UH, REVIEW OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AND EITHER ISSUING OR DENYING CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, THE, UH, CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION REALLY HELPS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, UH, IMPLEMENT AND ACHIEVE SEVERAL THINGS.
SO, UH, FIRST OFF IS THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THERE'S SEVERAL ELEMENTS TO THAT.
[00:25:01]
IS, UH, ASSISTING WITH, UH, RECENT STATE LAWS AND OTHER POLICIES, WHICH ARE, UM, NOT EASY AND CHANGING I FEEL EVERY WEEK.UM, BUT PRIMARILY THESE ARE RELATED TO HOUSING.
UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO THINGS UPCOMING LIKE THE OLYMPICS.
SO THERE ARE, UM, DEFINITE, UH, PRIORITIES WITH THE CITY WITHIN THE CITY THAT, UH, ARE UNIQUE.
AND THEN LASTLY, DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
SO IT'S PLANNING APPROVALS AND YOU GUYS DO THE CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, BUT THERE'S OTHER STUFF, ZONING, CHANGE IN USE, PARKING, CA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REALLY APPLIES TO, UM, MAJOR PROJECTS.
SO, UM, THOSE ARE LARGER SCALE CHANGES.
THEY'RE ADDITIONS OR, UH, SUBTRACTIONS ALTERATIONS AND CHANGES TO ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
ADDITIONS OVER 250 SQUARE FEET.
THAT ADDITION SIZE VARIES FROM A MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITY, SO THAT'S A REASONABLE SIZE.
UH, ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, TWO STORY ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE ALWAYS TRICKY.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE IN A MINUTE.
UM, ALTERATIONS TO SETTINGS SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A PARKING LOT WHERE THERE USED TO BE A PARK OR GOING THE OTHER WAY, UH, REMOVAL OF OUTBUILDINGS AND RELOCATION OF BUILDINGS, AND THEN INFILL OF NEW CONSTRUCTION LANDMARK DISTRICTS.
IT'S NICE TO SEE THAT IN HERE BECAUSE SOME, UH, MUNICIPALITIES DON'T REGULATE THAT.
UM, YOUR AUTHORITY OVER INTERIORS TENDS TO BE LIMITED.
SO IF IT'S A, IF IT'S A PUBLIC SPACE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN A NOMINATION, THEN YOU DO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER IT.
AND THEN, UH, SO, YOU KNOW, KEY TO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN THE RECORD IS, UH, MAKING FINDINGS.
SO YOU REALLY GOT, UM, FOUR FINDINGS TO MAKE.
AND THE FIRST IS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT WILL AVERSELY AFFECT, UM, SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC FEATURES AS THEY APPLY TO OTHER LANDMARK OR A SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN A LANDMARK DISTRICT.
UM, THERE'S ALWAYS THE POTENTIAL THAT YOU NEED TO REMEDY A, UM, IMMINENT THREAT OR DANGEROUS CONDITION.
SO THOSE ARE TEND TO BE CODE ISSUES.
UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT DOESN'T COME UP AS MUCH.
UM, WILL THE, UH, PROJECT COMPLY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS OR GUIDELINES? AND THEN WILL THE PROJECT COMPLY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LANDMARK DISTRICTS? THOSE BOTH, THOSE TWO ARE INTERRELATED, UH, BUT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I GUESS I'LL JUMP IN AND MENTION THAT BECAUSE THESE FINDINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FOR THOSE MAJOR ADDITIONS FOR, UM, CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, THEY'RE THE SAME FOR ALL PROJECTS.
SO YOU HAVE TO EITHER DECIDE IF A PROJECT DOES MEET ALL THESE FOUR FINDINGS OR THEY DO NOT.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THINKING ABOUT HOW THEY MEET THEM.
AND, UM, SOMETIMES IT GETS DOWN TO THE DETAILS.
SOMETIMES THEY'RE BIG PICTURE THINGS, BUT HAVING THAT DISCUSSION, HAVING THAT, UM, INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD IS VERY HELPFUL BOTH FOR THE APPLICANTS AND FOR THE CITY, FOR THE CITY STAFF.
SO, SO HOW DO YOU GET, HOW DO YOU GET TO THOSE FINDINGS? SO YOU ARE, UH, DECISION MAKING BODY FOR THE CITY, UM, AND YOUR DELIBERATIONS ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS, SO YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THEM THAT WAY.
AND, UH, IT IS THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROCESS OF APPROVING OR DENYING THE C OF A.
UM, SO YOU REALLY NEED TO APPLY, UH, RULES TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED.
UM, SO THAT REQUIRES REVIEWING APPLICATION MATERIALS, UM, REALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS OF A HEARING, LISTENING TO, UM, ALL THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF CITY STAFF AND THEIR PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT AND THEIR PRESENTATION.
AND THEN FROM THE, UM, PUBLIC AS WE SEE HERE TONIGHT.
AND THEN, CAN YOU AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS BASED ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND NOT NECESSARILY HEARSAY? UM, WE WANT TO ALWAYS BE BALANCING, UM, YOU KNOW, CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTIONS WITH, UM, THE NEEDS AND GOALS AND DESIRES OF THE APPLI APPLICANT TEAM, ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY, BEST INTEREST FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCE, THE PUBLIC RESOURCE ITSELF, AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS.
SO SOMETIMES THINGS MIGHT BE, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE IMPORTANT THAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
OFTEN THAT'S LIFE SAFETY ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND WE'VE TRIED TO BREAK DOWN SOME OF THE, HOW DO YOU GET TO THESE FINDINGS BY THESE FIVE STEPS.
UM, THAT WILL DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF
[00:30:01]
THE, UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC RESOURCE SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT IS WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS, THE DIFFERENT COMPONENT PIECES, AND THEN WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS THAT REALLY AFFECT THE RESOURCE.AND THEN APPLYING THE EVIDENCE TO FINDINGS.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE, THE, UH, GUIDELINES FOR A HISTORIC DISTRICT OR THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THEN HAVING YOUR DISCUSSIONS AND DECISION.
SO, UM, IT ALL STARTS WITH THE HISTORIC RESOURCE.
UH, WHAT TYPE IS IT? IS IT HISTORIC DISTRICT? IS IT A, UM, INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK? UM, FREQUENTLY LANDMARKS CAN BE THINGS OTHER THAN BUILDINGS.
SO IS IT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE BUILDING? UM, AND THEN REALLY, WHY IS IT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT? UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR MULTIPLE REASONS AS WE WENT OVER BEFORE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR THE ASSOCIATION WITH PATTERNS OF HISTORY OR PEOPLE MIGHT BE THOUGHT OF DIFFERENTLY THAN, UM, THINGS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR, UM, THEIR ARCHITECTURE DESIGN TO MAKING SURE THE NUANCES OF THAT IS UNDERSTOOD.
AND THEN REALLY BEING ABLE TO DEFINE THE, THE CHARACTER DEFINING ASPECTS OF A, OF A PROPERTY AND, UM, UNDERSTANDING HOW THEY MAY CHANGE.
AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THE PROJECT, THERE'S GOING TO BE THINGS THAT ARE REMOVED.
THERE'S GOING TO BE, UH, FREQUENTLY, UH, PROPOSED, UM, REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT OF, UH, FEATURES.
UH, WHAT'S NEW, WHAT'S BEING ADDED, WHAT'S BEING TAKEN AWAY, AND THEN WHAT'S BEING REQUIRED.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS IS CODE, CODE RELATED, UM, ASPECTS TO THINGS AND HOW CAN WE BALANCE THAT WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS.
UM, NEXT WE WANT TO IDENTIFY, UH, THE ISSUES OF WHERE ARE THOSE CHANGES, UH, AFFECTING THOSE FEATURES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, AND THEN WHEN ARE THOSE CHANGES TOO MUCH? AND THE HISTORIC CHARACTERS BEING ALTERED TOO MUCH SO THAT THE RESOURCE, UH, STOPS TO BECOME A RESOURCE.
UM, WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE ABLE TO APPLY EVIDENCE, THE FINDINGS.
SO HOW DOES THE PROJECT COMPLY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS? HOW DOES IT OR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE, UM, DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR YOUR DISTRICT? UM, LOOKING AT ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PROPERTY SIGNIFICANCE AND THAT REMEMBER THOSE ASPECTS, CULTURAL, HISTORIC, UM, ARCHITECTURAL AND, AND OTHERS.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THE PROJECT GO ABOUT REMEDYING CODE ISSUES? AGAIN, THERE'S KIND OF, WE, WE'VE, WE LIKE TO SAY IN OUR FIRM, DESIGN IS DECISION.
SO YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS AND HOW ARE YOU THOSE DECISIONS AND HOW YOU ADDRESS CODE ISSUES, UM, YOU KNOW, MAY AFFECT THE RESOURCE OR MAY NOT AFFECT THE RESOURCE.
AND THEN REALLY HAVING, YOU KNOW, A DISCUSSION, IT'S OKAY TO, UH, UM, FIND ISSUE WITH THE STAFF REPORT.
IT'S OKAY TO, UM, HAVE ISSUES WITH EACH OTHER.
UM, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE FINDINGS, UH, OR NOT MAKE FINDINGS? UH, DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING TO MAKE THE FINDINGS? AND THEN WHAT MAY YOU WANT TO MODIFY, AMEND, OR, UM, CONDITION.
SO YOU GUYS HAVE A GOOD STAFF THEY PUT TOGETHER.
UM, THEY LOOK AT THE PROJECTS, THEY'VE ALREADY KIND OF WORKED THROUGH SOME CHANGES, UH, PROBABLY MOST OFTEN TIMES.
UM, SO THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE PROJECT TO A POINT WHERE THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE BRINGING IT TO YOU, AND THEY WILL HAVE AN ANALYSIS AND DRAFT FINDINGS.
AND THEN AS A COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE? UM, AND THEN DO YOU AGREE OR POTENTIALLY DISAGREE WITH THE FINDINGS? UH, AFTER KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THOSE, UH, STEPS, AND PRIMARILY YOU HAVE KIND OF WRITTEN GUIDANCE, YOU HAVE THE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND ASSOCIATED GUIDELINES THAT COME WITH THOSE.
AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
SO YOU HAVE KIND OF WRITTEN THINGS THAT YOU CAN, UM, RE GO BACK TO AND THINK ABOUT 'EM.
AND LAST TIME WE SPENT MORE TIME ON SORT OF THOSE FIRST THREE STEPS OF KNOWING THE RESOURCE AND UNDERSTANDING THE PROJECT AND, UH, IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES.
SO I THINK TODAY WE WANNA SPEND MORE TIME ON THE CASE STUDIES AND THE, HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT APPLYING THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS OR DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE NUANCES OF THAT, SOME THAT ARE VERY EASY TO SEE, AND MAYBE SOME THAT ARE A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT.
AND HOPEFULLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AMONG ALL OF YOU AND WITH US STAFF, UM, AS WE LOOK AT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.
SO THIS IS OUR, UH, ABRIDGED, UH, VERSION OF THE 10 REHABILITATION STANDARDS WITHIN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
UH, I THINK WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND, UH, TALK ABOUT THEM A LITTLE MORE.
[00:35:01]
THESE TIES TO SOME ASPECT OF, UM, HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, INTEGRITY, OR CHARACTER, SOMETIMES MORE THAN ONE.SO AS WE THINK ABOUT THEM, WE CAN THINK, YOU KNOW, DOES IT APPLY TO OVERALL THE OVERALL PROPERTY? DOES IT APPLY TO, UM, THE THINGS THAT REMAIN, UH, OR DOES IT APPLY TO NEW ELEMENTS? SO THIS IS A LITTLE CHECKLIST TO HELP YOU GET THROUGH THAT.
AND THEN THERE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE, WE CREATE A HIERARCHY OF THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
THIS COMES FROM THE GUIDANCE WITHIN KIND OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE STANDARDS AND THE GUIDELINES FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
UM, BUT FIRST WE WANT TO REALLY IDENTIFY, RETAIN, AND PRESERVE A RESOURCE.
SO THESE, A HISTORIC WISE, A HISTORIC, UM, LET'S MAKE SURE WE KEEP IT.
UM, THEN WE WANT TO, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM A PROJECT PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, TAKE MEASURES TO PROTECT AND MAINTAIN, UH, THE RESOURCE.
SOMETIMES THAT MIGHT MEAN STABLE INTERIM STABILIZATION AND MAKE SURE SOMETHING, UM, STAYS TOGETHER, UH, ONCE WE'VE KIND OF GOT THAT ASPECT OF IT, UH, WHAT NEEDS REPAIR.
UM, AND THEN WE WANT TO DO THAT, UH, IN AS GENTLE OF A WAY POSSIBLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, LIMITING REPLACEMENT.
BUT SOMETIMES YOU DO HAVE TO REPLACE THINGS.
AND, UM, IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT REPAIR, LET'S REPLACE IT IN KIND.
AND THEN, UM, IDEALLY WE'RE MATCHING THE ORIGINAL.
UH, AND THEN LAST WE, YOU KNOW, DOING OUR RESEARCH, UNDERSTANDING THE RESOURCE WE MIGHT WANT TO REPLACE LOST AND OR MISSING FEATURES.
SO THIS IS REALLY KIND OF THE TANGIBLE ASPECTS THAT REMAIN OF A HISTORIC PROPERTY.
AND IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CAN'T CHANGE AT ALL, THAT YOU HAVE TO SAVE EVERY CHARACTER DEFINED FEATURE OR ALL HISTORIC MATERIALS.
THERE WILL BE THAT BALANCE OF WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT, WHERE DO YOU HAVE THAT TIPPING POINT WHERE YOU LOSE TOO MUCH OR YOU LOSE A MAJOR FEATURE THAT YOU REALLY WANNA PROTECT.
BUT WHERE CAN THERE BE SOME CHANGES WHERE THERE MAY BE LESS IMPORTANT FEATURES? THIS IS SORT OF A GUIDELINE OF THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE RESOURCE ITSELF, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE, WHAT'S CURRENTLY, UM, AT THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN THERE'S THE SECOND PART OF LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, WHICH IS HOW, WHAT CHANGES, RIGHT? HOW DO WE APPROPRIATELY CHANGE A HISTORIC PROPERTY? UM, AND LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, WE'RE SEEING, UM, THIS CHANGE, THE, THE THINKING AROUND THIS CHANGING TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE AND THE, UM, IN LOOKING AT KIND OF CLIMATIC EVENTS, STRONGER STORMS, UH, YOU KNOW, BEING MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT.
SO THE FIRST, UH, PART OF THIS IS JUST CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS TO THE PROPERTY.
THE SECOND PART, SECOND PART IS WHERE ARE THOSE CODE REQUIRED ASPECTS? IT COULD BE STRUCTURAL RETROFIT, IT COULD BE DISABLED ACCESS, UH, COULD BE KIND OF PROVIDING FRESH AIR TO, UM, PROPERTIES.
NOW WE SEE THAT MORE AND MORE, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGING FOR US AS, UH, AS DESIGNERS.
UM, WE WANT TO HAVE RESILIENT THAT, THAT PIECE I WAS TALKING ABOUT RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS.
SO THE, UM, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS PUBLISHED, UH, A SPECIFIC, UM, SET OF A SET OF GUIDELINES THAT, UH, BOOST THE STANDARDS FOR FLOODS AND ONES COMING FOR FIRES.
SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU CAN, UH, GRAB OFF, UH, THE INTERNET, BUT, UM, ARE HELPFUL, BUT AGAIN, MORE FLEXIBLE THAN WORK, UM, THAT THAN THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED.
UH, THERE'S ALSO A SPECIAL DOCUMENT ON SUSTAINABILITY AND THINKING ABOUT HOW MEASURES, UH, FOR SUSTAINABILITY LIKE, UH, SOLAR PANELS FOR EXAMPLE, MAY OR MAY NOT, UH, MEET THE STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE.
AND THEN THERE'S ALWAYS THIS ASPECT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO HOW DO WE BALANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, KIND OF THE MATCHING THE HISTORIC RESOURCE AND DIFFERENTIATING FROM THE HISTORIC RESOURCE.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE DISCRETION.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WORK WITH LOTS OF DIFFERENT DISCRETIONARY BODIES AND WE FIND THAT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT, TAKES SOME LIKE THINGS TO MATCH MORE, SOME LIKE THINGS TO BE DIFFERENT, MORE.
THERE'S A RANGE THAT, UM, EXISTS AND UH, THAT'S OKAY.
AND THEY CAN ALL BE STANDARDS COMPLIANT.
SO HERE'S TWO, HERE'S TWO EXAMPLES, UM, THAT WE SHOWED, UH, LAST TIME.
BUT YOU KNOW, ONE WHERE THERE'S A, UH, INFILL CONSTRUCTION IS VERY DIFFERENT IN THE, IN THE UPPER RIGHT AND THEN ONE IN THE LOWER, UH, RIGHT, THAT'S MORE COMPATIBLE.
[00:40:02]
SO THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS.IT'S, UM, THERE'S, UH, A SPECTRUM OF INTERVENTION REALLY LIKE TO SAY.
THE STANDARDS ARE MEANT TO BE FLEXIBLE.
THEY'RE MEANT TO TAKE THINGS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
THE, UM, THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND EACH PROJECT DIFFER.
UM, WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF EACH PROJECT.
AND ULTIMATELY THERE'S TRADE OFF IN COMPROMISE.
HISTORIC PROJECTS IN OUR EXPERIENCE REQUIRE COMPROMISE TO GET THE BEST RESULTS.
UM, SO, UH, WE MAY NOT BE FULLY CONSISTENT WITH SOME, WE MAY BE FULLY CONSISTENT WITH SOME STANDARDS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY OTHERS.
UH, WE MAY NOT MEET ALL 10, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WANT, UM, WHAT WE CALL GENERAL COMPLIANCE OR CONFORMANCE WITH THE STANDARDS.
AND IN SEEKING TO, UM, REACH THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, GO BACK TO THIS, WHY IS SOMETHING HISTORIC? SO DO WE HAVE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER INTACT AT THE END OF THE DAY? AND DO WE HAVE HISTORIC INTEGRITY STILL REMAINING? SO YOU'RE GONNA DO THE CASE STUDY, I'LL START THE CASE STUDY.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S NOW, UM, A GOOD REFRESHER IN YOUR MIND TO THINK ABOUT ALL THESE AS WE WALK THROUGH, UM, AT LEAST THE FIRST CASE STUDY.
WE'LL DO A LITTLE BIT OF WALKING THROUGH, BUT WE HOPE YOU WILL, UH, CHIME IN AND WHEN WE ASK FOR DISCUSSION THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN.
SO THIS IS, UM, AN EXAMPLE THAT WE HAVE FROM A DIFFERENT CITY THAT WE'RE GONNA USE, UM, FOR JUST AS OUR CASE STUDY ABOUT AN UPPER STORY ADDITION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND YOU'RE GONNA ONLY BE ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR YOU.
SO THAT WILL BE THAT IT'S A CONTRIBUTOR TO A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND THE PRIMARY BUILDING IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THAT'S A TUDOR'S REVIVAL STYLE DESIGN.
UH, YOU CAN SEE IT HERE, UM, ALONG THE STREET FRONT.
AND IT'S IN A DISTRICT THAT IS A PRETTY GOOD SIZE.
UM, AND IT'S REALLY, THE DISTRICT IS SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS PERIOD.
REVIVAL HOUSES DEVELOPED FROM THE EARLY 1920S ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE 19 LATE FORTIES.
SO IT HAS A MIX OF STYLES, BUT THEY'RE ALSO THIS PERIOD OF REVIVAL, UM, STYLES FROM SPANISH COLONIAL TO TUDOR AND NORMAN, UH, ALL.
WHAT IS TYPICAL FROM THAT ERA.
UH, THERE ARE PRIMARILY ONE AND TWO STORY HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE, UM, GARAGES AND OTHER DWELLING UNITS ON THE, ON THESE LOTS.
AND THE HOUSE THERE IS IN THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE.
UM, THE CHARACTER DEFINED FEATURES THAT WAS IDENTIFIED FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS PRIMARILY JUST FOR THE MAIN BUILDING ITSELF THAT HAS THIS, UH, AS ASPECTS OF THE TWO REVIVAL STYLE THAT THE ASYMMETRICAL MASSING WITH MULTIPLE GABLES.
THE GABLE ENDS HAS SOME DECORATIVE ELEMENTS TO THEM.
YOU SEE THE STUCCO AND DECORATIVE HALF TIMBERING AS THE EXTERIOR CLADDING.
UH, THERE ARE SOME OTHER DETAILS LIKE THE WOOD BRACKETS AND WINDOW BOXES.
THAT'S CHARACTER FINDING ON THE FRONT FACADE.
UH, IT HAS A ENTRANCE ON THE FRONT FACADE AS WELL, THAT'S A BIT RECESS.
AND IT'S GOT THE MOLD IS STUCCO ARCH AROUND IT.
THERE ARE, UH, AS WELL AS THE DOOR WITHIN IT.
AND THEN THERE'S DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS OF, OF WINDOWS, BUT MOSTLY, UM, THIS LARGE ARRANGEMENT ON THE FRONT FACADE AS WELL AS THEN THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING.
ORIGINAL WOOD, SASH WINDOWS, THERE'S NOT BEEN VERY MANY ALTERATIONS TO THE BUILDING.
IT HAS HAD A BATHROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR.
AND THEN THE, UM, THE ROOF ITSELF, THE COMPOSITE SHINGLES LIKELY ARE NOT ORIGINAL.
AND SO THIS BRINGS BACK THE UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT AND A WAY TO THINK ABOUT, UM, THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PROPOSED PROJECT.
SO TYPICALLY YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR CERTIFICATE, APPROPRIATENESS, APPLICATION, THE DRAWING SET, ANY REPORTS, TECHNICAL REPORTS THAT WOULD COME IN, AS WELL AS A STAFF REPORT.
WE DID NOT TRY TO MARK MARK ALL THAT UP FOR YOU, BUT YOU GET A, A BRIEF, A BRIDGE VERSION HERE.
AND THEN THINKING THROUGH ALL THESE, UH, DIFFERENT ASPECTS.
SO WE'LL JUST WALK THE THROUGH.
UH, BEFORE WE GO THERE, UH, THINKING ABOUT THE, THE USE OF A NEW USE BEING PROPOSED, UM, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, UH, TO BE REMOVED, DEMOLISHED, REPAIRED OR ALTERED? WHAT'S NEW BEING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED? IS IT IN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING ITSELF? UM, IS IT ADJACENT TO IT? IS IT ON THE PROPERTY INSTEAD, ARE THERE ANY SITE FEATURES THAT YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT'S ALSO BEING PROPOSED? AND THEN THOSE, UM, REQUIRE ELEMENTS THAT MAYBE DRIVING SOME OF THE CHANGES, WHETHER THERE
[00:45:01]
IS A NEED FOR SEISMIC UPGRADE, UH, THERE'S A SAFETY ISSUE OR ACCESSIBILITY AND THINKING ABOUT HOW THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE DONE.SO IF THIS IS CAME TO YOU AS THE EXISTING HOUSE, AND SO I WAS WANTING TO PROPOSE A STORY, I THINK WE SHOULD SAY THAT THIS PROBABLY WOULDN'T COME TO YOU 'CAUSE YOUR STAFF'S PRETTY GOOD.
AND UM, BUT STILL IT HELPS TO KIND, YOU KNOW, IT HELPS TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THE STEPS.
WELL, THIS COULD COME TO YOUR STAFF, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, SOMEPLACE THEY SEE THIS AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE IT BEFORE IT GETS TO YOU.
UM, SO I THINK YOU COULD SEE A FEW THINGS THERE.
WE'LL GO THROUGH A COUPLE SLIDES THERE.
THEY ARE PROPOSING AN ADDITION ON TOP OF THIS, PRIMARILY ONE STORY BUILDING.
HERE'S A SIDE VIEW, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN, YOU'LL SEE A LITTLE, THE TOP IS THE EXISTING.
SO THEY WERE PROPOSING TO, UM, REMOVE WHAT IS KIND OF IN THE GRAY AREA THERE, WHICH SEEMS LIKE A GOOD AMOUNT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN PROPOSING TO ADD, UM, A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION TO IT.
SO AS WELL AS THEN CH UM, HAVING THAT ADDITION BE PRETTY MUCH IN THE FRONT ROOF LINE RIGHT BACK.
SO LIKELY YOU DON'T SEE VERY MANY PROJECTS LIKE THIS, RIGHT? YOUR STAFF IS GONNA HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN, UM, TALK TO THE APPLICANT AND SAY WHY THIS MAY NOT MEET THE, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN YOUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND DOES NOT MEET THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
SO, BUT IN THINKING ABOUT THIS, IT WAS HELPFUL TO SAY, WELL, IN TALKING TO APPLICANTS WHY A PROJECT LIST MAY NOT BE APPROVED.
AND, AND GOING THROUGH ALL THESE ASPECTS OF IT, THE KEY ELEMENTS HERE REALLY ARE THAT, UM, THERE IS NOT CHANGE IN USE.
IT'S STILL GONNA BE USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT LETS YOU KNOW THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A NEED FOR AS MUCH CHANGE.
UM, BUT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT DEMOLISHING A GOOD PART OF THE BUILDING AND ALTERING THE ROOF AND DOING THE ADDITION.
THAT'S BOTH A SECOND STORY EDITION AND A REAR EDITION.
AND SO IF WE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND IDENTIFY THE ISSUES, UM, LET'S SEE.
IF WE WERE TO HAVE, YOU MAY WELL COME HERE AND HAVE YOU START IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES THAT YOU MAY HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT WHAT CHANGES THE HISTORIC CHARACTER TOO MUCH? AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD WANNA SEE THAT'S MORE FOR MORE CLARITY HERE? OR IS THIS BE A YEAH, I'D BE CURIOUS TO HOW STAFF WOULD ACTUALLY TALK TO APPLICANTS ABOUT THIS.
DO YOU WANT SHRINK STOP, COME FOR IT.
SO THEY, THEY'VE COMPLETELY CHANGED THE CHARACTER, IN MY OPINION, OF THE HOUSE.
THE SCALE OF THE HOUSE HAS BEEN CHANGED.
AND THE REASON THAT THAT THAT'S BEEN DONE WAS THEY, THEY, THE, THE, THE ROOF.
I SEE SOME CODE THINGS ITEMS TOO.
LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THAT CHIMNEY IS TOO CLOSE TO THE ROOF.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NECESSARILY, BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T, WE DON'T TYPICALLY, SOMETIMES WE GET INTO THAT AND I'LL, AND I'LL ASK STAFF THE FACT THAT WE, I SEE THIS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT? OR, OR NO, I THINK ALL THAT IS, IS AS YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE APPROVED ON A BUILDING PERMIT LEVEL.
IS THAT ALL YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? NOT NECESSARILY.
I THINK YOUR PURVIEW IS MORE THE, WOULD IT RETAIN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER? AT WHAT POINT IS IT? YEAH, YEAH.
SO I, I DON'T THINK IT DOES, I THINK IT CHANGES THE ENTIRE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING, THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING OR THE, ARE THE, THE BIG VIOLATIONS IN MY OPINION.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP ON THAT? RIGHT.
I WOULD WANNA ASK, UH, IF MORE THAN 50% OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WAS AFFECTED.
UH, 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST QUESTION.
UH, AND THEN AGAIN, THE FRONT FACADE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY CHANGED BECAUSE NOT JUST THE ADDITION OF THE EXTRA ROOF LINE, BUT THE DORMERS IN PARTICULAR FOR ME STAND OUT, UH, AND REALLY TAKE AWAY FROM THE TWO EXISTING FEATURES OF THE MAIN FACADE.
SO I WOULD START WITH THOSE TWO, UM, BEING VERY EGREGIOUS IN ADDITION TO JUST THE MASSIVE ROOF LINE AND THE COMMENTS FROM OTHERS.
AGREE, DISAGREE? I AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THE TWO DORMER WINDOWS ARE ASKING FOR TOO MUCH ATTENTION AND TAKING AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL, UM, ARCHITECTURAL MERIT OF THE, OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING.
UM, IT ALSO, LIKE COMMISSIONER BODAK SAID IT, IT BASICALLY CHANGES THE WHOLE FRONT ELEVATION IN A WAY THAT IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE CURRENTLY.
UM, IT'S A LOT OF ROOF AS WELL.
[00:50:01]
THINK YOU GUYS HIT ON SOME OF THOSE MAJOR ISSUES.YEAH, I, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE, TO FRAMING IT IN AND AROUND THE STANDARDS, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
SO STANDARD TWO, IT'S NOT PRESERVING HISTORIC CHARACTER, NOR IS IT, UH, STANDARD THREE COULD BE ARGUED BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TRYING TO PRETEND LIKE THE NEW DORMERS, THE NEW ROOF WOULD BLEND INTO THE HISTORIC, UH, PIECE.
SO IT'S, IT'S A BIT OF FALSE HISTORICISM.
I MEAN, THEY'RE TRYING TO FAKE SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY WASN'T THERE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, STANDARD NINE, UM, IS THE, YOU KNOW, IS IT COMPATIBLE YET DIFFERENTIATE? IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE, RIGHT? SO, AND IT'S REALLY, THEY'RE IN THE FRONT.
THEY'RE TRYING TO BLEND, UM, THINGS IN A INAPPROPRIATE WAY FROM A COMPATIBILITY STANDPOINT TOO.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, 10 CAN GET A LITTLE TRICKY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, HOUSE, UM, UH, PROJECTS, PARTICULARLY SECOND STORY HOUSE PROJECTS.
YOU KNOW, COULD, IS IT REVERSIBLE? I THINK THIS ONE IS MUCH HARDER TO REVERSE THAN, UM, SOME OTHER OPTIONS THAT MAY BE OUT THERE.
AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER BOAK HAD A GOOD POINT ABOUT QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING MM-HMM,
BUT THERE'S ALSO THAT QUESTION GOING BACK TO, IS IT, IS THE SCALE MASSING TOO MUCH? IS IT TAKING TOO MUCH AWAY FROM WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING? SO I THINK YOU HIT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
I ADD ONE OTHER THOUGHT, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT FOR JUST A SECOND, IS THEN THIS ONE COMES UP FOR US OFTEN IS WHAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STREET, RIGHT? MM-HMM,
SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT THAT THE SLOPE, UM, IS DIFFERENT THAN THIS.
THE, THE PITCH OF THE ROOF IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PITCH OF THE REST OF THE ROOF.
AND, AND IT HAS A MORE, IT HAS LIKE A ZERO, UM, EVE.
AND SO, UM, YOU, YOU WONDER IF THAT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LUIS WOULD'VE COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT ONE.
I DON'T HAVE A POINT, I DON'T THINKER THE MATERIAL OF THE ROOF LOOKS LIKE IT'S CHANGED.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST, UM, GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED AS DIFFERENT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT MATERIAL, WHICH ALSO WOULD BE A RED FLAG.
WELL THIS ONE I THINK IT, THAT'S A GREAT POINT THOUGH.
UH, THIS, THE ROOF MATERIAL ITSELF IS NOT AN ORIGINAL FEATURE, THE NOW COMPOSITE SHINGLE.
AND THEY MAY HAVE BEEN PROPOSING TO PUT IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY WOOD AS IT LIKELY WAS WOOD OR SOME SORT OF MORE WOOD-LIKE COMPOSITE SINCE, YES, MOST LIKELY WOOD SHAKES ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR FIRE CODE REASONS, BUT SOMETHING THAT LOOKS MORE LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S A BALANCE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S SOME ATTEMPT HERE TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS MAYBE MORE TUTOR THAN IT WAS, UM, AND BRING BACK SOME OF THE MATERIAL.
WOULD THAT BE A TRADE OFF FOR BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING THAT CHANGES THE SCALE AND THAT MUCH? PROBABLY NOT IN THIS CASE.
IT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO DO THAT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO.
UH, BUT I THINK WE DOVE INTO SORT OF HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE BUILDING ITSELF? DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SETTING ASIDE THE HOW IT'S CHANGING THE BUILDING, DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD FIT INTO THAT LANDMARK DISTRICT THOUGH IN TERMS OF HAVING A SECOND STORY ADDITION OR ADDITION THAT SCALE? WOULD THERE BE A CONCERN OF IT CHANGING? ONE, ONE OF THE BUILDINGS NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY DID HAVE A SECOND STORY AND THE SIZE WAS SIMILAR TO THIS ADDITION.
BUT AGAIN, BACK TO THE COMMENTS OF WHAT CAN YOU SEE FROM THE STREET, IF THEY MAYBE, UM, HAD THE ADDITION, YOU KNOW, TO THE REAR, BUT AT A LOWER SCALE THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO PASS IN TERMS OF SIZE AND SCOPE? MM-HMM
I WOULD WONDER IF THAT ADDITION HAD BEEN APPROVED BEFORE ZONING LAWS CHANGE OR PERHAPS BEFORE THE DISTRICT WAS LANDMARKED.
UM, JUST BECAUSE THE MASSING WAS VERY OVERWHELMING.
IT WAS VERY IMPOSING AS IT ENCROACHED CLOSER TO THE STREET.
I DID NOTICE ON THIS ORIGINAL PROPERTY, THE SETBACK LOOKED A BIT MORE APPROPRIATE.
SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE MY FIRST QUESTION.
I KNOW SOMETIMES PRECEDENT COMES INTO MIND, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT PRECEDENT IS APPROPRIATE OR IF IT WAS DONE DURING
[00:55:01]
THE LANDMARK PERIOD MM-HMM.THAT SOMETIMES, UM, YOU DO LOOK TO SEE IF IT FITS WITHIN ITS CONTEXT, BOTH FOR THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE, BUT ALSO THE STREET ITSELF AND IT'S IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE, IT WAS A LANDMARK DISTRICT, SO IT DID NOT GO THROUGH THIS LEVEL OF REVIEW.
DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE CAN'T LOOK AT IT AND SAY, HEY, THAT WAS ALLOWED.
WHY NOT, UH, ALLOW THAT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR IN SCALE.
SO YOU HAD ALSO SAID AT THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY A CONTRIBUTOR, RIGHT? YES.
SO AS A CONTRIBUTOR, I THINK WE HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS AS WELL, BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF DILUTING THE REST OF THE DISTRICT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT AND UNDERSTAND HOW MANY CONTRIBUTORS HAVE ALSO CHANGED OVER TIME.
AND DOES IT RE, DOES THE LANDMARK DISTRICT AS A WHOLE STILL HAVE ENOUGH CONTRIBUTORS IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORMATION OR ORIGINAL CONTEXT? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT AS WELL.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING CONSIDERED BECAUSE REALLY THE LANDMARK DISTRICT IS YOUR RESOURCE.
THAT'S SORT OF THE FIRST STEP OF HOW MANY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THERE, HOW BIG IS IT? IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF IT'S A VERY SMALL DISTRICT OF JUST ONE BLOCK.
IF IT'S A MUCH LARGER DISTRICT AND THERE'S MANY, UH, CONTRIBUTORS, THIS MAY NOT HAVE AS MUCH OF AN IMPACT.
SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMMENT.
AND I THINK, UH, YOUR STAFF TYPICALLY WOULD ALSO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AND HOPEFULLY, UH, PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT OR HAVE THE APPLICANT PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO SEE HOW THIS FITS INTO THAT BLOCK, HOW IT FITS INTO ITS SURROUNDINGS.
AND I THINK YOU GOT MOST OF ALL THIS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT THE SCALE AND MASSING OF THIS WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE IN A DISTRICT LIKE THIS.
WE SAW THAT THERE ARE OTHER TWO STORY BUILDINGS ON THAT BLOCK, BUT REALLY IT'S THE, THE SCALE MASSING AND REFORM FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF THAT ARE ISSUES.
AND WE WANNA BRING THIS BACK TO OUR LIST OF CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES AND HOW YOU THINK ABOUT THEM.
AND THIS HIERARCHY OF WHEN YOU DO THE BIG SCALE CHANGES, THEY REALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER MUCH MORE THAN IF YOU'RE DOING SMALL SCALE CHANGES.
IF THEY WERE JUST CHANGING OUT THE WINDOWS, IF THEY'RE CHANGING OUT, UH, A BALCONY, IF THEY'RE ADDING A BALCONY OR ADDING A PORCH TO IT, THAT MAY BE LESS OF A IMPACT.
BUT ONCE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT SCALE AND SIZE AND MASSING AND PARTICULARLY ROOF FORM, THEN THOSE TOP THREE, YOU START TO SEE THAT IMPACT TO THAT RESOURCE.
I, I ALWAYS LIKE TO SAY, IF YOU DON'T GET THE TOP THREE, RIGHT, UH, REST OF 'EM AREN'T GONNA MATTER.
AND IF YOU ONLY, SOMETIMES YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE APPLICANTS OR OTHERS WHO ARE JUST DO THE, THE OPENINGS AND PROJECTION AND DON'T DO THE TOP PART, THAT ALSO IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A SHIFT.
SO NOW THINKING ABOUT HOW YOU MAKE THAT CASE OF AND, AND GOING THROUGH THE GUIDANCE THAT YOU HAVE, TRYING TO MAKE A CASE OF A, UM, TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHY THAT WOULDN'T WORK.
SO ONE OF THE FIRST IS JUST TO SEE FROM, UM, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES, SINCE THIS IS IN A DISTRICT, WOULD A UPPER STORY LIKE THIS BE ALLOWED? AND FOR SOME DISTRICTS IT IS AND SOME IT'S NOT.
SO LET'S SAY IF THIS WAS IN THE BELMONT HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE GUIDELINES WOULD ALLOW FOR UPPER STORY EDITION.
SO AT LEAST THAT PART OF OKAY, THAT IS, UH, ALLOWABLE.
UM, IF, IF FOR CERTAIN, UH, FOR CERTAIN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THEN COMING BACK TO THE STANDARDS, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT.
BUT, UM, AND IT'S HELPFUL TO GO THROUGH THESE AND THINK ABOUT EACH ONE OF THEM.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANNA USE THIS AS AN EXERCISE FOR YOU ALL TO THINK ONE, THE APPROPRIATE NEW OR CONTINUED USE.
IS THERE ANYTHING BEING PROPOSED DUE TO THE CHANGE IN USE OR CONTINUING USE THAT IS DRIVING THE, THE PROJECT THAT YOU THINK YOU HAD TO CONSIDER? I'LL ASK THAT AS A QUESTION.
IS, IS STANDARD ONE SOMETHING THAT YOU'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT? WE, WE DID RECENTLY HAVE ONE THAT WAS A COMPLETELY NEW USE, UH, FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING THAT WAS LANDMARKED ALREADY.
AND, UH, I THINK WE WERE ALL OKAY WITH THE CHANGE OF USE, UH, BECAUSE THE EXTERIOR WAS REALLY BEING RETAINED.
AND SO THAT MEANS THAT THERE IS A, A NEW USE, BUT IT'S APPROPRIATE.
IT'S NOT ASKING THAT THE BUILDING CHANGED SO MUCH TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEW USE.
AND IN SOME CASES, SO THAT IN THAT PROJECT, IT SOUNDS LIKE STANDARD ONE WOULD BE ONE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT FURTHER BECAUSE THERE'S A PROPOSED NEW USE.
YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT PROPOSED NEW USE IS NOT CAUSING SO MUCH CHANGE TO THE BUILDING.
IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE NOT, THERE IS NOT CHANGE IN USE, BUT SOMETIMES EVEN WHEN THERE IS NOT A CHANGE IN USE, THERE'S THIS NEED TO, UH, ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF NEW THINGS.
[01:00:01]
EVEN WITH THAT, WITHIN THAT SAME USE THAT STARTS TO CHANGE, UH, THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING OR THE OVERALL PROPERTY.WE DID NOT HIGHLIGHT THIS, BUT THIS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE COULD MAKE A CASE THAT, WELL YOU'RE, IT'S CONTINUING AS A RESIDENCE.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE, THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE SUCH A LARGE RESIDENCE STARTS TO AFFECT THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
THE SECOND ONE, PRESERVE HISTORIC CHARACTER FEATURE SPACES AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP.
THAT SOUNDED LIKE ONE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT FURTHER.
'CAUSE THAT WAS WHERE THE MAJOR ONE, THE FALSE HISTORICISM, THERE'S SOME PARTS OF THAT HERE THAT YOU WANNA CONTINUE TO LOOK AT.
THE RECOGNIZE CHANGE OVER TIME, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONS TO IT THAT MAYBE ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
BUT YOU THINK THOSE ADDITIONS, UH, HAVE GAINED SIGNIFICANCE ON THEIR OWN RIGHT.
DID THAT SEEM TO COME UP FOR THIS, BASED ON WHAT LITTLE WE PROVIDED TO YOU? THERE WAS A REAR ADDITION.
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD CAUSE THAT BIG OF A DEAL IF IT WAS REMOVED.
BUT I, BUT I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE DISTRICT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ HAD MENTIONED THE, THE HOUSE NEXT TO IT.
WELL WHAT IF THAT ADDITION HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE, RIGHT? SO THE PROPERTY HAD CHANGED AND LET'S PRETEND IT CHANGED APPROPRIATELY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT IN A CASE LIKE THIS.
THERE'S, YOU SEE KIND OF NEIGHBORHOODS CHANGE OVER TIME.
UM, PARTICULARLY LIKE A STREET, LIKE IF IT WAS A STREET CAR SUBURB, RIGHT? IT REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE KIND OF CAR ORIENTATION AND DRIVEWAYS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT AS TIME GOES ON, THE DRIVEWAYS GET ADDED, THE GARAGES GET ADDED SO THAT, THAT CHANGE IS SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERING.
YEAH, I THINK WE'VE, WE START TO SEE SOME DISTRICTS THAT HAVE VERY LONG PERIODS OF SIGNIFICANCE TO ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF CHANGE.
AND SO SOMETIMES THAT MAY BE CHANGES TO THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES WITHIN THAT LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT IN 1900 BUT HAD ADDITIONS OR, OR A FACELIFT IN THE 1920S AND MAYBE CHANGE COMPLETELY CHANGED ITS STYLE, BUT THAT'S WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE DISTRICT.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT LATER ADDITIONS ARE ALSO HAVE GAINED SIGNIFICANCE? SOMETIMES IT DOES, SOMETIMES IT MAY BE, YOU CAN GO BACK TO THAT EARLIER PERIOD FOR A PROJECT.
IT, IT WILL BE A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
BUT WE HAVE SEEN THAT BOTH WHERE THOSE LATER CHANGES JUST BECOME SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THE, HOW THE BUILDING CHANGED OVER THAT PERIOD AND YOU WANNA KEEP THOSE.
AND OTHER TIMES WHERE YOU'RE LIKE, WELL MAYBE THAT'S NOT AS SIGNIFICANT AS TRYING TO RESTORE IT BACK TO AN EARLIER PERIOD THAT'S STILL WITHIN HOW THE DISTRICT CHANGED OVER TIME.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS CAN GET TRICKY LIKE THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT.
UM, SO FOR FIVE AND SIX WE DIDN'T PROVIDE YOU AND SEVEN TO THE EXTENT WE DIDN'T PROVIDE A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR PRESERVING MATERIALS AND FINISHES AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND CRAFTSMAN SHIPS, THEY MAY BE DOING SOME OF THAT FOR WHAT'S REMAINING, UM, REPAIRING RATHER THAN REPLACING.
AND THERE ARE SOME THERE THAT MAYBE THEY WERE DOING SOME OF THAT.
BUT FOR THE MOST PART THOSE ARE, FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS, PROBABLY LESS SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.
UH, OR LIKE WE HAVE TO SOLVE SOME OF THE BIGGER PICTURES BEFORE WE GET TO THE, THOSE DETAILS, INCLUDING THE TREATING WITH GENTLES MEANS POSSIBLE, WHICH TENDS TO BE MORE ABOUT HOW THE MATERIALS ARE BEING TREATED, HOW IT'S BEING CLEANED AND THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
STANDARD EIGHT DOESN'T COME UP TOO OFTEN.
IT DOES OCCASIONALLY, BUT THAT GENERALLY IS PROBABLY ONE THAT, UM, ONLY RARELY IS A STANDARD THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT FURTHER.
AND THEN THAT LEADS US WITH NINE AND 10, WHICH IS DEALING THEN WITH THE NEW ELEMENTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE A SECOND PART OF THIS.
HOW COMPATIBLE IS THAT NEW, THOSE NEW ELEMENTS ARE DOING VERSUS THE CHANGE QUESTION? I HAVE A QUESTION.
JUST AS YOU MENTIONED, UH, REPAIR AND, UM, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO RETURN MATERIALS TO ORIGINAL MM-HMM.
AND I WONDER IF THE ROOF HAD TO BE REPLACED, UM, AFTER IT HAD ALREADY BEEN LANDMARKED.
PERHAPS THE ORIGINAL ROOF MATERIAL WAS SLATE.
AND THAT'S WHY THOSE COMPOSITE SHINGLES WERE CHOSEN TO GIVE MORE OF THAT EFFECT BECAUSE MAYBE THAT WAS THE CLOSEST THING AVAILABLE THAT WAS AFFORDABLE AND WAS APPROVED.
SO TO ME IT ALMOST SEEMED JARRING THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE IT TO MORE OF A SHAKE SHINGLE LOOK, BECAUSE PERHAPS IF THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL ROOFING MATERIAL, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
BUT IF SLATE WAS THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK HISTORIC, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE, I FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DELVE THAT DEEP AND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH SLACK DO WE GIVE
SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO, LIKE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS IMPORTANT, RIGHT? SO IS THERE A PICTURE OF THE HOUSE FROM, YOU KNOW, THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE AND CAN YOU TELL WHAT KIND OF ROOF WAS THERE THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY, BUT
[01:05:01]
THE HOMEOWNER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO UP IN THE ATTIC AND SEE WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS.AND YOU KNOW, OFTENTIMES PEOPLE PUT ROOFS OVER TOP OF, YOU KNOW, WOOD SHAKES.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL, BUT THE KIND OF SKIP SHEATHING THAT WAS TYPICAL IN THE 1920S MAY STILL BE THERE.
SO THERE'S, YOU WANT THAT, YOU DO WANT EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE CHUNKS OF SLATES STILL IN THE ATTIC FOR ALL WE KNOW IF IT WAS A SLATE ROOF.
SO, UM, SO THAT, UM, WE WANT THAT EVIDENCE.
IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT EVIDENCE THAT IT BECOMES, YOU KIND OF END UP BACK IN STANDARD NINE.
WHERE IS IT? IS IT A COMPATIBLE TREATMENT? IS IT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT? SO IT MAY NOT YOU, THAT COULD BE A CRAZY, YOU KNOW, RUBBERIZED COMPOSITE THING.
WE, YOU KNOW, DEPENDS ON KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING.
IT COULD JUST BE A DRAFTING, UH, YEAH, YOU KNOW, CONVENTION.
I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN ASK.
AND THAT GOES BACK TO UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORIC RESOURCE.
WAS THAT ONE OF THE ORIGINAL FEATURES TO IT? WHETHER IT'S ON A BUILDING PERMIT, WHETHER IT'S AN ORIGINAL PLANS, WHETHER THERE'S PHOTO EVIDENCE OF IT, AND IS THAT WHERE THEY'RE DRAWING THEIR INSPIRATION FROM FOR THAT WOULD SHINGLE OR SHAKE OR THEY'RE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION FOR THIS AND TRY AND FIND SOMETHING THAT IS MORE STANDARD NINE ABOUT NEW ELEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT WAS THERE HISTORICALLY.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT, STANDARD SIX IS ABOUT REPLACING MISSING FEATURES.
SO IF THE EVIDENCE SAID WOULD SHAKES WERE THE ORIGINAL ROOFING MATERIAL AND THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE GONNA REPLACE THAT AS A MISSING ELEMENT.
STANDARD SIX WOULD BE THE ONE THAT YOU'D BE LOOKING AT.
IF THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, THERE'S NO PHOTOS, THERE'S NO BUILDING PERMITS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS THERE, WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY CHANGED THE ROOF, THEN WOULD, WOULD SHAKES BE AN APPROPRIATE THING OR IS THAT A GUESS? THAT MAY NOT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE COMFORTABLE HAVING AND YOU WOULD WANT SOMETHING SORT OF SIMPLER.
MAYBE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T GIVE THAT SENSE OF, THAT ALMOST FALLS INTO FALSE HISTORICISM.
THERE IS, IT'S NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE.
IT'S BASED ON A, A GUESS OF WHAT MAY BE TYPICAL FOR THAT BUILDING.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT IS WORTH QUESTIONING AND THAT AGAIN, MAYBE SOMETHING YOUR STAFF HAVE WORKED WITH THEM FIRST TO SAY, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THIS? WAS THAT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE BUILDING? THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS.
YEAH, I THINK WE CAN KEEP GOING.
AND SO WE INITIALLY SAID THAT THESE SORT OF THE FOUR ASPECTS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE PRESERVING HISTORIC CHARACTER REVIEW ONES THAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT FURTHER FALSE SOURCES AND THEN THE TWO FOR THE ADDITIONS.
SO LET'S SAY THAT STAFF HAS TALKED TO THEM A BIT.
THEY REVISED THEIR PROJECT, THEY CAME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT, THEY HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS, THEY CAME BACK WITH SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT BETTER, WE THINK.
SO THAT ON THE RIGHT THERE, UM, WHAT ARE YOU SEEING THAT SORT OF CHANGED BASED ON WHAT THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL AND THEIR REVISED PROPOSAL? WE'LL HAVE A COUPLE OF MORE SLIDES, BUT WHAT ARE YOUR INITIAL THOUGHTS? THEY SET BACK THE, THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY ELIMINATED THAT ROOF PITCH STRAIGHT FROM THE MM-HMM.
SO THAT IT'S, IT'S TWO STORIES AT THE BACK, SORRY.
I THINK THE REAR EDITION IS EVEN MORE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY HAD, IN THE PREVIOUS ONE THEY USED A JUDI, WHICH IS VERY CHARACTERISTIC OF TUDOR STYLE HOMES, EXCEPT THAT WAS IN THE NEW PORTION OF IT, WHICH I FEEL GIVES A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORICISM.
THIS IS THE REAR EDITION IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NO FENCE.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A BIT MORE OF AN APPROPRIATE ADDITION BECAUSE IT, IT SHOWS THAT IT'S A BIT MORE CONTEMPORARY OF A LITTLE, UM, SIDE PORCH THAT THEY'RE DOING THERE, AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO USE A FEATURE LIKE A JUDI THAT IS ON A CONTEMPORARY PORTION, BUT IS REALLY A HISTORIC ELEMENT IN MY OPINION.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT? AGREE, DISAGREE, HAVE MORE COMMENTS? I STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DIMINISHING OF THE MAIN, UH, WINDOW AND THE MAIN PITCH OF THAT WINDOW.
THE HIP ROOF, UH, IS JARRING TO ME, UH, STILL ON TOP OF THAT.
UH, SO I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF THEY COULD MINIMIZE THAT ROOF LANE EVEN FURTHER.
I THINK IT'S BETTER THAT WE HAVEN'T DISTURBED THE ORIGINAL ROOF WITH THOSE DORMERS.
UM, AND THE ORIGINAL BUILDING SEEMS TO BE INTACT NOW, UM, ON ITS OWN.
UM, SO THIS IS DEFINITELY BETTER.
I ACTUALLY ALSO AGREE THAT THAT HEIGHT I WOULD LIKE TO VISIT IN RELATION TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SEE IF THE HEIGHT EXCEEDS, UM, A CERTAIN LIMIT OR, UH, AND, AND HOW THEY COULD POTENTIALLY PUSH THAT ROOF EVEN FURTHER BACK SOMEHOW.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I, I THINK THAT
[01:10:01]
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO.UM, I THINK FROM THE PREVIOUS ELEVATION DRAWINGS THAT WERE SHOWN, THEY WERE WITHIN THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, I NOTICED THE HEIGHT MARKER OF THE, UM, THE HIGHEST LEVEL AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WERE WITHIN IT.
I MEAN, ALTHOUGH IT'S PREFERRED THAT THE RARE ADDITION BE, HAVE AS MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE ORIGINAL AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THAT FOR ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD, AS LONG AS IF I'M LOOKING FROM THE STREET AND IT DOESN'T LOOK TOO IMPOSING, I THINK I WOULD BE AGREEABLE.
BUT I DO AGREE WITH, UM, THE OTHER COMMISSIONER THAT MAYBE A HIP ROOF LINE ISN'T, UH, THE BEST CHOICE.
POSSIBLY A GABLE MIGHT BE BETTER, BUT THE HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME SO MUCH.
I THINK YOU'VE HIT ON A LOT OF THE SAME POINTS AND A LOT OF THE KEY POINTS THAT IT'S BETTER, BUT MAYBE IT'S NOT THE BEST AND THEY COULD MAYBE DO MORE.
UH, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT SO EGREGIOUS AS IT WAS AS IT ORIGINALLY, UH, PROPOSED AND MAYBE WITHIN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING AND HEIGHT FOR THE DISTRICT FOR WHAT'S ZONED FOR.
SO THEY MAY BE MEETING ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
NOW IT'S A QUESTION OF DETAILS AND STILL THAT SCALE OF MASSING, IT'S STILL A PRETTY LARGE, UM, ADDITION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
THE HEIGHT IS THERE, IT'S LESS VISIBLE, UH, BUT THEY'RE STILL PROPOSING IT LOOKED LIKE, UH, MAYBE TRYING TO REMOVE OH, UM, STILL A GOOD AMOUNT OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, MAYBE ONLY KEEPING THE FRONT PORTION.
BUT IT'S STILL A PRETTY BIG ADDITION AT THE BACK.
SO THERE PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE THINGS THAT THIS MAY STILL NOT COME TO YOU AS THIS, THE STAFF MAY STILL BE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE FORM AND THE SHAPE OF THE ABORIGINAL BUILDING BEING SO ALTERED THAT THERE MAY STILL BE MORE THAN 50% OF THAT ORIGINAL BUILDING BEING REMOVED.
UH, AND SO IT'S MAYBE MORE CONSIDERED A DEMOLITION, BUT CERTAINLY IS GOING DOWN THE RIGHT TRACK IN TERMS OF GETTING THE HEIGHT DOWN, HAVING A HIP ROOF THAT IT'S HARD TO TELL IN THE ELEVATION VIEW.
THAT DOES SORT OF RECEDE A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO PICK UP ON MAYBE SOME OF THE SAME ROOF LINES OR ROOF PLANES OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
UH, SO THIS MAY STILL, AND IN SOME JURISDICTIONS THIS MAY GET APPROVED AND OTHERS THAT MAY NOT.
UH, I THINK TO TO ALL OF YOUR POINTS, YOU MAY NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
OTHERS MAY BE SAYING IT'S FINE.
IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PART THAT FACES THE DISTRICT THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO PROTECT AND WE WANT TO PROTECT.
THEY'VE DONE A BETTER JOB OF IT HERE THAN THEY DID PREVIOUSLY.
YEAH, I THINK, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, UM, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE BELMONT, UM, DISTRICT STANDARDS IN PARTICULAR WAS THE IDEA OF PUSHING THE MASSING OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOUR FINDINGS WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON.
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT THAT MASSING IS PUSHED BACK SIGNIFI SUFFICIENTLY OR NOT SUFFICIENTLY? SO, YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARDS, YOU HAVE THOSE OTHER GUIDELINES THAT YOU CAN, UM, USE TO UNDERSTAND PRIMARY, LIKE THE, THE KEY ISSUES TO AN APPLICATION.
AND I THINK THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THE STAFF CAN THINK ABOUT TOO, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD WANT DIRECTION FROM YOU TO TELL THEM SHOULD THEY, WHAT SHOULD THEY CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON? WOULD IT BE THE ROOF HEIGHT? IT SOUNDS LIKE HEIGHT, MAYBE NOT THE ISSUE, BUT MAYBE THE VISIBILITY OF THE ROOF.
UM, BUT BE ABLE TO PULL EACH OTHER AND HAVE, AND COME TO THAT CONSENSUS OF WHAT'S THE DIRECTION FOR STAFF AND FOR THE APPLICANT IS VERY HELPFUL.
AND SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THE, I'LL SAY, I THINK ON THIS ONE WE ALSO AGREED THAT IT WAS NOT FULLY STANDARDS COMPLIANT.
UM, WE TRY TO GIVE MORE GUIDANCE ON TRYING TO MAKE THE, TRYING TO SAY RETAIN MORE OF THAT ORIGINAL BUILDING AND TRY TO MAKE THE SCALE OF THE NEW LESS.
AND THERE WERE, UM, BUT IT DID GO TO A COMMISSION AT A DIFFERENT CITY AND THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT, BUT PARTIALLY THAT, UM, WAS THEY HAD DIFFERENT GUIDANCE THAN MAYBE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS.
THEY HAVE, UH, A DIFFERENT GUIDE GUIDELINES FOR THEIR HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND THEY WERE REALLY PRIORITIZING KEEPING THE EXTERIOR, THE FRONT PART OF THE BUILDING.
SO IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM THEIR END THAT THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT.
UM, I THINK WE WANNA GO THROUGH A FEW SLIDES JUST QUICKLY THINKING ABOUT HOW DO YOU, HOW DO YOU ASK FOR THOSE CHANGES? WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE APPROPRIATE CHANGES? UM, STARTING WITH JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO YOU PRESERVE HISTORIC CHARACTER IN THOSE CASES? SOME OF THIS COMES FROM YOUR
[01:15:01]
STAFF'S REPORT, FROM YOUR HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES ABOUT TRYING TO PRESERVE THAT ORIGINAL SCALE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, KNOWING THAT YOU MAY NOT DO IT ALL THE TIME, BUT THERE'S THE ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL SCALE IN THE FORM, TRYING TO AVOID REMOVING TOO MUCH OF THE, UM, EXISTING FEATURES OR OBSTRUCTING OR DAMAGING THEM BY THE NEW ADDITION.AND TRYING TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCALE THE ADDITION SO IT DOESN'T DIMINISH OVERPOWER THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
I THINK THOSE ARE POINTS WE HEARD FROM ALL OF YOU.
I I THINK ON THE ONE ON THE LEFT, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT HIP ROOF IN THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S A CASE WHERE THEY'RE STARTING TO USE DORMERS TO KEEP DRIVING THAT ROOF LINE DOWN.
AND THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A STRATEGY IN THAT ONE TO CONTINUE TO GET THE, THE ROOFING, THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF DOWN.
SO THAT COULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW IT COULD ACTUALLY TURN OUT, WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THE, WHAT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING LIKELY WAS, BUT YOU CAN ALSO CLEARLY SEE WHAT THE NEW ADDITION IS AND THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS.
IT IS, UH, COMPATIBLE, YET DIFFERENTIATED IN A VERY CLEAR WAY.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S A WHOLE RANGE OF HOW THAT COULD BE.
WE'RE ON THE FENCE ABOUT THE ONE ON THE RIGHT.
IF THAT CAME TO YOU, WHAT WOULD BE SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS? I THINK, DO YOU THINK THAT'S COMPATIBLE OR YOU HAVE SOME OF THE SAME COMMENTS? NO, I DO NOT THINK THIS IS COMPATIBLE TO ME, THIS LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING YOU WOULD SEE IN TRACK DEVELOPMENT BUILT IN THE NINETIES.
IT, IT ALMOST SEEMS TO MIMIC THAT I, I SUPPOSE MAYBE THEY WERE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE THE NEWER ADDITION FROM THE ORIGINAL.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THE HEIGHT IS TOO TALL, IT'S TOO IMPOSING.
IT'S VERY OBVIOUS FROM THE STREET AND THE SIDEWALK.
UM, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT BE PUSHED FURTHER BACK, THE ROOF LINE BE MADE DIFFERENT.
THE WINDOWS SHOULD BE MORE COMPATIBLE.
UM, THAT INSET DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT.
I MEAN, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT DON'T LOOK APPROPRIATE AND IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE A MORE CONTEMPORARY HOUSE ALTOGETHER.
AND THAT'S, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN WHAT THEY WERE GOING FOR WHEN THEY WERE PROPOSING, AND THAT WAS BEFORE THIS WAS A DISTRICT, UH, BUT THEY DID SET IT BACK.
SO THAT WAS SORT OF THE, TRIED TO KEEP THAT ORIGINAL ROOF LINE, BUT THEN THERE ARE ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES RIGHT, THAT YOU'RE PICKING UP.
IT'S STILL TOO PROMINENT AND TOO VISIBLE, UH, AND TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE.
WHEREAS IF THEY DID CHANGE SOMETHING LIKE THE ONE ON THE LEFT AND MADE THE ADDITION A LOT LESS PROMINENT, MAYBE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN OKAY.
AND I THINK THERE'S, YOU HAD, UM, GREAT GUIDANCE ON SORT OF WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER PIECES THAT TO CONSIDER, UH, TO TRY AND MAKE IT LESS VISIBLE.
IT CERTAINLY IT'S IN THE REAR, BUT IT'S NOT A INCONSPICUOUS LOCATION.
HERE'S SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHERE IT CAN BE OVERWHELMING THE SIZE OF MASS, UH, OF A BUILDING.
YEAH, IT'S NOT TOUCHING IT
UM, SO THAT, THAT IS HARD TO SEE THAT ORIGINAL.
WELL, YOU CAN STILL SEE THE ORIGINAL FORM OF IT, BUT IT DOES START TO, UM, IT WAS MUCH LARGER AND, AND YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE IT PUSHED BACK AND NOT BE SO PRO TRYING TO COMPETE WITH THE, HIS ORIGINAL BUILDING SO MUCH.
THE OTHER TWO EXAMPLES TOO, THE ONE, UM, ON THE SORT OF MIDDLE BOTTOM, AGAIN, SORT OF TWO PROMINENT VISIBLE, IT'S IN THE BACK BUT IT'S STILL, THE SCALE OF IT JUST SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE TOO MUCH.
UH, AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALMOST HARD TO TELL THAT IS PART OF THIS BUILDING.
IT CAN ALMOST BE ANOTHER BUILDING IN THE BACK.
IT'S PUSHED BACK FAR ENOUGH, BUT IT DOES TAKE SOME OF THE ROOF LINE AND DETAILS TO TRY TO BE, TO BLEND IT IN A BIT BETTER.
BUT THE SCALE MASSING DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IF YOU SORT OF CAN GET THAT RIGHT.
HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT ROOF? HOW DO YOU, UH, TAKE CUES FROM THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WITHOUT BEING TOO MUCH OF A COPY? MM-HMM.
UH, AND THERE IT'S A FINE LINE.
IT CAN BE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST THING THAT WE SAW, THEY, THEY TOOK WHAT WAS THERE AND SORT OF COPIED IT AND MADE IT EVEN GRANDER THAN IT WAS.
UM, BUT THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH HERE ON THE ONE ON THE LEFT, IT'S SET BACK, BUT THE ROOF LINE IS A FLAT ROOF FOR THAT ADDITION IN THE BACK.
SEEMS LIKE THAT STILL MAKES IT A LITTLE TOO PROMINENT AS AN ADDITION ONE ON THE RIGHT, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
UH, WHEREAS THE ONE ON THE LA UH, ON THE LEFT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT INTERNALLY SORT TO SAY, IS THAT TOO COMPATIBLE? IS IT TOO MIMICKING? OR IS IT SET BACK FAR ENOUGH THAT WHILE IT'S A SECOND STORY
[01:20:01]
ADDITION, IT DOES USE A LOT OF THE SAME ELEMENTS OF THAT ORIGINAL ROOF? UH, BUT I THINK FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS CLEAR ENOUGH THAT THAT WAS A NEW ELEMENT AND THAT, UH, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING DOESN'T CLASH TOO MUCH WITH WHAT'S IN THE FRONT, BUT OTHERS MAY THINK OF IT AS BEING SORT OF TOO MATCHY AND MAYBE THEY WOULD WANT NOT WANT THAT GABLE PART OF IT AND JUST HAVE IT BE WHAT, WHAT IN YOUR MIND MAKES IT SO, UH, CLEAR THAT IT'S A, A DIFFERENT ELEMENT? I THINK MORE THAT THERE'S, UM, YOU CAN SEE MORE OF THE FRONT BUILDING AS A ONE STORY BUILDING BEFORE YOU GET TO THE TWO STORY BUILDING.THAT THERE'S BOTH THE FRONT ROOF AND THAT SIDE GABLE.
UM, AND IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM THIS IMAGE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A, A HYPHEN OR SOME WAY TO DIVIDE THAT, BUT THAT SECOND STORY SEEMED LIKE A VERY MUCH AT THE REAR, WHETHER IT'S A SEPARATE BUILDING OR ADDITION, UH, THAT COMES A LITTLE LATER.
I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF THAT'S, UM, UNDERSTANDING THE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? IF IT WAS A SINGLE STORY BUNGALOW NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU START TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THAT BUILDING BACK THERE, THEN YOU UNDERSTAND IT CAME, CAME AT A DIFFERENT TIME, UM, IT STILL MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO MAT MATCHING TO UNDERSTAND IF IT HAPPENED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE OR NOT, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT IS.
UM, SO, SO WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION, WHO'S OUR AUDIENCE? PARTIALLY WHO, PARTIALLY WHO'S YOUR AUDIENCE? BUT I THINK IT'S ALWAYS YOU, YOU KNOW, AS A DISCRETIONARY BODY YOU HAVE DISCRETION.
SOME, SOME BODIES WILL, WILL PREFER THIS BECAUSE THEY WANT THINGS TO MATCH AND OTHERS WILL NOT.
AND THERE'S NOT THE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO LOOK AT IT CLOSELY OR SEEING THE WHOLE PACKAGE OF THIS, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
WHETHER THE WINDOWS ARE DOUBLE PANE INSTEAD OF SINGLE PANE THAT WILL TELL USED FROM A CERTAIN PERIOD, OR THAT THE WOOD SIDING FROM THE NEW ADDITION MAYBE IS SIMILAR, BUT IT HAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OR THERE'S THAT, UM, UM, THERE'S SOME SORT OF HYPHEN IN BETWEEN.
I THINK THAT THAT QUESTION OF AUDIENCE IS, IT FALLS IN THAT SPECTRUM OF SOMEONE COULD LOOK AT IT AS LONG AS SOMEONE LOOKING AT IT CLOSELY CAN IDENTIFY WHAT'S NEW AND ALL.
AND MAYBE A PROFESSIONAL, IT MAY BE SOMEONE HAVING TO LOOK AT THE PLANS OR SOMEONE LOOKING AT IT IN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CAN TELL, WHEREAS SOMEONE WALKING BY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TELL AND MAY NOT NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL.
THEN THAT'S MAYBE MORE ON THE, THAT SPECTRUM OF BEING MORE COMPATIBLE THAN DIFFERENTIATED AND ALL THAT FALLS WITHIN THE, IT'S ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
AND JUST TO UNDERSCORE THAT EVEN FURTHER, I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING FOR ON THE STAFF SIDE THAT WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ANALYZING BECAUSE THERE ARE STANDARDS FROM THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR BOTH RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY AND RELATED TO DIFFERENTIATION.
AND HOW DO WE BALANCE THOSE? AND TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, UM, FOR EACH VIEWER OR I, OR DEPENDING ON TRAINING OR WHAT, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY LOOK OR FEEL A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
SO I THINK IT'S GREAT DISCUSSION AND IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WORK THROUGH, UM, PRETTY OFTEN.
I THINK ONE OF THE RULES WITH THUMB THAT WE HAVE FOR NEW THINGS TOO IS THAT THEY CAN, THEY SHOULD TAKE THEIR CUES FROM THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS, BUT THEY CAN BE SIMPLER.
SO MAYBE IT'S, UM, YOU HAVE THE SAME PROPORTIONS OR PATTERNS OF THE WINDOWS, BUT MAYBE THE NEW WINDOWS HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, UH, FINISH THEM OR HAVE, UM, DON'T HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF DECORATIVE DETAILS SO THEY CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE NEW AGAIN.
SO WHETHER YOU WANT SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT AT A VERY FAST GLANCE VERSUS SOMEONE LOOKING AT IT CLOSELY, THEY'RE BOTH VALID.
AND IT MAY DEPEND ON HOW VISIBLE THE BUILDING IS AND HOW VISIBLE THE UM, ADDITION IS.
IF IT'S ON A SIDE ELEVATION OR ON CORNER LOT, YOU MAY BE ABLE SEE IT MUCH MORE THAN IF IT'S AT THE REAR OF A MIDBLOCK BUILDING.
SO GOING MORE WITH COMPATIBLE AND DIFFERENT, WHICH IS ALSO HARD AND WE HAVE SORT OF BAD EXAMPLES TO SHOW YOU RATHER THAN GOOD.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET TO A GOOD ONE.
UM, HOW THEY SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE YET DISTINGUISHED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL BUILDING STYLE.
SO STILL TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT ORIGINAL BUILDING IS EASY TO SEE.
UH, THE TOP ONE, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A ONE STORY RANCH HOUSE ORIGINALLY, AND SO, UH, THE SECOND STORY ADDITION THERE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A TERRIBLE RANCH HOUSE, BUT IT JUST WASN'T WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY.
AND THEN THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE THAT PRIMARY FOCUS.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.
IT SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCE.
UM, AND THAT DIFFERENCES CAN BE SUBTLE BUT CLEAR WITH A TRAIN EYE YOU COULD HAVE THAT RANGE.
SO THE ONE AT THE BOTTOM, UH, IS HORRIBLE.
DON'T DO THAT FOR, FOR EVEN JUST
[01:25:01]
ANY NEIGHBORHOOD.I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD NOT WANT THAT.
UM, AND BEING COMPATIBLE AND DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME THINGS THE WAY TO SORT OF CREATE THAT SEPARATION.
AGAIN, ON A MID-BLOCK, YOU PARCEL, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT FROM THE STREET ON A CORNER LOT, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE IT MORE, BUT TRYING TO HAVE, USE HYPHENS USING SOME SORT OF CONNECTOR THAT KEEPS THAT ORIGINAL FORM OF THE BUILDING AND THEN ADDS TO IT WITHOUT HAVING THE NEW ADDITION BE RIGHT UP AGAINST IT WHERE YOU START TO NOT NOTICE WHERE THAT CHANGES.
OR AT LEAST HAVING THEM BREAK IN ROOF LINES TO SEE WHERE THAT CHANGES.
UH, STEPPING BACK FROM THE ADJACENT WALL PLANE, WE SEE THAT A LOT TOO.
WHETHER IT'S JUST A CORNER STEP BACK, SOMETHING THAT GIVES YOU A REVEAL AND RETURN AT THE CORNER, OR EVEN IF IT IS RIGHT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO IT, THERE IS A BREAK, THERE'S A REVEAL.
SOMETHING THAT SHOWS IF SOMEONE'S WITH A TRAIN EYE CAN GO AND SAY, OKAY, WE CAN SEE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS CHANGED AND ADDED.
SO THOSE ARE ALL SORT OF A RANGE OF OPTIONS TO GET YOU TO THAT, UH, CREATING A SEPARATION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MM-HMM.
SO THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, SEEING THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE VERSUS SEEING THINGS IN ELEVATION.
SO THAT'S, THERE'S A TWO STORY ADDITION BACK THERE.
YOU CAN KIND OF JUST BARELY SEE IT.
UM, BUT IT'S, UH, IT'S A GOOD PLACEMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL MASSING.
SO THAT'S REALLY, IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE IT FROM THE STREET.
IT SORT OF CHECKS A LOT OF THE BOXES OF IT NOT BEING TALLER.
IT USES SOME OF THE SAME VISUAL CUES AND FEATURES FROM THAT FRONT BUILDING.
WE CAN TELL IT'S AN ADDITION MORE THAT YOU CAN TELL WHERE THE FRONT BUILDING WAS.
IT FALLS ON THAT SPECTRUM OF BEING VERY COMPATIBLE.
IS THAT AN ISSUE? IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE.
AGAIN, SOMEONE CAN GET CLOSE TO IT WITH A TRAIN EYE AND SAY, OKAY, I SEE THAT IT'S NEW, BUT, OR I SEE THAT IT HAS A LOT OF THE SAME ORIGINAL FEATURES, BUT WHEN I LOOK CLOSELY THIS MATERIAL, MAYBE IT'S CEMENT FIBERBOARD INSTEAD OF WITH SIDING, BUT IT HAS THE SAME PROPORTIONS THAT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE IN THAT CASE WHERE WHEN YOU'RE WALKING FROM THE STREET, IT'S NOT GONNA DISTRACT YOU, BUT WE, YOU LOOK AT IT CLOSER, THEN YOU CAN TELL THAT'S DIFFERENTIATED.
UH, AND THEN YOU GET TO THE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ONCE YOU GET THAT SCALE AMASSING AND ROOF FORM.
UM, THEN IT'S THE, THE OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS OF IT.
CAN YOU GET THE OPENINGS SIMILAR? UH, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MATCH EXACTLY.
UM, OR IT CAN, IT IS THAT BALANCE.
SOMETIMES YOU MAY WANT TO MATCH THE SAME SOLID TOVO RATIO ON YOUR ADDITION SO THAT THE WINDOW PATTERNS ARE SIMILAR.
UH, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN POINT TO.
THE PROPORTIONS ARE THE SAME, UH, OR THE, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE ORGANIZED ARE THE SAME.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE, THE TOP AND BOTTOM.
THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT WINDOW PATTERNS THAT, UH, STARTS TO CONFLICT, BUT THEY, THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO DO THAT.
THAT'S A LITTLE TOO, TOO MUCH OF A PATTERN.
UH, AND THEN YOU GO TO PROJECTIONS, UM, AND THE TYPES OF WINDOWS OR THE CHIMNEYS AND PORCHES AND BALCONIES AND USING AND OVERHANGS.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE DETAILS AGAIN WHERE YOU CAN TRY TO THINK ABOUT WHERE THEY, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM TO MAYBE MATCH MORE CLOSELY AND WHERE IT MAY MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO DIFFERENTIATE MORE.
TWO STORY BIG BLANK WALLS ON AN ADDITION OR TOUGH TO OVERCOME.
UM, SO WE HAVE ONE MORE EXAMPLE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE YOU LOOK AT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IT'S A DIFFERENT COMMUNITY, A DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD, DIFFERENT PROJECT, BUT ALSO A CONTRIBUTOR AND DISTRICT.
IT'S A SINGLE VALUE RESIDENCE.
IT'S A LITTLE BUNGALOW WITH SOME CRAFTSMAN STYLE INFLUENCES AROUND 1919.
UM, YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BIT IN CONTEXT OF ABOVE.
IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS A DISTRICT, BUT IS BEEN PRETTY MIXED, AT LEAST IN THIS PART OF WHERE IT IS.
IT'S HAD SOME LARGER APARTMENTS, UM, AROUND IT.
THIS IS THE BLOCK, IT'S ON IT'S IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
UM, SO IT'S MORE FOLK, VICTORIAN AND CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOWS.
UH, BUT THERE ARE STILL PRIMARILY ONE OR TWO STORY HOUSES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE DON'T HAVE AS, UM, CLEAR RENDERINGS FOR THESE.
IT'S, UH, TYPICAL OF THAT PERIOD.
UM, IT'S GOT A PRETTY SIMPLE RECT RECTANGULAR MASSING.
UM, IT'S GOT, IT'S UH, IT HAS, YOU CAN SEE MORE A FRONT GABLE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A CROSS GABLE THERE THAT, UM, IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, THE BUILDING THE LOT.
IT'S GOT THE HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING AND PARTIAL WITH FRONT PORCH.
IT WAS ACTUALLY THE FENESTRATION THE PATTERN MATERIAL AND OPERATION OF THE WINDOWS AT THE SCI FACADES ARE NOT ORIGINAL.
[01:30:01]
SO, UM, A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE IS REALLY NOT WHAT'S CONSIDERED CHARACTER DEFINING FOR THAT BUILDING.THEY WERE CHANGE LATER CHANGES FROM THE PERIOD THAT OF SIGNIFICANCE.
AND THE PRIMARY DOOR ITSELF HAS BEEN CHANGED.
SO NOW THIS WAS THE PROPOSED, AND THIS ALSO WENT THROUGH A COUPLE ROUNDS OF REVIEW BEFORE I FINALLY GOT TO THIS VERSION WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT, THEY'RE PROPOSING AN ADDITION THAT IS KIND OF VISIBLE.
YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE SIDE, HOPEFULLY, UM, WHERE THE FRONT IS ON THE RIGHT.
BUT, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE BOTTOMS, THE OUTLINE OF WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TAKE ON THIS? WE DON'T HAVE RENDERINGS THAT SO MUCH AS ELEVATIONS AS THE SITE ELEVATION AND THE FRONT ELEVATION.
SO HERE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS VERSUS HERE YOU CAN JUST SEE WHAT'S WOULD BE VISIBLE.
IF THIS CAME TO YOU AS A PROJECT AND THE STAFF SAID WE DID A WHAT WE COULD, UH, THE APPLICANT WANTED TO COME TO YOU AND HAVE YOU MAKE A DECISION, CAN YOU GO TO THE FRONT ELEVATION? HERE WE GO.
SO FOR ME, THE SCALE OF THE ADDITION IS A LITTLE TOO SMALL FOR THE CROSS GABLE.
I WOULD'VE LIKED IT TO HAVE LINED UP WITH THE PRIMARY PEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IT LOOKS OFF CENTER AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TOO NARROW FOR THE CROSS GABLE.
SO THE PROPORTIONS STILL SEEM RIGHT AND IT'S DISCONCERTING TO ME.
AND THE, THE FAUX WINDOWS, UM, ARE DISTURBING TO ME ALSO.
AND THEY DON'T, THEY, THEY ARE TOO FAR UP.
I, I DON'T KNOW THE TERM, BUT THEY'RE TOO FAR UP IN THE, IN THE GABLE.
THEY START TO GO INTO THE GABLE YEAH.
RATHER THAN ANY OF THE COMMENTS, HOW YOU FEEL.
YEAH, I I FEEL THE PROPORTION OF THE ADDITION IS VERY VERTICAL, SO IT CREATES MORE EMPHASIS TO IT AND YOUR EYE GOES TO IT MORE READILY BECAUSE OF ITS SORT OF VERTICAL ASPECT.
AND I AGREE THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD SIT DOWN.
I DON'T FEEL IT'S, UM, ON THE SIDE ELEVATION, IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS SET BACK ENOUGH AND IT DIDN'T DISTURB THE ORIGINAL RESIDENCE, UM, TERRIBLY.
SO IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME IN OR IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE IN THAT RE RESPECT, BUT IT, THERE IS SOMETHING SORT OF LIKE A ARROW KIND OF
SO I, I I WOULD SAY THAT SHOULD BE MAYBE STUDIED A LITTLE BIT MORE.
AND I AGREE THAT WINDOWS DO SEEM LIKE THEY'RE HIGH UP INTO THE GABLES FOR SOME REASON.
OTHER AGREEMENTS OR DISAGREEMENTS WITH THAT.
AND MAYBE THE SIDING COULD CHANGE OR THE, UH, THE MATERIAL OF THE, THE MATERIAL OF THE ADDITION COULD POSSIBLY BE DIFFERENT TOO.
YOU THINK IT'S TOO MUCH OF A CLOSE MATCH.
YOU CAN ASK STAFF TOO, IF THIS, YOU KNOW, IF THIS CAME TO YOU OR IF THIS CAME BEFORE THEM, THE APPLICANT SAID WE WANT TO HAVE THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE.
WHAT WOULD YOU WANNA HEAR FROM THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT? WOULD IT BE A DIRECTION ON A MOTION? WOULD IT BE A DIRECTION ON WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT MORE ON CERTAIN THINGS? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK, UH, THIS IS ALEJANDRO AT THE STAFF DESK.
UM, YEAH, I THINK THESE ARE ALL REALLY GOOD COMMENTS.
UH, I THINK THINGS LIKE MATERIALS ARE ALWAYS THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT.
UM, BUT I THINK SOME OF YOU REALLY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD HERE.
IT'S UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN ADDITION IN A PROJECT, YOU'RE REALLY KIND OF LOOKING AT HOW, UH, IT CHANGES THE, THE SCOPE AND THERE'S A, A TERM IN THE HISTORIC WORLD AND SU SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP.
UM, SO THIS IS PART OF IT RIGHT HERE.
SO, UM, ONE, YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR US WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF GUIDANCE IS, IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, HOW VISIBLE IS IT? HOW MUCH DOES IT STAND OUT? I THINK I HEARD, UH, COMMISSIONER PIZZA, UM, CORRECTLY SAY THAT IT LOOKS LIKE AN ARROW, WHICH I REALLY LOVE AND I'LL PROBABLY USE WITH THE OTHER DESIGN REVIEWS.
UM, BUT, UM, BUT I THINK IT IS HELPFUL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEE AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WHILE IT'S STILL RELATIVELY IN SCALE HEIGHT WISE, UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE ADDITION ITSELF, UM, WELL IN SCALE, YOU KNOW, RELATIVE TO THE WHOLE BUILDING.
UM, THE ADDITION IS A LITTLE BIT HIGH THERE.
SO YEAH, THINGS LIKE THAT I THINK ARE REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK.
[01:35:01]
BACK? UH, HOW MUCH CAN YOU SEE? UM, YOU KNOW, HOW, UH, WHAT DOES THAT SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP LOOK LIKE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? THOSE ARE ALL COMMENTS THAT I THINK ARE REALLY HELPFUL FOR STAFF.AND WE HAVE TAKEN DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
IN TERMS OF, UH, I THINK TO THE OTHER POINT OF YOUR, UM, QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WOULD WE BE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THAT WITH THE APPLICANT? UH, I THINK YOU'RE ALL AWARE THAT WE DO OUR BEST TO GET THE PROJECT IN AS GOOD OF A PLACE AS WE CAN AS THE STAFF BEFORE WE BRING IT FORWARD.
BUT IT'S PART OF OUR PROCESS THAT WE NEED TO BRING IT FORWARD AND GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO MAKE THEIR CASE EVEN IF WE MAY OR MAY NOT FULLY AGREE WITH IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE PUT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS ARE A LOT OF THOUGHT ON CAN WE MAKE THOSE FINDINGS.
ONE OF THE FINDINGS IS RELATED TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
SO EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT IS VALID.
UM, TOPIC FOR THE FINDINGS, WHICH ARE THE LEGAL BASIS BY WHICH WE DECIDE WHETHER WE AS STAFF MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOU ALL, YOU KNOW, TO GIVE US THAT ANALYSIS.
DO YOU CONCUR WITH THOSE FINDINGS OR DO YOU HAVE SOME DIFFERENT FINDINGS OR THOUGHTS THAT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE RECORD TO PERHAPS EITHER MODIFY OR GIVE STAFF SUFFICIENT DIRECTION TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AFTER? OR IS IT A BIG ENOUGH ISSUE THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK? WE DO OUR BEST TO MAKE THE PROCESS EXPEDIENT.
YOU KNOW, THEY'VE OFTEN BEEN WORKING WITH US FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE IT COMES BEFORE YOU.
UM, SO WE HAVE HAD MANY TIMES IN THE PAST WHERE, UM, THE COMMISSION GIVES US A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, BUT LEAVES IT TO STAFF TO GET THERE.
UM, AND OTHER TIMES WHERE IT'S HAD TO COME BACK BECAUSE IT'S, UM, NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE FINDINGS CAN BE MADE IN YOUR OPINION, IF YOU COULD BACK UP TO THE PICTURE ON THE BLOCK WITH THE HOUSE SITTING NEXT TO THE, THEIR NEIGHBORING, AS YOU CAN SEE TO THE LEFT, THAT'S A QUITE A LARGE ADDITION.
AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WITH THE ADDITION, THE ARROW KIND OF THING, WHERE IF THEY WOULD'VE MAYBE HAVE USED MORE OF THE BACK AREA, IT WOULD LOOK SUCH, YOU KNOW, WOULDN'T BE PROMINENT ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
SO IT, IN RESPECT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD ACCOMMODATE A SECOND FLOOR.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TRYING TO, UM, MAKE IT MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AMONGST THE, THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR AS WELL AS MAYBE SOME OF THE MATERIAL TOO.
BUT, UH, IT, IT WOULD PROBABLY PASS THE MUSTARD IF THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT MAY BE THE DIRECTION YOU WOULD GIVE STAFF TO JUST CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM ON THOSE ELEMENTS TO SEE IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER PROPORTION OR A BALANCE OF THAT ADDITION AND WORK ON THE WINDOWS, BUT THAT IT MAY NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR ANOTHER SESSION IF THOSE ARE ADDRESSED SUFFICIENTLY AT THE STAFF LEVEL.
YEAH, I THINK GOING BACK TO THE CHECKLIST, YEAH, THAT KIND OF THE TIERED CHECKLIST, SO GOT SIZE AND SCALE IS PROBABLY OKAY.
THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD PROBABLY, AS YOU WERE SAYING, YOU PROBABLY COULD HANDLE THE SIZE AND SCALE OF IT.
WHERE WE START TO RUN INTO PROBLEMS IS KIND OF THE IDEA OF SHAPE FOREMAN MASSING.
SO MASSING BEING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE DIFFERENT SHAPES OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE KIND OF A GABLE TOWARDS THE STREET, YOU KNOW, FEELS AWKWARD.
SO THAT'S, SO THAT'S KIND OF A, THAT'S THE BIG ONE.
AND THEN THE ROOF FORM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA OF A GABLE IS PROBABLY OKAY, BUT KIND OF WHERE IT GOES IN RELATION TO IT BECOMES THIS MASSING, UM, QUESTION.
AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, OPENINGS, SO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE OPENING NOT BEING PLACED KIND OF CORRECTLY IN RELATION TO THE GABLE.
SO THAT IDEA OF PROPORTION AND PLACEMENT OF OPENINGS IS, UM, ANOTHER THING TO NOTE AS YOU KIND OF WORK THROUGH THE WHY OR WHY NOT, YOU KNOW, FOR A FINDING, WHY OR WHY NOT IT WOULD MEET THE FINDINGS.
AND THOSE ARE THE CHARACTER DEFINED FEATURES AS YOU'RE THINKING THROUGH HOW TO MAKE IT, UM, COMPATIBLE.
AND IT DOES SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT TOO FAR AWAY FROM COMPLYING WITH ALL THE STANDARDS AND IT'S NOT TOO FAR AWAY FROM COMPLYING WITH YOUR, UM, HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WHOLE BUILDING IN LOTS OF WAYS.
SO IT'S NOT TOO FAR AWAY, BUT YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO STILL SEE SOME MODIFICATIONS AND SOME, SOME THINGS THAT STAFF CAN WORK ON WITH THEM.
YEAH, I WAS, I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.
IT'S NOT THAT FAR OFF THE, THE IT STEPS BACK.
HAVE WE HAD TO DEAL, DO WE EVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT? THAT'S TRUE.
AND THAT MAY BE THAT THIS CITY HAD THAT AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IMPACTING THIS DESIGN.
IT SEEMS LIKE IF THERE, IF THE ASSUMPTION CAN BE MADE THAT YOU CAN'T, YOUR, YOUR EAVES CAN'T PROJECT INTO THAT DAYLIGHT PLANE, THEN THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE REASON WHY IT'S NARROW.
[01:40:01]
NARROW AND LOOKS LIKE THAT.AND THAT COULD BE THE REQUIRE OF THAT, BUT WHICH IS PART OF THE QUESTION, PART OF THE, THE ASPECTS THAT YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT, ABOUT THE CODE COMPLIANCE STUFF IMPACTING IT, AND WE'RE JUST CONFERRING HERE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT SPECIFIC STANDARD ANYWHERE IN OUR LEVEL CODE.
BUT, BUT OTHER JURISDICTION, YOU KNOW, THE STANDARDS HAVE THAT SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP PIECE, RIGHT.
SO DAYLIGHT CAN BE LUMPED INTO THAT IDEA OF SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND LIKE IF YOU'RE BUILDING A BIG BOX AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THINGS ARE IN THE DARK THAT WEREN'T IN THE DARK BEFORE, THAT'S AN EFFECT ON THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO THAT'S A WAY OF, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT ASPECTS LIKE THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE A DAYLIGHT PLANE, BUT THAT COULD BE A CODE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT THIS CITY.
WHEREAS ANOTHER CITY YOU MAY BE SEEING LINES MORE ABOUT HEIGHT YEP.
OF A NEIGHBORHOOD CAN ONLY GO UP TO 25 FEET OR 30 FEET.
AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DRAWING AND THAT'S, THAT IS DRIVING SOME OF THE DESIGN DECISIONS THAT YOU'RE SEEING OR VIEW FROM ACROSS THE STREET.
I THINK WE WOULD FIND THAT CHALLENGE WITH COASTAL REVIEW POSSIBLY, SOMETIMES, PERHAPS IF WE'RE YEAH.
I THINK IT'S HELPFUL FOR THE APPLICANT TO HEAR THOUGH THAT THEY'RE NOT TOO FAR AWAY.
SO FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO CONVEY THAT TO STAFF AND TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK, YOU JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE ALTER SOME MORE, UH, MODIFICATIONS.
I ALSO THINK, I THINK COMMISSIONER BODA BROUGHT THIS UP, THE UPPER WINDOWS WITH THE FRET WORK AND THE SMALLER PANES, IT, IT FEELS LIKE THOSE COULD JUST BE SIMPLE DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS GOING BACK TO THE STANDARDS OF SAYING THAT IT SHOULD DIFFERENTIATE ITSELF FROM THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, JUST IN A SIMPLER FASHION.
BUT, BUT I THINK, YEAH, YOU MAY GET A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD BE LIKE, YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
IT IS TAKING ITS CUE FROM THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AND IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE, IT MAY BE SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS RATHER THAN REAL LITTLE TRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS.
AND THAT'S ONE WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE THAT AS BEING A DIFFERENT ELEMENT THAN AN ORIGINAL ELEMENT.
SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IS THAT MORE COMPATIBLE OR LESS COMPATIBLE? I THINK BOTH ARE ARE VALID AND WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS.
UH, AND THAT IS GOING BACK TO THE BALANCE OF THE WHOLE PROJECT.
HOW MUCH CHANGE IS TOO MUCH? HOW VISIBLE IS THOSE WINDOWS? IF THAT ADDITION ENDED UP BEING LOWER AND MORE CENTERED, THOSE WINDOWS MAY NOT END UP BEING VERY PROMINENT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD THAT, YOU MAY NOT SEE IT THAT MUCH AND THEY DON'T CALL ATTENTION TO THEMSELVES.
NO, I THINK THIS IS ALL VERY HELPFUL AND GOOD DISCUSSION THAT, UM, THAT LEADS US TO THE END OF THIS ONE END.
AND SINCE WE ARE AT THE END AND UM, WE HAVE ONE MORE CASE STUDY, I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE A, A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
I KNOW WE'VE BEEN UP HERE FOR A MINUTE OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH WITH THE, THE LAST CASE STUDY.
DON'T THINK IT'LL TAKE US LONG.
SOUNDS THE SAME IDEAS, BUT WE HAVE A SUMMARY SLIDE FOR YOU JUST SO THAT YOU HAVE THIS AS REFERENCE FOR MM-HMM.
SO NOW THIS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK AND ADAPTER FOR YOU, SO DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT BEING A DISTRICT LEVEL.
UM, HERE YOU'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THAT RESOURCE ITSELF, RIGHT? SO YOU'RE DEALING WITH BALANCING ALL THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THE REPAIR AND THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR REPLACEMENT, WHAT'S NEW, WHAT'S DIFFERENT.
UH, AND YOU'RE REALLY ONLY LOOKING AT SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
YOU WILL NOT HAVE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
SO THIS IS, UM, AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK, LET'S SAY, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT FOR DESIGN AS A GO STYLE BOWLING ALLEY.
AND SPARE SIGNIFICANCE IS FROM WHAT WAS BUILT IN 1959.
SO YOU CAN SEE SORT OF SOME PHOTOS OF THE FRONT, UH, AT THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM THERE.
BUT THEN THE OVERALL VIEW OF IT SHOWS WITH THE FRONT AT THE BOTTOM.
IT SHOWS AN ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT AND IT'S ACTUALLY HAD TWO ADDITIONS SINCE IT WAS BUILT.
ONE IN THE SIXTIES AND ONE IN THE SEVENTIES.
SO THOSE WOULD BE, IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS, UM, GOBY STYLE ARCHITECTURE, THOSE ADDITIONS, UM, WOULD NOT BE CONSIDER CONSIDERED A CHARACTER DEFINING OR SIGNIFICANT NECESSARILY.
SO HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE THIS A LITTLE BIT.
UM, THOSE ARE SOME PHOTO MONTAGES, UM, NEXT TO RENDERINGS OF THE SAME FACADES WHERE THE RENDERINGS START TO SHOW WHERE THE ADDITIONS ARE.
AND SOME OF THEM, YEAH, THE ONE FROM THE SIXTIES ON THE LEFT THERE SORT OF CONTINUES THE SAME VOCABULARY OF THE BUILDING FROM THE FIFTIES ON TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT.
THE SEVENTIES EDITION IS SET WELL BACK, BUT IT'S, IT'S, UH, FAIRLY DIFFERENT.
[01:45:01]
SEVENTIES EDITION IS SET PRETTY FAR BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THAT, FROM THE FRONT FACADE.UH, AND THE BOTTOM IS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AGAIN.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE TWO ADDITIONS ARE AGAIN.
THE SIXTIES EDITIONS SEEM TO BE VERY MATCHING TO, UM, THE ORIGINAL SOURCE JUST CONTINUE THAT VOCABULARY.
AND THE SEVENTIES EDITIONS VERY DIFFERENT.
AND AT THIS, AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
THIS IS NOT A HISTORIC BUILDING.
THERE'S NO GUIDELINES ON HOW MATCHING OR NOT MATCHING ANY OF THE ADDITIONS WOULD BE.
UM, THE CHARACTER DEFINED FEATURES LIST IS PRETTY, IT'S NOT TOO LONG, BUT IT'S ABOUT, IT'S A ONE STORY HEIGHT AMASSING AT A FLAT ROOF WITH THAT ASYMMETRICAL CANOPY AT THE FRONT.
UH, IT'S HAD PROMINENT OVERHANGING EAVES.
THE MATERIAL, THE, UH, EXTERIOR IS CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS OR CMU BLOCKS THAT, UH, CREATE HORIZONTAL BANDING AND DECORATIVE COLUMNS AT THE FRONT AND THE BACK.
IT HAS SOME STONE VENEER CLADDING AT THE FRONT AND THE WINDOWS CONSISTED OF WOOD FRAME RIBBON WINDOWS, UM, AS WELL AS THAT ALUMINUM PLATE GLASS AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
AND THERE'S ALSO SOME, UM, LANDSCAPE ELEMENT.
THERE WAS A PLANTER IN THE FRONT AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE ARE THE TWO SIDE ELEVATIONS.
A LITTLE HARD TO READ, BUT YOU CAN SEE WITH THE REN, UH, WITH THE RENDERINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT'S CONSIDERED EDITION.
SO THE TOP IS THE SIDE WHERE YOU'RE SEEING MUCH MORE OF THAT SEVENTIES EDITION, UM, FOR THE MOST PART AND ONLY A BIT OF THAT ORIGINAL BUILDING REALLY IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE PHOTO MONTAGE AND THE BOTTOM.
YOU'RE PRIMARILY JUST SEEING, MOST OF THAT'S UM, I THINK IT'S THE SIXTIES EDITION OR EDITION.
SO GOING BACK TO UNDERSTANDING THE PROJECT, UH, IT IS BEING PROPOSED TO NOT, IT'S NOT GONNA BE A BOWLING ALLEY ANYMORE.
IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA CONTINUE AS A, WELL, IT'S GONNA BE USED FOR MORE RECREATION USES, DIFFERENT USES, UH, AND BEING PROPOSED TO, LET'S SEE, DO I HAVE IMAGE HERE? HERE'S THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
YOU CAN SEE, UH, IN RENDERINGS.
SO IT'S BEING PROPOSED TO HAVE, UM, SOME OUTSIDE COURTS.
PICKLEBALL HERE WAS PICKLEBALL, BUT IT COULD ALSO BE RACKETBALL OR IT COULD BE OTHER SPORTS USES AND RECREATION USES.
UM, THAT HAS SOME OF SOLAR PANELS COVERING THOSE OPEN AREAS.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THE MAIN BUILDING ITSELF, THERE WOULD, PARTS OF IT WERE REMAIN, UM, BUT SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONS WOULD BE GOING AWAY AND IT WOULD ON THE INTERIOR, NOT BE A BOWLING ALLEY, BUT WOULD STILL HAVE A, A RESTAURANT THAT WAS THERE, THERE WAS A RESTAURANT THERE BEFORE AND CONCESSIONS AND UM, A LOUNGE AREA.
AND AGAIN, SOME MORE RECREATION SPACES ON THE INSIDE.
AND SO THIS IS AGAIN, WHAT'S BEING PRO EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED.
SEE, DO I HAVE MORE OF THIS? SO I GUESS GOING THROUGH THIS, SO USE IS THERE WILL BE A CHANGE IN USE.
UM, DO YOU WANNA GO THROUGH AND TALK ABOUT WHAT IS, WHAT'S FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED, UM, IS MORE THE, THE NEW ELEMENT.
WOULD YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT REMOVING ANY OF THOSE ADDITIONS OR WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? YOU CAN SEE THERE I WOULD HAVE AN OPPOSITION.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE A LARGE OR SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE 1963 EDITION IS BEING REMOVED AS WELL AS SOME OF THE LOOKS LIKE MAYBE SOME OF THE ORIGINAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING AS WELL.
I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT THE 1963 EDITION IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE SAME PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE AS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
IT WAS CONSTRUCTED JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE FOUR YEARS LATER.
UM, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE BUILDINGS BUILT DURING A TIME AND JUST A COUPLE YEARS LATER THAT THEY NEED TO EXPAND OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY I ALSO THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE THAT IT MATCHED THE, THE, THE ORIGINAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
'CAUSE IT WAS WITHIN THE SAME PERIOD.
I'M NOT SO OPPOSED TO THE 1974 EDITION BEING REMOVED.
UM, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY REMOVED A LARGE PORTION OF THE 63 EDITION AND THE ORIGINAL TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING, WHICH I WOULD SAY MAYBE CAN WE HAVE A LITTLE LESS PARKING
SO YOU'D WANT MORE INFORMATION, RIGHT? YOU'D WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE SIXTIES EDITION.
I MEAN, LOOKING AT IT, IT'S PROBABLY THE SAME ARCHITECT TOO.
AND I THINK YOU MAKE A GOOD CASE FOR POTENTIALLY EXTENDING THAT PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FROM 19, FROM JUST THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION DATE TO MAYBE 1959 TO 1963 TO TAKE IN THAT SIXTIES EDITION AND MAYBE THAT SEVENTIES EDITION IS LESS IMPORTANT.
AND YOU WOULD HAVE A, WOULD NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT BEING REMOVED, BUT WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH BOTH THE EXISTING ORIGINAL 59 BUILDING ITSELF, GETTING PARTS OF IT CUT OFF, BUT ALSO THEN THE SIXTIES EDITION.
WOULD THERE BE AGREEMENT OR ANOTHER POINT
[01:50:01]
OF VIEW FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSION? THE, SO WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL USE? IT WAS A BOWLING ALLEY.IT, THE ORIGINAL USE WAS BOWLING.
AND SO IT'S STILL A RECREATION USE THEORETICALLY, YES.
STILL OWNED BY THE SAME INSTITUTIONAL OWNER OR IT'LL BE A NEW OWNER.
AND THEN THE EXTERIOR, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE INTERIOR? DO WE KNOW, UH, THAT IS, WE DON'T HAVE THAT FOR YOU, UH, PART OF THIS PROJECT, BUT ALSO PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE A PART OF YOUR REVIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE INTERIOR AND THE IT'S SOLAR PANELS.
SO THEY WERE REMOVING A LOT OF THE BUILDING AND, AND CLEARING THE SITE.
UM, SOME OF IT WAS FOR PARKING, BUT A LOT OF IT WAS FOR ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE.
SO HERE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT PICKLEBALL COURTS THAT THEN I THINK WOULD COVER WITH SOLAR PANELS.
I WOULD FIRST START WITH YOU ARE CLEARLY MOVING MORE, REMOVING MORE THAN 50% OF THE BUILDING.
UM, AND I WOULD CONSIDER THIS, UM, ALMOST A, A DEMOLITION THEN.
UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE REMOVING SO MUCH OF THE, OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, COMPLETE DEMOLITION, IS YOUR CONCERN THE ENTIRE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR IS THERE MORE PIECE OF WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERED TO BE HISTORIC? WELL, I WOULD START WITH YOU WERE, IT IT IS, IT IS NOT A REHAB PROJECT.
YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, IT IS ACTUALLY NEW CONSTRUCTION ALMOST FROM A ASSESSOR PERSPECTIVE.
UH, SO I WOULD START WITH THAT.
I WOULD AGREE THAT THE 1963 EDITION IS, IS, UM, RELEVANT TO THE 1959 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
I ALSO AGREE THAT THE 1974 EDITION, UH, THE REMOVAL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
IT'S THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE REMAINDER.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PARKING IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE, UH, CONVERSION, UH, FOR THAT AND THAT THEY COULD DO THE PICKLEBALL INSIDE.
I THINK THAT WAS A SUGGESTION WE MADE TO THEM AS WELL AS TO KEEP MORE OF THE BUILDING PICKLEBALL IS REALLY NOISY AS WE ALL KNOW.
THAT'S A GOOD REMINDER OF THAT.
UM, YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS THERE.
IN TERMS OF THE DEMOLITION, REMOVING WHAT'S THERE CONSIDERED HISTORIC.
UM, THE, SOME OF THE NON HISTORIC CONDITIONS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE AN ISSUE.
YOU KNOW, IF THE PROPERTY CAME TO YOU AND THEY REMOVED JUST THE 74 EDITION AND KEPT THE OTHERS, THAT MAYBE SEEMS LIKE, AT LEAST FROM A SCALE AND MASSING PERSPECTIVE, LESS OF AN ISSUE, LESS OF A CONCERN.
SO, SO AS FAR AS START TO IDENTIFY WHAT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES ARE, LET'S SEE IF I HAVE A BETTER PICTURE OF THIS.
UM, SO LET'S SAY THEY DID DECIDE THEY WERE GONNA KEEP MORE OF THAT.
WELL, I GUESS MAYBE THE SECOND PART IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER CONCERNS OR ISSUES WITH, UM, THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE STANDARDS? LIKE WE CAN GO THROUGH THESE.
OKAY, SO ONE APPROPRIATE NEW USE.
UH, IS THERE, IS IT AFFECTING HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, INTEGRITY, CHARACTER DEFINED FEATURES? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDING THAT THIS MEETS STANDARD ONE, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE GOING TOWARD IT DID NOT MEET STANDARD ONE, THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW USE.
DID IT SEEM LIKE IT WAS PRESERVING THE HISTORIC CHARACTER? I THINK THE SCALE AMASSING OR OR TAKING THE BUILDING AWAY PIECES OF THE BUILDING WERE GONE.
WHAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT A BIT IS SORT OF THE CHANGES TO THE FRONT FACADE THERE.
WE'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS HERE.
SAYS, PROPOSED TO NOT ONLY MAKE CHANGES TO THE SEA, THE MASSING ITSELF, BUT SOME OF THE MATERIALS ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED.
DOES IT STILL FEEL LIKE A 19, NO FIFTIES OR SIXTIES BOWLING ALLEY? NO.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE MODERNIZING IT COMPLETELY.
AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE, UM, ADJUSTED FOR, FOR MODERN DAY STANDARDS AND WHATNOT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS ADAPTED FOR SOMETHING IN THIS TIME PERIOD.
LIKE I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK APPROPRIATE.
YEAH, IT ALMOST SEEMS TO ME THE ARGUMENT OF KEEPING THE 63, UM, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S THE SAME ARCHITECT, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF THE ARCHITECT IS OF SIGNIFICANCE
[01:55:01]
TO THAT, DID THE 63 EDITION, UM, AND THE SOLAR PANELS COULD BE ON THAT ROOF AS OPPOSED TO DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE SOLAR PANELS.IT'S KIND OF, UM, WHAT COMMISSIONER BOAK SAID ABOUT PARKING TOO.
IT'S, IT, IT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE.
IT GOES BACK TO YOU CAN'T MAKE THE FINDINGS OF THAT PROJECT.
IT'S THE STANDARDS, RIGHT? IT'S CHANGING THE HISTORIC CHARACTERS CHANGE IN USE.
IT'S LOSING HISTORIC FEATURES FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
SO YOU WOULD SAY IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS.
AND I LIKE THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS EXAMPLE BECAUSE WE DO SEE HOW USES CHANGE OVER TIME AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT BUILDING BOWLING ALLEY ANYMORE, SO HOW DO WE USE THIS? AND THEN THE COMPLEXITY OF, UM, THE SOLAR PANELS, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.
WE HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HOW THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR EVEN HAS SPECIFIC GUIDANCE.
THERE'S ALSO CALIFORNIA LAWS THAT COMPEL US TO NOT JUST SAY YOU CAN'T DO SOLAR, BUT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE.
SO COMMISSIONER PIT'S POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING THAT CLEAR ALTERNATIVE IS IMPORTANT.
AND IN FACT WE AS STAFF CANNOT REDUCE SOMEONE'S SOLAR CAPACITY BY MORE THAN 10% COMPARED TO WHAT THEY PROPOSED.
SO THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AT OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE LAW.
UM, DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T FIND AN ALTERNATIVE.
SO THOSE CREATIVE OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ARE HELPFUL, BUT JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO TO POINT THAT OUT 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING EXAMPLE.
SO THERE MAY BE OTHER, UH, CITY GOALS, OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
BUT TRYING TO FIND THOSE ALTERNATIVES, TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
THE SOLAR MAY LOOK JARRING, BUT IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU CAN FIT THAT WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE, THE PROPERTY AND IN THIS CASE IT'S ACTUALLY A STATE LAW, SO THAT SUPERSEDES OUR, OUR LOCAL AUTHORITY.
SO THAT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING WE'RE GRAPPLING WITH THE STAFF IS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE GIVE THE BEST GUIDANCE AND MOST APPROPRIATELY CONDITION AND, AND GET THE PROJECT TO WHERE WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, BUT STILL BE IN COMPLIANT WITH OTHER REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO INCLUDING STATE LAW.
YEAH, I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE SOLAR HERE AT LEAST IS IT'S BEING PLACED IN A, IF IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, AT IT FROM THE FRONT, IT'S NOT AS VISIBLE.
IT'S SORT OF IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
YOU, YOU ONLY SEE IT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THIS ANGLE.
AND TYPICALLY, UH, YOU WOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT IT FROM THIS ANGLE AS MUCH, BUT MAYBE THEY TRY TO PUT SOME TREES IN FRONT OF THEM
I LIKE THE IDEA OF GIVING 'EM THE ALTERNATIVES OF KEEPING THAT MORE OF THAT ADDITION THAT HAS A FLAT ROOF.
IT'S A PLACE THAT YOU CAN PUT MORE SOLAR PANELS ON TOP.
UH, AND IT MAY BE MAYBE THEY'RE SLIGHTLY VISIBLE, BUT THEY WOULD BE A LOT LESS VISIBLE THAN IF THEY'RE FREESTANDING.
SO GOING BACK TO OUR LIST OF STANDARDS.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE ONE AND TWO ARE ONES THAT WOULD BE ISSUES.
IS THERE FALSE STOICISM HERE? IS THAT A STANDARD THAT YOU WOULD HAVE CONCERN ABOUT? I WANT TAKE A LOOK AT MORE.
I THINK THAT CASE COULD BE MADE.
HOW WOULD YOU, IN WHAT CASE? IN WHAT SENSE? SO YOU'RE TAKING OUR, TAKING AWAY ALL OF THAT 1950S AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE RE STYLING IT TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE A MORE MODERN, I MEAN, AND, AND EVEN IT LOOKED LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOME, IF I WAS READING THE RENDERING CORRECTLY, THOSE, THOSE LARGE WALLS OF STONE.
I MEAN THAT'S AN ICONIC COMPONENT OF THAT.
THAT'S THAT THAT TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE, THAT STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE.
AND THOSE ARE BOTH GONE MM-HMM.
I'M, I'M OF AN AGE WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE A 1970S RACKETBALL CLUB FROM THE FRONT WITH THE PANELS AND IT LOOKS LIKE WOOD.
SO MAYBE THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE A DIFFERENT ERA OF, OF, UH, RECREATION RATHER THAN THAT FIFTIES GOOGIE PERIOD.
UH, I THINK REMOVING THE MATERIALS MAY FALL MORE UNDER STANDARD FIVE IN TERMS OF PRESERVING MATERIALS, FINISHES AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND CRAFTSMANSHIP THAT IS CHARACTERISTICS TO THE BUILDING.
AND THAT'S, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THOSE STONE WALLS ARE VERY MUCH A CHARACTER, A CHARACTER DEFINED FEATURE OF THAT GOOEY STYLE OF THAT PERIOD AND OF THAT BEING A BOWLING ALLEY.
SO STANDARD FIVE CERTAINLY WOULD BE ONE THAT WOULD BE LOOKING AT MORE CLOSELY AND SAYING, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT, THAT, UM, FINDING THAT MEETS STANDARD FIVE MM-HMM.
I THINK YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
THAT'S WHERE I WOULD GO IMMEDIATELY.
I WOULD PROBABLY THINK ABOUT THE CHANGE IN CHARACTER MAYBE UNDER TWO, A LITTLE MORE THAT THE OVERALL HISTORIC CHARACTER OF IT AS A GOOEY STYLE BOWLING ALLEY IS LOST FROM CHANGING THAT RATHER THAN TRYING TO PUT A NEW ELEMENT TO IT.
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SAY IT DOESN'T MEET ANY OF THE STANDARDS,
I THINK WE, YOU TALKED ABOUT SAYING, KEEPING THAT 1963 EDITION AS BEING
[02:00:01]
A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF IT, UH, AND THAT YOU THINK THAT THAT HAS GAINED SIGNIFICANCE AS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN, WHEREAS THIS 1970S EDITION HAS NOT, SO STANDARD FOUR IS ONE THAT YOU WOULD SAY DOESN'T MEET THAT BECAUSE IT'S PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT SIXTIES EDITION THAT YOU THINK HAS GAINED SIGNIFICANCE OVER TIME.UH, SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FIVE ALREADY.
IT, IT IS CHANGING THAT, UM, A COUPLE ELEMENTS, BOTH THE STONE VENEER WALLS AND THAT, UM, DARKER ORANGE.
AND THEN IN THE YELLOW, IT'S THAT, THAT CMU WALL, THE CONCRETE MASONRY WALL THAT'S CREATING THAT BANDING, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE EITHER, THEY'RE PROBABLY LOOKING TO CLAD OVER THAT WITH SOMETHING MORE MODERN, MORE CONTEMPORARY THAT REALLY CHANGES THE MATERIAL.
SO THEY MAY NOT BE REMOVING IT, BUT THEY ARE NOT PRESERVING THOSE THINGS, THOSE ELEMENTS.
SO SIX REPAIR RATHER THAN REPLACE.
UM, WE MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO TALK ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT WITH THIS LEVEL OF, OF INFORMATION THAT'S BEING PROVIDED TO YOU.
SAME WITH, UH, STANDARD SEVEN.
TREATING WITH THE GENTLEST MEANS POSSIBLE.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION HERE.
NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DIFFERENTIATED YET COMPATIBLE.
AND THIS GOES A LITTLE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT TRICKY 'CAUSE IT'S NOT AN ADDITION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
IT IS NEW CONSTRUCTION AROUND IT.
CERTAINLY IT'S DIFFERENTIATED.
UH, BUT IT'S ALSO THAT RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
IS IT? WELL, PART OF STANDARDIZED, IS IT REMOVING HISTORIC FEATURES AND MATERIALS? SO ONE, IT DOESN'T, IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS, AND TWO, IT DOESN'T SEEM VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THAT FEATURE.
SO YOU DON'T THINK YOU CAN MAKE THE STANDARD NINE ARGUMENT.
AND 10 WAS ABOUT, UH, IS IT REVERSIBLE? IF YOU WERE TO TAKE ALL THIS AWAY, IS THE ESSENTIAL FORM OF THAT BUILDING STILL THERE? PROBABLY HARD TO MAKE THAT CASE TOO, RIGHT? YEAH.
THERE'S ENOUGH OF IT GONE THAT IT'S NOT THERE.
SO YOU NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS OF THIS BEING, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE MOST OF THESE FINDINGS, IT SEEMS LIKE, OR, OR YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS THAT IT MEETS THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
I THINK YOU'VE GIVEN GOOD REASONS FOR WHY THAT IS.
UH, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY GOOD IMAGES 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THE PROJECT ENDED UP BEING APPROVED, SO FOR MANY OTHER REASONS.
UM, SO YEAH, THEY HEARD ON THE FEEDBACK.
I THINK WE EVALUATED AND WE ALSO SAID WE DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
A LOT OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS WERE SO VERY PARALLEL THINGS THAT WE SAID ABOUT WHY THE PROJECT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS DID KNOW.
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR THIS.
UM, AND YOU SORT OF TOUCHED ON A LOT OF IT, I THINK WE WENT THROUGH A LOT TODAY ABOUT JUST TRYING TO RETAIN WHAT THAT ORIGINAL CHARACTER IS AND THINKING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AMONG ALL OF YOU, UM, WAS VERY HELPFUL TO HEAR CERTAIN, THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, UM, AND WHAT DIRECTION YOU WOULD GIVE TO APPLICANTS ABOUT THAT.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FROM OUR END.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE? I DO WANNA JUST SAY THE THING THAT YOU MENTIONED, UM, ABOUT TEETERING BETWEEN THE, THE DIFFERENTIATION VERSUS LIKE, THERE'S A, THERE'S, THAT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME BECAUSE I AM, I LIKE IT TO LOOK ALL THE SAME.
SO LIKE AESTHETICALLY I HAVE TO LIKE PULL BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE.
SO I THINK JUST AS A COMMISSIONER, AS A, AS A WHOLE BODY, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE ALL THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS THERE, BUT I, IT, IT'S INTERESTING TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE MY OWN INTERNAL COMPASS OR GUIDELINE ON THAT.
LIKE, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU CAN SAY ABOUT THAT FURTHER, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR IT.
WELL, I THINK CONSENT, IT'S A, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU'RE A GROUP, SO CONSENSUS IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND, UM, THERE IS THE SPECTRUM.
SO, YOU KNOW, WANTING IT TO MATCH MORE IS OKAY.
I MEAN, IT FALLS WITHIN THAT SPECTRUM.
UM, SO THE QUESTION BECOMES FOR YOU IS LIKE, HOW DO I MAKE THAT DIFFERENTIATION PIECE SO THAT YOU KNOW, IT, IT LOOKS THE SAME, BUT IT'S THE, THE DIFFERENCES ARE THERE.
SO THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARGUE, IT'S JUST, WELL, THE, THE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFERENT, SO THEREFORE IT'S DIFFERENT.
UM, AND WE'VE HEARD THAT, AND YOU KNOW, SOME MUNICIPALITIES ADOPT THAT AS THE WAY THAT THEY DO THINGS.
UM, AND OTHERS ALLOW FOR REALLY RADICAL CHANGE, YOU KNOW, CHANGE OR VERY DIFFERENT ADDITIONS.
[02:05:01]
YOU KNOW, BEING COMFORTABLE WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A RANGE, I THINK IS ONE OF THE KEY LESSONS FROM THE TRAINING.BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, USUALLY, YOU KNOW, PE LIKE IF YOU SEE THE, UM, LIKE A TAX CREDIT PROJECT, THEY TEND TO LIKE THE DETAILS SIMPLIFIED, RIGHT? SO THEY'LL TAKE, YOU KNOW, THE, LIKE A VERY KIND LIKE THE WINDOW WE, WHERE WE SAW ALL THE, UM, INDIVIDUAL, UM, PANES OF GLASS, RIGHT? THEY WOULDN'T, THEY WOULD NOT LIKE THE, THE WINDOW UP ON THE GABLE.
THEY WOULD WANT THAT SIMPLIFIED AS THAT, YOU KNOW, SO YOU CAN STILL HAVE LIKE A TRANSOM ABOVE THE WINDOW, BUT THEY, THEY WOULDN'T WANNA SEE ALL THE GLASS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE STRATEGY.
BUT THERE'S OTHER STRATEGIES TOO, LIKE, YOU KNOW, CHANGING THE SIZE OF THE SIDING OR, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK VOICING YOUR OPINION AND SEEING YOU CAN GET CONSENSUS FROM THE REST OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS, UH, IS A WAY TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
UH, AND YOU, YOU CAN ALSO DECIDE TO VOTE.
IF EVERYONE ELSE SAYS, NO, WE'RE FINE WITH IT, OR WE WANT TO SEE MORE DIFFERENTIATED, YOU CAN ALSO STILL VOTE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, NO, I THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE, UH, MORE COMPATIBLE.
BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE THAT FINDING THAT YOU THINK IT STILL MEETS THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT RANGE AS WELL, OF WHO'S YOUR AUDIENCE? IS IT THE TRAIN EYE WHO CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE? AND IT'S THE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION AND SOMEONE LOOKING AT IT CLOSELY AND ARCHITECT GOING LOOK AT IT GOING, OKAY, THEN THIS IS NOT 1920S CONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS 19, YOU KNOW, 2000 TWENTIES CONSTRUCTION.
YOU CAN SEE THAT VERSUS SOMEONE WALKING BY ON THE STREET.
IT ALL STILL, YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN FEEL LIKE YOU CAN MAKE THE STAND, UH, THE FINDINGS THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS, IT'S FINE TO HAVE THOSE DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
UM, AND I THINK HAVING THAT DISCUSSION WITH YOUR COMMISSIONERS, YES, SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THEY'RE FINE WITH MORE DIFFERENTIATION THAN THIS MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A FINE LINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADAPTIVE REUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IT DOES PRESERVE THAT REALLY COOL ASYMMETRICAL GOOGIE, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF AWNING ROOF THAT IS VERY RECOGNIZABLE.
SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE, HOW, HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO GIVE TO KIND OF COME UP TO MODERN NEEDS AND ALLOWING THAT BUILDING TO EVOLVE, YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF LOSING THE BUILDING ALTOGETHER.
AND I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF LIKE, WINS WITH THAT? LIKE HOW DO YOU WORK WITH A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER TO, TO MAKE THE PROJECT HAPPEN SO YOU DON'T LOSE THE BUILDING, BUT SO THAT IT'S ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR THEM SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE SUCCESS THEY'RE TRYING TO ATTAIN WITH THAT PROPERTY? LIKE HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT VERY SENSITIVE THING? I MEAN, WE JUST LOST THE DOLLY BARDON HOTEL HERE, AND THAT WAS VERY CONTROVERSIAL, BUT THERE'S A GREAT NEED FOR HOUSING HERE.
AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IF WE WOULD'VE HAD AN IDEA TO BE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBLE.
I MEAN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, SAYING I ALL THE DETAILS, BUT I JUST WONDER HOW, WHERE DO WE FIND THAT BALANCE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND IT'S, UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALL WORK AT AND TRYING TO, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THAT RIGHT CHOICE AND WHETHER THAT PROJECT IS THE RIGHT PROJECT.
SOMETIMES IT MAY BE, AND SOMETIMES IT MAY NOT BE, AND THERE MAY BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS YOU'RE THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION FOR THE CITY.
THERE MAY BE SOMEBODY ELSE HANDLING THE HOUSING PART OR SOMEONE ELSE HANDLING THE URBAN DESIGN PART.
YOUR, YOUR MANDATE AND YOUR, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS, IS A HISTORIC RESOURCE STILL A HISTORIC RESOURCE AT THE END OF THE DAY.
UH, AND IT'S KEEPING IN MIND A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS TOO.
UM, UNDERSTANDING WHAT DEVELOPERS NEED AND WHAT MAKES SOMETHING FEASIBLE.
AND YOUR SENSE OF IS THAT, IS THAT, UH, WHAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM THEM SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS CREDIBLE OR NOT CREDIBLE AND WHERE YOU THINK THAT BALANCE IS.
SO IT'S, IT'S BEING ABLE TO BE WILLING TO HOLD A LINE AND KNOW WHEN TO HOLD THE LINE SOMETIMES, BUT ALSO WHEN TO GIVE, UM, AND HOW MUCH YOU CAN GIVE.
SO EVEN THE BOWLING ALLEY EXAMPLE, WHILE THEY'RE KEEPING THE ROOF LINE, DOES IT STILL FEEL LIKE A HISTORIC BUILDING OR FEEL LIKE A GO GEE BOWLING ALLEY? AND MAYBE IT'S SORT OF TOO MUCH TOWARD THE LINE OF IT HAVING CHANGED.
NOW IF THEY KEPT THE STONE WALLS AND MAYBE THE FRONT OF IT STILL LOOKED MORE LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH? AND YOU'D BE WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME OF THE DEMOLITION IN THE BACK AS THEY'RE MAKING THE CASE THAT THEY HAVE TO DO THAT FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
THAT MAY BE A BALANCE THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO LIVE WITH, THAT YOU CAN STILL MAKE THE CASE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S STILL A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
WE STILL WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BEING A RESOURCE, BUT GIVING ENOUGH, UM, GIVING ENOUGH OF THAT GIVE AND TAKE TO STILL ALLOW
[02:10:01]
A PROJECT TO GO THROUGH.OR YOU CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PROJECT FOR THIS.
THE PROPOSED USE IS TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE.
WE CAN'T SAY IT'S A HISTORIC RESOURCE AT THE END OF THE DAY, COME BACK TO US WITH SOMETHING THAT IS CLOSER TO THAT AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN WORK WITH YOU.
I, I THINK THERE'S A REALIZATION TOO THAT YOU, YOU HAVE A UPPER VIEW AND, YOU KNOW, FINDING REQUIREMENTS, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER PATHS, RIGHT? YOU COULD, YOU COULD TAKE THE SEQUEL ROUTE AND SAY, YES, THERE'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, AN EFFECT OR AN IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCE, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT HAS VALUE.
SO YOU CAN SAY, WE CAN'T MAKE OUR FINDINGS, BUT YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND AND WE, IF THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, GOES THROUGH THAT ALTERNATIVE PATH, WE WOULD RECOMMEND X, Y, AND Z WE RETAINED AS PART OF A MITIGATION MEASURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS, UM, BUT YOU HAVE YOUR JOB TO DO SO TO SPEAK, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS ENCOURAGE PEOPLE LIKE, YOU KNOW, AND STUFF LIKE THAT COMES THROUGH TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS GO PART'S GREAT.
UM, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO, UH, HAVE THAT HARD CONVERSATION WITH OUR CLIENTS AND SAY, NO, WE CAN'T MAKE THE FINDING FOR YOU.
YES, WE DON'T THINK THIS IS STANDARDS COMPLIANT.
SO YOU CAN CHOOSE THE EASY ROUTE AND MAKE THE PROJECT STANDARDS COMPLIANT AND GET YOUR APPROVALS MUCH FASTER.
OR YOU COULD TAKE THE HARDER ROUTE AND THE LONGER ROUTE AND SAY, AND DO A MORE EXTREME PROJECT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT, UH, THAT'S NOT STANDARDS COMPLIANT, THAT LOSES THE HISTORIC RESOURCE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT JUST MEANS YOUR PROJECT TIMELINE IS LONGER, IT'S GONNA COST YOU MORE MONEY TO DO THAT.
YOU MAY HAVE TO, THEY MAY HAVE TO DO THAT CALCULATION TOO.
WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PATH FOR THEIR PROJECT? AND SO THAT, YEAH, SOME OF THE ECONOMICS CAN WORK IN YOUR FAVOR.
I I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT, UM, IT'S EASY TO TELL IF SOMEONE'S BEEN WORKING WELL WITH STAFF OR NOT.
AND SO IF, UH, IF STAFF HAS GONE THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS AND PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE AND MUCH HAS BEEN SAVED, I THINK THAT ALSO, UH, PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US NOT TO HAVE TO TAKE SUCH A HARD STANCE MM-HMM,
THAT HELPS MY DECISION MAKING, UM, THAT I KNOW I HAVE A MUCH MORE NARROW SCOPE AND, UH, I, I FOCUS ON THAT SCOPE MYSELF KNOWING THAT OTHERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THAT DECISION.
UM, BUT KNOWING THE WORK THAT GETS PUT INTO IT AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND THEN HAVING STAFF SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING COLLABORATIVELY.
THIS IS THE THIRD VERSION, MUCH HAS IMPROVED.
THAT ACTUALLY PROVIDES ME COMFORT KNOWING THAT THEY ARE DOING MORE THAN JUST CHECKING THE BOX.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A PERSPECTIVE THAT WE MIGHT COME ACROSS IN THE FUTURE.
WELL SAID COMMISSIONER BODAK, AGAIN, WE DID HAVE AN ITEM THAT CAME UP, WHICH WAS THE DOLLY VARDON.
WE TRIED TO PRESERVE AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE EXTERIOR, AND AGAIN, WE VOTED APPROPRIATELY AND WE'RE OVERRULED IN PLANNING.
SO THAT BEING SAID, IF THE BUILDING WAS LANDMARKED, JUST NOT THE SIGN, BUT THE BUILDING, WE WOULD'VE HAD PROBABLY MORE LEG TO STAND ON.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AS WE DO HAVE TO WORK COLLECTIVELY WITH THE STAFF AS WELL AS WITH THE, UM, APPLICANT, AND I THINK, UH, WITH THIS TRAINING SESSION THAT WE HAD THIS EVENING, WE'LL GIVE US GREATER INSIGHT FOR THE PROJECT THAT WE HAD TABLED FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I, I, I THINK THIS WAS VERY APPROPRIATE FOR OUR THIRD SESSION AND LOOK FORWARD TO OTHER SESSIONS IN THE FUTURE.
IT WAS, AGAIN, VERY EDUCATIONAL AND AT THIS TIME, IF THERE ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS OUR PRESENTERS, WE NEED TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER THAT.
WILL ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? QUESTION.
SHOULD IT BE CLEAR? PUBLIC COMMENT IS A TIME FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO TAKE YOUR QUESTION AND DIRECT IT TO THE STAFF, THEY CAN DO THAT.
BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT TIME.
[02:15:01]
FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.AARON ACKOFF, 1 2 0 3 EAST EIGHTH STREET, LONG BEACH.
UM, MY QUESTION IS TO BOTH STAFF AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, HOW FIRM ARE YOU GUYS WHEN A PROJECT, NOT THE ONE THAT I SPECIFICALLY WAS ADDRESSING BEFORE, BUT A PROJECT, UM, REQUIRES HAVING TO PUT OKAY, FRAMING AROUND A WINDOW ON AN OLD HOUSE THAT THE FRAMING WAS TORN OFF OF, UH, A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT LIKE SAY IN 1918.
UM, THE WOOD THAT WAS USED LONG, LONG AGO IS MUCH THICKER, HAS MORE MASS TO IT.
WHAT, JUST, IT'S JUST KIND OF AN OPEN QUESTION.
WHAT WOULD YOU GUYS, UH, HOW WOULD YOU GUYS APPROACH THAT? THAT'S, THAT'S ALL.
WOULD STAFF LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT OR WILL JUST, UH, YEAH, SURE.
AND JUST TO CONFIRM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, WHEN YOU SAY THE FRAMING, THE, THE WOOD SIDING, FOR EXAMPLE, PART OF THE, THE HOME, THE, THE FACE.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S ALL BIGGER AND THICKER BUILT A LONG TIME AGO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK FOR US AS STAFF, UH, THE WAY WE WOULD RESPOND TO THAT IS, IS, UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS.
UM, ONE, UH, IT DEPENDS ON HOW UNIQUE THE BUILDING IS AND YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY, UM, HOW UNIQUE THOSE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ARE.
UH, IF IT'S A DESIGNATED HISTORIC LANDMARK, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE ELEVATED, UM, REVIEW IN SORT OF STANDARD AND EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOR TRYING TO KEEP THE MATERIALS, UH, AS INTACT AS, UH, POSSIBLE OR, UH, WHERE THEY'RE REPLACED TO REPLICATE THE ORIGINALS.
UH, IN THE DISTRICTS, IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO BALANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, REALISTIC ISSUES LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW AVAILABLE ARE THOSE PARTICULAR MATERIALS, HOW, UM, ACCESSIBLE ARE THEY? HOW MUCH DOES THAT, UH, INCREASE THE COST FOR, FOR THE TYPE OF PROJECT? BECAUSE WE ALSO TRY TO BE UNDERSTANDING OF, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN UNLIMITED BUDGET FOR, YOU KNOW, JUST YOUR AVERAGE HOMEOWNER IN ONE OF OUR DISTRICTS.
UM, SO I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND JUST REALLY THINK ABOUT, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE DO THESE PROJECTS, UH, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS WHERE IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
UH, AND THEN THERE'S, UM, OTHER PROJECTS WHERE, UH, WE AS STAFF TRY TO USE OUR DISCRETION, UH, JUST BASED ON SOME OF THOSE, UH, ITEMS THAT WE WERE, I JUST MENTIONED EARLIER.
ALEJANDRA, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU ON, ON THAT NOTE.
UM, WHEN THE CONDITIONS SAY THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE REPLACED IN KIND OR IN GENERAL IN KIND, WHAT IS THE, UM, UH, WHAT DO I WANNA SAY? I DON'T WANNA SAY POLICING, BUT WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE, UM, FOLLOW UP TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MATCHED TO MICHELLE'S POINT, THE EXACT PROPORTION OF SOMETHING THAT WAS REPLACED? SURE.
YEAH, I, THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION WE CAN ADDRESS.
UM, SO I THINK WHAT HAPPENS ON OUR SIDE IS, UH, SO FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY, UH, A WOOD WINDOW OR SIDING, UM, UH, WE ASK THE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE, UH, SPECIFIC INFORMATION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS, UH, THAT WILL SPECIFY THE DETAILS.
SO, UH, IF IT'S WOOD SIDING, UH, WITH THE THICKNESS OF IT, WHAT THE HEIGHT OF IT IS, UH, WHAT THE ACTUAL MATERIAL IS, UH, WINDOWS, IT'S THE SAME THING AS WELL.
IT'LL PROVIDE VERY SPECIFIC DEAL DETAILS ON HOW THE WINDOW OPERATES, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, OPEN, WHETHER THERE'S WEIGHTS, UM, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S HOW WE MONITOR IT ON OUR END.
UH, WE, UH, WE REQUIRE THAT WITH EACH, UH, COA APPLICATION.
UH, SO WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT GOES TO CHC OR JUST AT STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL, UH, THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE USE TO, TO MONITOR THAT.
AND VICE CHAIRMAN WAN, I KNOW WE HAVE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTERS HERE IN THE CHAMBERS, BUT WE DO HAVE ONLINE ATTENDEES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL TO CLOSE THAT OUT.
UH, PLEASE, UH, REGARDING THE VIRTUAL, ANY COMMENTERS THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS ON THE DISCUSSION FOR THIS ITEM? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
COMMISSIONER BODAK, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE A VOICE VOTE, I CAN TAKE THAT.
JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON.
[02:20:01]
RECEIVED YOUR YES.[CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ELECTION]
FOR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION WILL NOW MOVE ON THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOLLOWING THE ELECTION.I WILL CONTINUE AS CHAIR OF THE MEETING AND THE CHAIR ELECT AND VICE CHAIR ELECT WILL BEGIN THEIR TERM AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I DECLARE THE NOMINATION OPEN FOR THE CHAIR OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION.
EACH MEMBER MAY NOMINATE ONE PERSON FOR THE CHAIR, INCLUDING MYSELF.
THESE NOMINATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A SECOND.
DO WE DO THAT THROUGH VOTE CAST OR? SO WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE'LL HAVE AN OPEN NOMINATION.
ONCE ALL NOMINATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD, WE WILL VOTE ON EACH NOMINEE AND THE NOMINEE THAT RECEIVES THE MAJORITY FIRST WILL BE YOUR NEW CHAIR, AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO THE VICE CHAIR AND USE A VERY SIMILAR PROCESS.
OH, I HAD LIKE TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER MAGU AS CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER MAGU, DO YOU ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? I ACCEPT THE NOMINATION.
DO YOU NEED A SECOND? WE DO NOT.
IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL NOMINATIONS, I DECLARE THE NOMINATION CLOSED FOR CHAIR.
IN ORDER TO NOMINATE, I INVITE EACH NOMINEE TO BRIEFLY SHARE WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE ELECTED CHAIR.
UM, THIS IS MY SECOND TERM ON THE, THE, THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION.
I ENJOY THE, THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING AS VICE-CHAIR WITH KATHLEEN IRVINE AS THE CHAIR OF OUR COMMISSION.
I'VE LEARNED QUITE A BIT FROM HER, AS WELL AS FROM THE STAFF, AS WELL AS FROM, UH, ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE EDUCATED US OVER THE YEARS.
AND I WOULD BE VERY HONORED TO SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION.
WE'LL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE LINE UP IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE.
ARE THERE ANY VIRTUAL? WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? IF YOU ARE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
AT THIS TIME, I DECLARE THE NOMINATION OPEN FOR THE HOL CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION VICE CHAIR.
EACH MEMBER MAY NOMINATE ONE PERSON FOR VICE CHAIR, INCLUDING MYSELF.
THE NOMINATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER BODAK WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER GFI.
COMMISSIONER GSFI, DO YOU ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? I ACCEPT THE NOMINATION BEING THAT THERE ARE NO FURTHER NOMINATIONS.
I DECLARE THE NOMINATION CLOSED FOR VICE CHAIR.
IN ORDER TO NOMINATE, I INVITE EACH NOMINEE TO BRIEFLY SHARE WHY THEY WOULD BE ELECTED TO VICE CHAIR.
UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROFF.
UM, I JUST WAS REELECTED TO MY, I THINK WE'RE GOING ON THIRD TERM HERE.
UM, SO I'VE ENJOYED MY TIME WITH ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND, AND WITH, AND WORKING WITH STAFF TO, UM, GET THE, THE, THE PROJECTS THROUGH REVIEWED.
AND, UM, I HOPE TO CONTINUE THAT FOR THE, FOR THE TILL MY, UH, TERM IS UP.
WE'LL, NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA? IF THERE ARE NONE VIRTUALLY.
IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE
[02:25:01]
VOTE FOR THE VICE CHAIR OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION.[PUBLIC COMMENT Opportunity to address the Cultural Heritage Commission on non-agenda items. Each speaker is limited to three minutes to make their comments unless extended by the Chair.]
LIKE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO SPEAK ON ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS IF THERE ARE NONE VIRTUALLY.IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AG AGENDA ITEMS, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON WITH THEIR HAND RAISED DC YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT.
I AM, UH, RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I LIVE AT 35 25 LEMON AVENUE, AND I'VE BEEN HOMEOWNER HERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS.
UM, I THOUGHT THE TRAINING TONIGHT WAS VERY, UM, INSIGHTFUL, UM, TO THOSE OF US WHO ARE LISTENING ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE ULTRA HERITAGE COMMISSION IN THE PROCESS.
UM, I'M ATTENDING TONIGHT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE, UM, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 34 0 1 CERRITOS AVENUE.
UM, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, OF GREAT CONCERN TO MANY OF US IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND, UM, THE FEELING THAT, UM, THE, THE PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE PARCEL FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, IN AN EFFORT TO BYPASS, UM, THE HISTORIC, UM, REVIEW AND FOR A PROJECT THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED BY THIS PANEL IS SENDING TO THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, FROM THE TRAINING, UM, I THINK IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
AND I THINK IT'S, UH, VERY IMPORTANT THAT AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF THE, UM, UH, COA THAT'S GOING TO BE A PART OF THE, UH, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCESS.
THE FIRST SCOPING MEETING WAS LAST NIGHT.
I KNOW THAT'S GONNA BE CONTINUED, BUT I THINK THIS GROUP, THEY, UM, ROLE IN MAINTAINING THAT.
I'M NOT SURE THE PRECEDENT OF REMOVING A PARCEL FROM A HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS HAS BEEN, UM, EVER BEEN HAD BEFORE IN LONG BEACH.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S EVER HAPPENED IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT IN ANY CASE.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S A VERY, UM, SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND, AND IF THIS WERE TO OCCUR, SO I'D ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO BE INVOLVED AND TO MAINTAIN, UM, THE STANDARDS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AS, UH, ALL THE OTHER PIECES OF THIS PROPOSAL ARE, UM, EVALUATED.
THERE ARE OTHER BODIES THAT WILL LOOK AT THE HOUSING ASPECT AND OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF IT, BUT THE FACT THAT A PARCEL IS GONNA BE REMOVED FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE BOUNDARIES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR, YOU KNOW, WELL OVER 20, 25 YEARS, I THINK IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
UM, AND WHAT THE STANDARD FOR THAT SHOULD BE, UM, GOING FORWARD.
UM, I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE WATCHING CLOSELY FOR THE EVALUATION BY THIS PANEL GOING FORWARD.
[ANNOUNCEMENTS]
ANNOUNCEMENTS COMING FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? IF THERE ARE NONE, I WOULD LIKE TO ADJOURN[ADJOURNMENT]
THE MEETING IN THE SPIRIT OF HALLOWEEN AND COMMISSIONER PISO GETS THE AWARD