SR-402-004 (13)
PCD:SF:F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2002\01CA-006 Extension.doc
Council Mtg: July 23, 2002 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Resolution to Extend Certificate of Appropriateness LC-01-CA-006 to
Allow an Addition Connecting Two of the Six Bungalows Located at 211
Alta Avenue (The Palama), a Designated City Landmark.
Applicant/Property Owner: Stephen Chao
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to extend the permit
term of a Certificate of Appropriateness. On December 10, 2001 the Landmarks
Commission approved the Certificate of Appropriateness to allow an addition
connecting two of the bungalow structures at 211 Alta Avenue, a designated City
Landmark. The Certificate of Appropriateness will expire June 18, 2002 unless the
permit is extended by the City Council.
The Landmarks Ordinance restricts the validity of a Certificate of Appropriateness to
180 days and requires that any extension be approved by City Council resolution. This
extension request is necessary to ensure the Certificate of Appropriateness remains
valid until building permits are issued for the project, a process that is anticipated to be
completed by August 2002.
- 1 -
BACKGROUND
The Municipal Code allows the City Council, following a recommendation from the
Landmarks Commission, to extend a Certificate of Appropriateness up to 180 days
upon such terms and conditions the Council deems appropriate. In approving this
Certificate of Appropriateness in December, the Landmarks Commission also
recommended that the Council extend the permit’s term for 180 days upon the
applicant’s request. The applicant made the request for continuance before the
expiration date, therefore, the permit has not yet expired. The Certificate of
Appropriateness allows construction of a glass and wood connector passage between
two bungalows in order to rehabilitate the existing structures for use as a single-family
residence. In approving the request, the Landmarks Commission determined that the
proposed project complies with the Landmarks Ordinance requirements and is
consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The applicant submitted an application for a building permit on March 29, 2002. At that
time, it was determined that the project slightly exceeded the parcel coverage allowed
by Code and an application for an Adjustment was submitted. The applicant was also
required to obtain an Occupancy Permit, because rental units were removed from the
jurisdiction of Rent Control on October 4, 1999.
The applicant has made a reasonable and diligent effort to obtain necessary permits
since receiving this Certificate of Appropriateness in December 2001. Requirements
not originally contemplated have extended the permit process and the applicant has
- 2 -
been working with staff to resolve the outstanding issues. Staff believes that the
request is appropriate and the permit allows for the preservation and reuse of a
designated landmark.
The Landmarks Ordinance gives the applicant a choice of re-applying for a Certificate of
Appropriateness or requesting an extension from the City Council. The applicant has
chosen to request this extension.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class
15301(e) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the proposed work represents
an addition of less than 50% to an existing structure. In addition, it is exempt pursuant
to Section 15331 because the proposed rehabilitation work complies with the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution to extend LC-01CA-
006 for an additional 180 days. This Certificate of Appropriateness will then expire on
December 15, 2002.
- 3 -
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kim Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Extension Request Letter
B. Staff Report and STOA for Certificate of Appropriateness
C. December 10, 2001 Landmarks Commission Minutes
D. City Council Resolution
LBEF:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2002\01CA-006 Extension.doc
- 4 -
RESOLUTION NO. ___ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
EXTENDING CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS LC-01-CA-006
TO ALLOW AN ADDITION CONNECTING TWO OF THE SIX
BUNGALOWS LOCATED AT 211 ALTA AVENUE (THE PALAMA),
A DESIGNATED CITY LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, the Landmarks Commission approved Certificate of Appropriateness
LC-01CA-006 to allow an addition connecting two of the bungalow structures at 211 Alta
Avenue on December 10, 2001, for a period of not more than 180 days from the effective
date of action, expiring on June 18, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, Section 9.36.250 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code allows
extension of a Certificate of Appropriateness by resolution of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a request for extension on June 5, 2002,
prior to expiration of the Certificate of Appropriateness; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has made a reasonable and diligent effort to obtain
necessary permits since receiving the Certificate of Appropriateness, and this extension
is necessary to insure that the Certificate of Appropriateness remains valid until building
permits may be issued for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the extension request
- 5 -
for Certificate of Appropriateness LC-01CA-006 to allow an addition connecting two of the
bungalow structures at 211 Alta Avenue.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the extension request is justified and
hereby grants an extension of LC-01CA-006 for a period of 180 days.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth the same shall be in full force and effect for a period of 180 days, expiring on
December 15, 2002.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
MARSHA J. MOUTRIE
City Attorney
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2002\01CA-006 Extension reso.doc
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report and STOA for Certificate of Appropriateness
- 6 -
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DATE
: December 10, 2001
TO
: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM
: Planning Staff
SUBJECTCertificate of Appropriateness LC-01-CA-006, 211 Alta Avenue
: .
Proposed is a Certificate of Appropriateness to connect two of the bungalows that are
part of a designated City Landmark consisting of six bungalows around a central
courtyard.
APPLICANT: Stephen Chao
PROPERTY OWNER: Stephen Chao
INTRODUCTION
This application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted on November 15,
2001. Proposed is an addition to the subject property connecting two of the bungalows
located on the property at 211 Alta Avenue, which was designated as a City Landmark
on May 8, 2000. The property, known as the Palama, consists of six bungalows around
a central courtyard area. There is also a rear garage building accessed by a driveway
along the eastern side of the property. Although the property contains several units, it is
located in an R1, Single-family zoning district. The applicant has submitted a request to
construct an enclosed hallway between the two front units to create a larger building for
use as the main residence on the property.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal consists of a hallway to connect a portion of the existing eastern bungalow
(front unit) to a portion of the existing western bungalow (front unit). The proposed
connector would be constructed of wood with glass window walls facing the street and
sliding glass doors facing the interior courtyard. No changes to other buildings on the
property are included in this proposal.
- 7 -
ANALYSIS
As detailed in Attachment C, the conclusion of the City’s consultant’s
is that the proposed project does not meet the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation. The evaluation memo lists ten
standards, stating that five of them are not met, as follows:
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.
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
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #5.
Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Standard #9.
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.
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 findings are explained in the following excerpt:
“According to the Survey Assessment Report prepared for the property at 211 Alta
Avenue dated January 25, 2000 (Attachment D), the subject property was designated a
Landmark because it is a good, intact example of a 1920s bungalow court inspired by
the Craftsman and Colonial bungalow traditions. As noted in the report, some of the
character-defining features of the property include the courtyard’s configuration – a U-
shaped complex comprised of six single-story structures with a central, landscaped
court. In addition, some of the character-defining features unique to each bungalow unit
include those elements which define the bungalow style: broad eaves with exposed
rafter tails, decorative brackets at the porch roofs and gable ends, verge boards, porch
pergolas, corner boards, wood lap siding, and double-hung sash windows with flat wood
surrounds.
Locating the connector addition in the front (south) portion of the lot within the courtyard area significantly
impacts the important open space features and circulation patterns of the property. In addition, the
introduction of this addition onto the east and west front units destroys the historic relationship between
the site and the other bungalow units. Further, the removal of character-defining features along the
primary elevation of each unit, such as lap siding; double-hung sash windows with flat wood surrounds;
and possibly roofing elements, would impact the historic character of these structures and the courtyard
overall.
Incorporating the connector addition as proposed may affect the property’s current
Landmark designation.”
- 8 -
The applicant has submitted his own evaluation report, conducted by Teresa Grimes, a historic
preservation consultant (Attachment E). In reviewing the same 10 standards, Ms. Grimes has concluded
that the proposed project does meet the standards. The difference in conclusions may be attributed to
two major themes:
1. Standards #1, 9: Although the proposed connector cuts off view of the courtyard from the street,
the rest of the property is otherwise unaffected. The courtyard still remains a courtyard, although
it becomes completely surrounded, rather than U-shaped. However, the perception of the
courtyard from the street is drastically altered, and the two reports differ on the significance of that
change. It should be noted that the “transparency” of the proposed connector is questionable,
because it is likely that window treatments will be installed on the window walls for privacy, so
that the courtyard will not be visible at all from the street.
2. Standards #2, 5, 9 & 10: The location of the connectors involves the removal of some siding and
windows. This loss of historic materials was found to be detrimental by the City’s consultant. The
report submitted by the applicant found that documenting the original condition and carefully
removing and properly storing the windows could mitigate the loss of historic material. With the
character-defining features of the property left otherwise intact, there was also a difference of
opinion regarding the significance of the loss of the portions of the buildings proposed for removal
to install the connector piece.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the impact to the street-facing façade and the spatial relations of the landmark
to the street, staff concurs with the City’s consultant, PCR, and recommends that the
Commission deny the request. The Commission may suggest that the applicant
consider other alternatives including those suggested by the City’s consultant for
alterations that could be found to be appropriate for this landmark property.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed connection of two existing structures would detrimentally change,
destroy or adversely affect exterior features of the Landmark property because
the connector would significantly impact the important open space features and
circulation patterns of the property. In addition, the introduction of this addition
onto the east and west front units destroys the historic relationship between the
site and the other bungalow units. Further, the removal of character-defining
features along the primary elevation of each unit, such as lap siding; double-hung
sash windows with flat wood surrounds; and possibly roofing elements, would
impact the historic character of these structures and the courtyard overall. The
proposed alterations would not meet with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and would jeopardize the landmark status of the property.
NOTATIONS
1. This decision may be appealed by properly filing with the Director of Planning a Notice of Appeal
on a form furnished by the Planning and Community Development Department. Such notice shall
be filed within a ten (10) day time period commencing from the date of the determination.
- 9 -
Attachments:
A. Public Notice
B. Project Application, Plans/Photographs
PCR Evaluation Report
City Landmark Nomination Report, January 2000
Teresa Grimes Evaluation (submitted by applicant)
F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\REPORTS\2001Reports\CA.2001.006 211 Alta Ave.doc
- 10 -
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
SUBJECT: LC-2001-CA-006
ADDRESS: 211 Alta Avenue
APPLICANT: Stephen Chao
REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness LC-2001-CA-006 to install a hallway to
connect a portion of the existing eastern bungalow (front unit) to a portion
of the existing western bungalow (front unit). The property is a designated
City Landmark consisting of six bungalows and a rear garage building
around a central courtyard.
LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION
12/10/2001 Date
X Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions
below.
Denied
Other
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION
12/20/2001 Certificate of Appropriateness LC-2001-CA-006
EXPIRATION DATE OF PERMIT GRANTED
6/18/2002 Certificate of Appropriateness LC-2001-CA-006
FINDINGS
1. The proposed connector hallway would not detrimentally change, destroy or
adversely affect any exterior feature of the Landmark or Landmark Parcel upon
which such work is to be done because the alterations to two of the seven
structures on the property will be minimal, are potentially reversible, and will be
mitigated by storing and preserving the two windows scheduled for removal. The
proposed alterations preserve the major character-defining features of the
property identified when it was designated, which are the Craftsman-style
bungalows around the central open courtyard. Other than the removal of the
windows and siding at the point of attachment to the proposed connector, all
other exterior features of the landmark will remain intact. The proposed
- 11 -
alterations are consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards (Standards
for Preservation) because the proposal represents an adaptive reuse of the
property from multi-family to single-family use with minimal loss of historic
materials and an addition that will retain the historic character of the property. As
a mitigation measure, and in order to meet Secretary Of Interior’s Standards
Numbers 2 and 10, the windows to be removed will be carefully preserved and
stored to preserve a future option to reconstruct the building.
2. The exterior features of the new improvement proposed on the property (the connector/hallway)
would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the exterior features of other existing
improvements situated upon such Landmark Parcel because the structure has been designed to
be compatible with the property without attempting to replicate it. The wood/glass hallway,
evocative of a pergola structure often found in courtyard developments, leaves some hint that it
surrounds a courtyard in a manner that complements the Craftsman style and does not create
confusion between the historic and contemporary components on the property. Additionally, the
courtyard will remain intact behind the proposed hallway addition connecting the two front
buildings that are part of the existing two parallel rows of bungalow buildings on the site.
Therefore, the proposed addition meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standard Number 9, which
states “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property”.
CONDITIONS
1. This approval is for the plans dated November 15, 2001, which are on file in the
City Planning Division.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter to staff
documenting to the satisfaction of the Landmarks Commission Secretary the
methods by which the windows shall be removed and protectively stored in order
to maintain their integrity for possible use in future preservation or restoration of
the property. The windows shall be removed and stored in accordance with the
method to be identified in the letter.
3. This Certificate of Appropriateness for this approval shall be in full force and
effect from and after the date of the rendering of the decision by the Commission.
Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.170(h), this approval shall expire
within 180 days if the authorized work is not commenced. Should the applicant
be unable to comply with this restriction, the Landmarks Commission
recommends that the City Council, pursuant to Section 9.36.250, grant an
extension for the maximum permitted additional 180 days. The applicant must
request such an extension prior to expiration of this permit. After that time, the
applicant will be required to return to the Commission for approval. In addition,
this Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire if the authorized work is
suspended for a 180-day period after being commenced.
4. This decision may be appealed by properly filing with the Director of Planning a Notice of Appeal
on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Such notice shall be filed within a ten (10) day
- 12 -
time period commencing from the date of the determination.
VOTE:
Ayes: Bolton, Genser, Posek, Fresco, Lehrer
Nays: Schnitzler, Alofsin
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1400.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the
Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
____________________
Margot Alofsin, Chairperson Date
F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\STOAS\2001\211 Alta Ave CA.doc
ATTACHMENT C
December 10, 2001 Landmarks Commission Minutes
- 13 -
MINUTES
MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Founded 1875
“Populus felix in urbe felici”
Monday, December 10, 2001 City Council Chambers, Room 213
7:00 p.m. 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
CALL TO ORDER:
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner Bolton
Commissioner Fresco
Commissioner Genser
Commissioner Posek
Commissioner Schnitzler
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer
Chairperson Alofsin
Also Present: Liz Bar-El, Staff Liaison
Kimberly Christensen, Senior Planner
Arlene Johnson, Staff Assistant
2. REPORT FROM STAFF
:
Ms. Bar-El informed the Commission that the Mills Act Contracts would be going to City Council for
approval on Tuesday, December 11th. The Historic Preservation Element will go to City Council for
th
conceptual approval on Tuesday, December 18. Councilman Katz appealed the Civic Auditorium
designation. He also submitted a waiver of the 45-day time limit, in which the public hearing for the
appeal must be held as required approval by the Code for a Landmarks appeal. It is scheduled for
nd
January 22. There has been a growing interest in applying for Mills Act Contracts and staff has had
numerous requests for applications. There is an updated application that has been drafted and should be
available soon. She also received a report through the mail regarding the Los Angeles historic resource
survey assessment project. Also she received many letters, emails and phone calls from residents
th
regarding the issues North of Montana. Staff sent out a letter to residents of 18 Street specifically, to try
to clarify what the meeting would entail. Ms. Bar-El also reported on several administrative approvals for
rdrd
alterations to properties in the 3 Street Neighborhood Historic District. The 3 Street Neighborhood
Historic District Citizen Participation Committee was notified and there were no appeals.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Public Input Permitted
A. November 12, 2001
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer moved to approve the minutes with the following corrections and/or changes:
Page 4, paragraph 3, change “problematically” to “programmatically”; Page 5, add a paragraph with
- 14 -
the statement by Mr. Jacobs regarding retaining the original façade windows on the Lido building
into the minutes; Page 1, the historic district trees paragraph at the bottom of the page needs an
rd
address (2617 3 Street). Commissioner Genser seconded and the motion passed unanimously
by voice vote.
Commissioner Schnitzler made a motion to rearrange the agenda, and continue the Civic Center
Master Plan presentation to the January 2002 meeting. Commissioner Genser seconded and the
motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer moved to revise the order of item 9 and discuss items C and D prior to item
A. Commissioner Genser seconded and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
4. PUBLIC INPUT:
(On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)
Chuck Allord, Citizens for a Safer Santa Monica
, stated the Commission went too far on the
Civic Auditorium by reacting too quickly and he was happy to see an appeal. Stated he has
supported the Commission in the past, however he feels there are some politics going on. Stated
he did not receive a notice of this meeting. Also the Commission needs to get more people in the
community involved with landmark status.
5. COMMUNICATIONS:
(Public discussion by the person presenting the communication on items not
on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)
Chairperson Alofsin passed out copies of an article from the Santa Monica Bay Week on “Here’s
what makes a historic building”. This article addresses a lot of issues on which the public has
misperceptions as to the mission of the Landmarks Commission. She distributed an article about
the Castle Green in Pasadena. There is a workshop for people in the community providing the
opportunity to have a program on Channel 16 in Santa Monica. Stated she will attend on Thursday
to have a video section developed which will be broadcast on Santa Monica television, Channel 16.
Also there will be another session in January at the Ken Edwards Center. This is available for
people who have organizations and would like to have input in the community on public
broadcasting.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Public Input Permitted
A. Statement of Official Action: Landmark Designation LC-01-LM-004, 1855 Main Street (Civic
Auditorium)
B. Statement of Official Action: Landmark Designation LC-01-LM-006, 1455 4th Street (Lido
Hotel)
C. Statement of Official Action: Mills Act Contract Application: 2450 25th Street (Structure of
Merit).
D. Statement of Official Action: Mills Act Contract Application: 2608 Third Street (Contributor, Third
Street Historic District).
E. Statement of Official Action: Mills Act Contract Application: 2402 Fourth Street #1 (Hollister
Court, Designated Landmark).
- 15 -
Commissioner Genser moved to approve items 6A-E. Commissioner Schnitzler
seconded and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application No. LC-01CA-006, 211 Alta Avenue for a proposed
addition to connect two bungalows at the front of the property with a wood and glass hallway.
Ms. Bar-El gave a staff report. Staff recommended denial.
Monica Witt, attorney for owner
, stated the property presents a unique opportunity. It is a
catalyst for revitalization as opposed to demolition of a historic property. It creates a cooperative
effort between the City and the private property owner to establish and to create a community
understanding that landmark designation is an asset and not a liability. It enables the property
owner to restore the property in a way that meets the programmatic requirements of a modern
family, which would encourage community support for preservation and enhancement of historic
properties. Also stated that they have approximately 50 signatures from neighbors in support of
the project. She stated that the property was removed from the rental housing market in October
1999.
Theresa Grimes, Applicant’s Historic Preservation Consultant
, stated the staff and
consultants consider the view of the courtyard from the street a character defining feature.
However, in her mind it’s the courtyard space itself that is the character defining feature. The
City’s Landmark Ordinance, the California Register, National Register or the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards make no mention of view of historic resources or character defining features
from the public right-of-way. The Planning Division’s consultants PCR stated, if the connector
could be moved back the project would be acceptable. However, if the connector were moved
back more historic fabric would be lost and would be much more difficult to replace. She stated
the exterior of the property would be preserved in its entirety and rehabilitated. The only historic
fabric that would be removed would be some wood siding that could be taken off and easily
recreated in the future if the property owner chose to, and windows that would carefully be
removed and stored.
Barbara Flemmang, Architect
, reiterated that the front of the building is the proper location for
the connector. It connects the larger bungalows which are a logical place for the applicant and
his family to live, rather than putting them in the smaller bungalows in the back.
Virginia Stock, member of the public
, stated she is in favor of the addition. She stated the
owner worked very hard to preserve the structure and meet the various requirements, and has
come up with a very reasonable solution that can be removed extremely easily. To deny this
after all of the work that has been put into trying to meet various standards, including national
and state historic preservation standards, the Commission would be sending a very loud
message that landmark status is a scary thing. She stated it is important, not just in Santa
Monica, but nationally to get across the idea that preserving older buildings is not an onerous
thing and is not a taking. It can be done and accommodate the owner and the community.
Joseph Peters, member of the public
, stated he supports the project and Mr. Chao should be
given a chance to make his property functional.
Chip Johannessen, member of the public
, stated the property is being treated as a public
park, despite the “No trespassing” signs. Whatever level of privacy that is enjoyed by everyone
else on this street is not enjoyed by the applicant. There is something about the appealing
- 16 -
courtyard that makes people treat it like a public park.
Clifton Chang, member of the public
, concurred with the other neighbors’ statements. He
stated that people constantly trespass on the property various times of the day, which poses a
security problem. Stated the property was in a severe state of disrepair and they appreciate the
efforts made by the owner to improve the property and the future efforts he proposes today.
Susan Birrell, member of the public
, stated she supports the applicant’s request to make his
home a liveable and useable residence for his family. Before the applicant moved in, the
property had fallen into a state of disrepair and he has done a great job maintaining and
enhancing it.
J.W. Maloney, member of the public
stated that universally, all of the neighbors support the
applicant’s request. The prior use of the property was a non-conforming use and all of the
neighbors want to see it become a residential use as a single-family residence. He stated it
should not be preserved as an apartment building with a non-conforming use in an R1
neighborhood.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer stated that she has had prior contact with the applicant and his attorney,
Monica Witt. She was pessimistic that a multi-family bungalow court with independent structures
around the central courtyard could be turned into a single- family home. She attended a meeting
with the owner and architect to have some preliminary review of the model to see if she had any
comments to make in terms of its conformance with the standards of the Commission, and the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards. She stated that this is a very successful accomplishment and it
meets the standards in every way, except for some very minor alterations of the existing building.
By placing the bridge between the two separate units, none of the most significant architectural
features are removed. She stated that it’s important that the connector be transparent. She
stated it is consistent in architectural style with the Craftsman bungalow architecture of the
complex. She stated that the connector simulates a pergola which is a significant architectural
feature of Craftsman style buildings. Stated she respects the commitment that the applicant
shows in preserving the central architectural qualities, that it is a very admiral solution and she
would support the application.
Commissioner Schnitzler stated she also met with the applicant and attorney. However, she has
a problem with the connector. She stated that the Landmarks Commission must uphold the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards and according to Standards #2 and #9, there is a spatial relation
problem, because it is a courtyard bungalow and the connector would no longer make it a
courtyard. From the street, the public would not be able to imagine there is a courtyard because
they would have to go through two layers of glass and probably curtains. She would encourage
the applicant to move the connector back. She does not support the project as proposed.
Commissioner Posek stated he viewed the property and appreciates the comments on why the
connector is important. He stated the view from the street is important but feels this should be
approved on behalf of the owner. Stated this is not a perfect solution but it gives the owner an
incentive to maintain the status of the building and bring it into conformity with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Genser stated he also spoke with the attorney, and did view the property. He
commended the property owner for his desire to move forward on a historic property and use the
advantages that are there to keep it as it is. He was bothered by the lack of access to the
courtyard because it is blocked from the street, however there is much community support from
the neighbors, who are the ones who will see the property more. Stated there are a lot of
wonderful buildings in the City and there are incentives to allow people to maintain older
buildings. He supports the applicant’s request.
Commissioner Fresco also viewed the property and had a problem with the connector because
- 17 -
the context of the courtyard is important. However, after speaking to one of the residents living
there, along with community support she would be in support of the project.
Commissioner Bolton stated that when this item initially came before the Commission, he voted
against it. He did not want to see it torn down, but preserved in some way. He stated that his
concerns are retaining the character of the building and that the hallway has translucent glass.
He supports the change of use so the building can continue on with its life.
Commissioner Genser asked if the transparent connector would be covered.
Staff stated that it may not be legally possible to prohibit the applicant from hanging curtains.
Anything internal, not affixed to the building in a permanent capacity is a non-structural element
does not require a building permit and cannot be regulated.
Chairperson Alofsin agreed with Commissioner Schnitzler’s comments regarding concerns about
the transparency and the location of the “bridge” and supports staff’s findings. However, she
understands that it is more desirable to keep the building with this adaptation than to look at a
different alternative which probably would have something to do with losing the structure
altogether. Stated she has a problem with the spacing of the mullions and would prefer to see
them further apart in a manner that would be less obstructing. With these changes, she would
support the applicant’s request.
Staff clarified that if the Commission wanted the proposal changed, it would need to be continued
to the next hearing date in January.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application as
submitted, finding that the proposed project is an adaptive reuse project, changing the use of the
property from multi-family units to a single-family home; that it preserves the major character-
defining features of the property identified when it was designated which are the architectural
style of the courtyard bungalows in Craftsman architecture and the central open courtyard; that
the connector meets Standard #10 in that it is reversible and the location of the connector
requires minimal alteration to the existing building. Approval is conditioned on requirement to
preserve the windows as the applicant had suggested. Commissioner Posek seconded and the
motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Bolton, Fresco, Genser, Posek, Lehrer
Nayes: Schnitzler, Alofsin
Abstain: None
Absent: None
- 18 -
ATTACHMENT D
City Council Resolution
- 19 -
RESOLUTION NO. ___ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
EXTENDING CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS LC-01-CA-006
TO ALLOW AN ADDITION CONNECTING TWO OF THE SIX
BUNGALOWS LOCATED AT 211 ALTA AVENUE (THE PALAMA),
A DESIGNATED CITY LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, the Landmarks Commission approved Certificate of Appropriateness
LC-01CA-006 to allow an addition connecting two of the bungalow structures at 211 Alta
Avenue on December 10, 2001, for a period of not more than 180 days from the effective
date of action, expiring on June 18, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, Section 9.36.250 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code allows
extension of a Certificate of Appropriateness by resolution of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a request for extension on June 5, 2002,
prior to expiration of the Certificate of Appropriateness; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has made a reasonable and diligent effort to obtain
necessary permits since receiving the Certificate of Appropriateness, and this extension
is necessary to insure that the Certificate of Appropriateness remains valid until building
permits may be issued for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
- 20 -
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the extension request
for Certificate of Appropriateness LC-01CA-006 to allow an addition connecting two of the
bungalow structures at 211 Alta Avenue.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the extension request is justified and
hereby grants an extension of LC-01CA-006 for a period of 180 days.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth the same shall be in full force and effect for a period of 180 days, expiring on
December 15, 2002.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
MARSHA J. MOUTRIE
City Attorney
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2002\01CA-006 Extension reso.doc
- 21 -