Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso 12-6793 (C of Appr.-1221 Hermosa, Chase) One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92618 INTERNET www.pcrnet.com TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 March 1, 2012 Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Community Development Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Ms. Townsend: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) has reviewed the revised plans for the proposed tenant improvements for the commercial property at 1221 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. Under the proposed plans prepared by Stantec Architecture, Inc., the Project consists of tenant improvements to the interior and exterior of the commercial space at 1221 Hermosa Beach Avenue to accommodate the new tenant, JP Morgan Chase. The proposed plans forwarded to PCR on February 21, 2012 for review consisted of the following: Site Plan A0.1; Demolition Floor Plan A1.0, Demolition Ceiling Plan A1.0.1; Floor Plan A1.1, Finish Plan A1.2; Furniture Plan A1.3; Reflected Ceiling Plan A1.4; Door Window Schedule A2.1; Door Window Details A2.2; Existing Elevations A3.1; Interior Elevations A4.1 – A4.3; Details A4.4; all dated October 13, 2011. In accordance with the terms of the Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between the City and PCR, we are submitting a final plan review based on the information contained in the application submitted to the Community Development Department on February 7, 2012. PCR’s Principal Historic Preservation Planner Murray Miller, M. Arch, conducted a site meeting on January 12, 2012 with Stantec Architecture; representatives from JP Morgan Chase; and Federal Realty to clarify PCR’s previous plan review dated November 30, 2011. Based on the clarifications provided by PCR at the site meeting, Stantec proceeded to amend the previous design, which is the subject of this present plan review. The revised design for the proposed tenant improvements have now been reviewed for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 57). We submit the following comments to you in support of the revised plans prepared by Stantec as submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach on February 7, 2012. PROJECT BACKGROUND In 1998, the Bijou Building was surveyed, evaluated and assigned a California Historical Resources Status Code of 3S. The property was recommended eligible for the National Register as Exhibit A Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 2 an individual property through survey evaluation.1 The property was found eligible for the National Register under criteria A and C, and also as a City Landmark under criteria A, C, and D.2 Constructed in 1923, the Neoclassical Revival-style Bijou Theater exemplifies the early social and economic history of Hermosa Beach, it is a distinctive example of the Neoclassical Revival architectural style, and it is a representative example of a notable southern California architect’s work, Richard Douglas King, a Hermosa Beach resident. The period of significance is 1923, the time of its construction. On April 27, 1999 the City of Hermosa Beach designated the Bijou Building as a Historic Landmark and adopted a Resolution Nos. 99-5980 and 99-5981 designating the Bijou Building a historic landmark pursuant to Section 15.53.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and approving the use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to guide future change to the building. According to the 1998 DPR survey form, the exterior character-defining features of the Neo- classical Bijou Theater Building are: symmetrical composition, massing, fenestration patterns, brick exterior walls with stucco siding, terra cotta pilasters capped with Ionic capitals and acanthus leaves, spandrels dividing the first and second floors, cornice, and storefronts (Figures 1 to10). The 1998 DPR survey form described the exterior and interior at 1221 Hermosa Avenue, the space originally occupied by a theater, as: The theatre plan consists of three sections: the foyer, lobby, and auditorium. The foyer is currently located off the primary elevation along Hermosa Avenue. It is a single- story space, recessed under the marquee and office above. Large rectangular shaped display windows hang from each side of the foyer. These display windows held the posters that advertised the movie features of the week. The foyer is paved with small unglazed clay tile blocks and is unadorned of detailing. 1 Jan Ostashay, PCR Services, Department of Parks and Recreation Form, Bijou Theater Building, December 22, 1998. 2 The National Register criteria are: (A) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (B) It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; (C) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; (D) It yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The City of Hermosa Beach Historic Preservation Ordinance defines a landmark as: (A) A resource exemplifying special cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; (B) A resource identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; (C) A resource embodying distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction or a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; (D) A resource representative of notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; (E) A resource with unique location, singular physical characteristics, representing an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community or the City. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 3 The lobby space of the theatre, located adjacent to the foyer and accessed via three pairs of double glass paned doors, is a large single-story space, semi-circular in plan, with ornate classical detailing. This detailing includes textured walls, cove ceilings, wood baseboards, large plaster casted scallops with feline figures at each base; tall, thin Solomonic columns capped with the Greek fountain, a telephone alcove and a small ticket office. The men’s’ and women’s public restrooms are adjacent to the lobby to the south.3 The DPR survey form also described the exterior and interior of the southeast commercial space as: The southeast storefront is a small single-story space (approximately 726 square feet), rectangular in plan, and three bays wide. The interior space has a high ceiling and contains a mezzanine with staircase, a restroom, and limited storage space. The interior commercial space is devoid of ornamental detailing and furnishings.4 The 1998 DPR form described some of the alterations to the exterior and interior of the theater as follows: “the removal and replacement of the original vertical marquee and the projecting neon light marquee from the 1930s with a modern metal and plastic marquee [Figure 3], the addition and removal of a foyer ticket booth [Figure 9]…the large dividing wall down the center of the auditorium, removal of the $20,000 Robert Morgan organ, removal and damage to some original ornamental decorations in the lobby and auditorium area, removal of original lighting fixtures and snack bar in lobby, replacement of etched window panes in glass paneled entry doors in the foyer, modifications to the configuration of the public restrooms (some time in the 1930s); the re- upholstery of the original leather auditorium seats with vinyl/cloth material.”5 Based upon PCR’s previous review of the existing conditions, property history, and historic photographs, we can confirm that there have been many alterations to the theater space since its initial construction. In 1983, the theater was converted into a movie theater; the auditorium was split into two, and the property was renamed the Bijou Twin Cinema.6 In 1997, the CIM Group, a real estate development company, purchased the vacant Bijou building, and began the process of rehabilitating the theater into a retail space. Two years later the building was structurally retrofitted and in 2003 the interior of the theater was redesigned for gallery space (Figures 12 to 15).7 Since the time of the 1998 survey many changes have occurred to the interior of 1221 Hermosa Avenue. The foyer was removed, and altered as follows, the three set of double doors on the west foyer wall leading into the lobby were removed and the wall was opened, the foyer was 3 Jan Ostashay, PCR Services, Department of Parks and Recreation Form, Bijou Theater Building, December 22, 1998. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 “Cove Theater Trying Again, as Art House,” Los Angeles Times, October 6, 1983, p. SB_A1. 7 “You have to C it,” Daily Breeze, March 11, 2003. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 4 enclosed with new doors at Hermosa Avenue, the foyer tile floor was covered with wood floor and an exposed segment was kept in front of the entrance doors, the south foyer wall was opened underneath the decorative arches and the columns were retained, the opening on the north wall was enclosed, and the foyer ceiling was dropped. Additionally, two openings were inserted into the south wall of the barrel vaulted lobby area. The classical detailing in the semi-circular lobby area was retained and a large opening was inserted into the west wall. The classical molding and columns were retained on the north wall of the auditorium seating area and new storefronts were inserted. The auditorium seating area was removed. A mezzanine level was constructed on along the south wall of the auditorium seating area and the classical detailing was preserved. The entire space was painted white. The auditorium stage and back of stage area was blocked off from the space with a wall. PCR also noted that the fenestration along the primary (east) elevation had been previously altered. According to historic photographs circa 1923 and 1924, the first southern bay was a single pane window with a transom window above and the next two bays had doors leading into commercial spaces with sidelights and transom windows above (Figure 1). At an unknown date, the fenestration of the first southern bay was replaced a single-pane window with a transom window above and the central window was replaced with a door and sidelights, and the third window was replaced with single-pane glass with transom window above. The existing exterior windows on the northern bays were replaced at an unknown date. Originally there were no transom windows above the first floor windows on the northern bays, which were originally fixed single pane windows. However, even though the fenestration and doors have been altered from the buildings initial construction, the overall design of the storefront remains significant and character defining, including the transparency associated with large glazed openings forming part of the storefront bays and the design character of the windows and recessed door openings. PROPOSED PROJECT The scope of the proposed work is confined to the former foyer and lobby of the theater, and the southeast storefront of the Bijou Building at 1221 Hermosa Avenue. Interior improvements include: the alteration of the existing non-loadbearing wall in the southeast commercial space to facilitate access between the southeast floor area and the floor area to the immediate north of the demising wall; the infill of openings in the south wall of the vestibule; the insertion of custom doors in the west wall of the vestibule; the enclosure of a non-historic opening on the north and south wall of the comfort zone; the insertion of an opening on the non-historic south wall of the comfort zone; the restoration of the original tile floor in the foyer; the construction of new partitions; the construction of a new vault; the installation of new bank equipment and finishes; and the modification of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical services. Exterior modifications include recovering existing awnings; installing one new awning; replacing existing non-original doors with a new double entrance door and sidelights on the east Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 5 elevation; and the installation of a new storefront and ATM on the non-historic single-story north elevation. IMPACTS ANALYSIS 1. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project involves a “substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource” when one or more of the following occurs:  Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.  The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: a. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or b. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or c. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) are codified at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 67.7. In most circumstances, the Standards are relevant in assessing whether there is a substantial adverse change under CEQA. Section 15064.5b(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states in part that “. . . a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 6 Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource,” and therefore may be considered categorically exempt. 2. Analysis of Project Impacts The proposed project alters the existing interior commercial space at 1221 Hermosa Avenue in a manner so as to accommodate the new use while retaining the existing distinctive materials, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the Bijou Building. The proposed changes to the exterior of the building would ensure that the integrity of the character-defining fenestration pattern on the east elevation from the 1923 period of significance would be sustained. As noted above, generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing, Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the Historical Resource.8 Thus, it is acknowledged that the proposed project is consistent with the spirit of “rehabilitation.” The proposed project was reviewed by a qualified historic preservation specialist who satisfies the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture and Preservation Planning, pursuant to 36 CFR 61, in order to determine the significance of potential impacts of the proposed work on the Bijou Building. A discussion of how the proposed project conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards follows. These review comments are intended to assist the City in the project review process. In accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.  The property will be used as a bank. The property was historically used as theater; however, the space was converted into a commercial space in the early twenty-first century. The southeast space was originally used a commercial space. The proposed alterations to the demising wall of the southeast space are considered to be the minimum change required in order to achieve optimum use of the two spaces into one space. The proposed scope of alteration forms part of the rehabilitation of the building. The minimal change to the spatial characteristics that defines the southeast commercial space will be retained to a substantive degree therefore complying with Standard 1. 8 California Environmental Quality Act, 15064.5 (3). Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 7 Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that char acterize a property will be avoided.  The proposed work alters the interior of the commercial space for a bank, and thus reconfigures the interior by removing and constructing new interior partition walls for offices and other bank functions. The character-defining features of the existing space are the semi-circular wall with large cast plaster scallop shells, pilasters, tall and thin Solomonic columns, arches, crown molding, wood baseboards, textured walls, and restoration of the original glazed tile in the vestibule (see Figures 7 to 9, 17 to 20). These features will be retained, protected and preserved by the proposed rehabilitation of the existing spaces.  With regard to the proposed alteration of the existing wall abutting the southeast commercial space occupied by the existing ice-cream parlor to create one larger space, this work would substantially retain the spatial relationships that characterize the separate and distinct historic uses of the building.  In the proposed project, the character-defining spatial relationship and spaces (the foyer and lobby entrance into the main theater) along with the above-noted character- defining features will be substantially retained. Two of the openings in the south wall of the proposed bank vestibule will be in-filled. This intervention will assist in the reinstatement of historic character as the openings were originally filled (see Figure 9). The installation of ATM’s in the two in-filled walls, while practically reversible, will alter the visual characteristics of the entrance lobby that the infilling of the existing openings intended to reinstate.  The transparency that is characteristic of large glazed openings along the east, north and the south return elevation along with the perception of depth into the interior space and the ability to see inside the building through large glazed openings at street-level is considered to be a character-defining feature, which would be largely sustained by the proposed changes. This characteristic, however, is diminished by the proximity of the new south and east stud walls that form part of the space numbered 123 at the southeast corner. The positioning of the shorter stud wall flush to the jamb of the existing window opening is incongruous with the character of the property. Similarly, the location of the new south wall is too close to the existing window. Together, these two walls, given their proximity and detail interface with the existing window opening will result in a visual change that is uncharacteristic of the prop erty. This change is also considered to be minor in the context of the rehabilitation of the property and can be considered practically reversible. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 8 On balance, it is therefore considered that the above aspects of the scope of work would comply with Standard 2. Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.  This revised rehabilitation design recognizes the historic character and existing conditions of the property and the addition of conjectural features has been eliminated from the proposed design. The proposed work therefore complies with Standard 3. Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.  There are no changes or additions that appear to have acquired historic significance in their own right that should be retained or preserved. This Standard does not apply to the proposed project. Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.  The design, symmetry, rhythm and pattern of the fenestration are character-defining features of the exterior. The proposed interior space numbered 123 at the southeast corner of the property would alter the visual characteristics of the storefront to a minor degree when viewed from the exterior.  It is proposed that new interior doors with sidelights will be installed within the same opening as the original entrance lobby doors to the theater. The proposed work is intended to retain the distinctive materials, finishes, and construction techniques that characterize the north and south walls of the vestibule.  The proposed project involves the removal of non-character-defining interior walls and the construction of new walls that are intended to minimize the impact on distinctive materials, features and finishes that characterize the property. On balance, it is considered that the proposed project would comply with the intent of Standard 5. Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.  The site investigation undertaken on November 3, 2011, revealed that the masonry walls with plaster detailing shows signs of deterioration, however, repairs to existing Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 9 deteriorated historic features are not within the scope of the proposed project. It is understood from previous on-site discussions with the applicant, that if any conditions are exposed during the execution of the proposed project involving deteriorated historic features, they shall be repaired where practical or selectively replaced in kind using the gentlest means practical. When proceeding with any repair to the plaster work Preservation Brief 23: Preserving Historical Ornamental Plaster should be consulted.9 It is considered that the proposed project therefore conforms to Standard 6. Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.  The proposed scope of work does not specify the need for chemical treatments. Physical treatments that are required to rehabilitate the property as proposed will conform to Standard 7. Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.  There are no known archaeological resources at the project site and no ground disturbing activities are expected within the scope of the proposed project. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.  The addition of new doors at the central east entrance and the north secondary entrance will not destroy historic materials because these doors are already replacement doors. The design of the proposed new doors appears to be compatible with the historic property.  The proposed alteration of the south wall that divides the existing commercial space occupied by the ice-cream parlor from the main entrance foyer would alter the demising wall that contributes to the character of the spaces and the spatial qualities associated with each. This alteration will, however, substantially retain the sense of space and will not significantly alter the perception of the expanded space from the main entrance foyer when looking to the south. 9 National Park Service, Preservation Brief 23: Preserving Historical Ornamental Plaster http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief23.htm, accessed November 15, 2011. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 10  The construction of the vault in a manner so as to eliminate the function of an original arched single doorway on the south exterior elevation would not destroy one of the three existing access doors that contribute to the characterization of the south elevation, because the exterior form and features would not be altered by the proposed work. The existing door is not original; however the door opening is original and character defining.  The removal of the existing non-historic wood floor will reveal the original glazed tile floor in the vestibule and in front of the primary entrance doors; the extent and condition of which is to be determined. The proposed careful removal of the existing wood floor is specified so as not to destroy historic materials, however, should any damage to historic materials and finishes occur, their preservation will comply with Standard 7 and monitoring is expected to ensure conformance with the Standards. The above-noted new construction and alterations would therefore comply with Standard 9. Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.  The extension of the office space numbered 123 in the southeast corner of the building; the installation of the ATM machines into the proposed infill walls; and the construction of the vault immediately behind the existing single arched doorway on the south elevation are considered practically reversible and, if these elements of the new construction were removed in the future, the essential character of the south elevation and the entrance lobby would be unimpaired. The above-noted new construction would therefore comply with Standard 10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed changes to the existing Landmark are intended to alter the interior and exterior of the commercial space at 1221 Hermosa Avenue to accommodate a new use for JP Morgan Chase. The proposed exterior alterations are limited to non-character-defining features on the north elevation and the proposed interior alterations are substantially compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as discussed above. In accordance with Section 15064.5b (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed rehabilitation project follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the physical and visual effects identified in the discussion above are considered to have an impact on the historic resource that are less than significant. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 11 Recommendations 1. Where any deterioration or damage to historic material is exposed during the course of the work, they should be repaired where practical or selectively replaced in-kind using the gentlest means practical to protect the integrity and significance of this landmark property. For example, when proceeding with any repair to the plaster work Preservation Brief 23: Preserving Historical Ornamental Plaster should be consulted.10 2. Infill of previously removed historic fabric that will be replaced under the proposed project should be replaced in-kind, as the Standards recommend, so that the historic character of the interior is protected. 3. With regard to the bank vestibule, it is recommended that the plane of the new infill wall surface match the original wall placement, and that the plaster finishes be matched to the original and recreated in-kind, and that plaster baseboard moldings and pilaster base moldings be restored. PCR hereby submits the results of its final plan review of the revised project plans prepared by Stantec Architecture, dated October 13, 2011 as amended by revisions received by the City of Hermosa Beach on February 7, 2012. Additional plan reviews or other preservation consulting services not stipulated in the Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between the City and PCR will be considered out-of-scope. PCR is available to provide additional preservation design and treatment consulting services, if desired, for an additional cost. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 753-7001, ext. 2111. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION Murray G. Miller, M. Arch., MEDS (Cons.), Assoc. AIA, MCIP Principal Historic Preservation Planner 10 National Park Service, Preservation Brief 23: Preserving Historical Ornamental Plaster http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief23.htm, accessed November 15, 2011. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 12 Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 13 Historic Photographs Figure 1. East (Primary) Elevation, Bijou Building, circa 1923 (Hermosa Beach Newspaper) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 14 Figure 2. South and East Elevations, Bijou Building, circa 1923 (Hermosa Beach Historical Society) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 15 Figure 3. South and East Elevation, Bijou Building, circa 1998 (PCR) Figure 4. North Elevation, Bijou Building, circa 1998 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 16 Figure 5. North and West Elevations, Bijou Building, circa 1998 (PCR) Figure 6. North and West Elevations, Bijou Building, circa 1998 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 17 Figure 7. Theater Lobby, view to southeast, circa early 1920s (Hermosa Beach Historical Society) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 18 Figure 8. Theater Lobby, view to southeast, circa early 1920s (Hermosa Beach Historical Society) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 19 Figure 9. Theater Foyer, view to west, circa early 1920s (Hermosa Beach Historical Society) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 20 Figure 10. Theater, view to west, circa early 1920s (Hermosa Beach Historical Society) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 21 Alterations Figure 11. Southeast storefront on primary (east) elevation, view to southwest, Bijou Building, 1998 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 22 Figure 12. North elevation, view to southwest, Bijou Building, circa 2003 (PCR) Figure 13. North elevation, view to southwest, Bijou Building, circa 2003 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 23 Figure 14. North elevation, view to southwest, Bijou Building, circa 2003 (PCR) Figure 15. Central entrance, primary (east) elevation, view to west, Bijou Building, circa 2003 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 24 Figure 16. Central entrance, primary (east) elevation, view to west, Bijou Building, circa 2003 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 25 Figure 17. 1221 Hermosa Avenue Foyer, view to south, Bijou Building, circa 2003 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 26 Figure 18. 1221 Hermosa Avenue Foyer, view to southwest, Bijou Building, circa 2003 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 27 Figure 19. Classical details in lobby of 1221 Hermosa Avenue, Bijou Building, circa 1998 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 28 Figure 20. Classical details in lobby of 1221 Hermosa Avenue, Bijou Building, circa 1998 (PCR) Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 29 2011 Photographs Figure 21. East elevation Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 30 Figure 22. Partial south elevation showing ground floor window where new offices beyond will be constructed. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 31 Figure 23. Partial north view Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 32 Figure 24. View of lobby area looking east to Hermosa Avenue. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 33 Figure 25. Original round-arch door opening on the south side. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 34 Figure 26. View of altered opening from lobby. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 35 Figure 27. Interior demising wall separating the south commercial space from the entrance lobby. Ms. Pamela Townsend CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 1, 2012 - Page 36 Figure 28. Detail of front entrance tile and interior wood floor beyond.