SR-010108-6B~~
~;tYo, City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting:
To: Mayor and City Council
f Z~$
Agenda Item:'=~
r
From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Appeal 07APP-001 of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-021, denying
reconstruction of brick work on the front porch of a contributing residence
located within Hollister Court, a designated City Landmark.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Landmarks
Commission's denial of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-021.
Executive Summary
This report supports the Landmarks Commission's denial of the reconstruction of the
front porch brickwork at 2402 4t" St. Unit #4, within Hollister Court, a designated City
Landmark. The property owner/appellant appealed the Commission's decision on the
basis that the brickwork complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because
the work incorporates some of the original brick and the proportions of the porch have
not changed. This report addresses the points of appeal and concludes that the
proposed project would adversely affect the historic character of the Landmark complex
because it is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and the appeal should, therefore, be denied. There is
no fiscal impact associated with this item.
1
Discussion
Background
On November 21, 2006, the applicantappellant, Tammy Cameron, filed a Certificate of
Appropriateness application for retroactive approval of the reconstruction of brick work
on the front porch of the bungalow at 2402 4th St. #4 within Hollister Court, a designated
City Landmark. The subject residence is one of thirteen individual units located on the
property. Hollister Court, which was built between 1904 and the early 1920s during the
height of the bungalow court construction movement in Santa Monica and across
Southern California, is comprised of moderate-sized residences oriented around a
central landscaped walkway on a single parcel. The bungalows all have front porches
and are designed to have a "hand crafted" appearance through the use of low-profile
building elements including brick at the base of the front porches. The full determination
designating Hollister Court as a Landmark is included in Attachment C.
Subsequent to the designation, the applicanUappellant entered into a Mills Act Contract
with the City for the bungalow. A restoration plan for the bungalow was included as part
of the contract. One aspect of this plan required the applicantappellant to replace and
re-point damaged brick and to re-point damaged masonry and water seal to protect the
masonry from water moisture. The Mills Act Contract is included in Attachment D.
When the applicant's/appellant's contractor subsequently commenced the brickwork, he
found that the bricks were not supported by foundation and therefore susceptible to
collapse. As a result, all existing loose bricks were removed by hand and new bricks of
2
similar size and shape, washed to have an aged appearance, were installed (see Figure
1). Where possible, the contractor re-used the old bricks provided they were not
deteriorated. The applicant/appellant indicates that the new brick was chosen
specifically for its aged appearance in order to match the historic nature of the property.
A bull nose brick was installed on top of the new brick to provide a flat surface and
additional seating area for the front porch. Since appropriate permits were not obtained
for the brickwork, a compliance order was mailed to the applicantlappellant on October
30, 2006. The applicant/appellant filed the subject application for the Certificate of
Appropriateness in response to the compliance order.
Figure 2: Examples of original brickwork in complex
3
Figure 1: Brickwork as constructed
Landmarks Commission Action
The Landmarks Commission reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness at its
December 11, 2006 meeting and continued the item to give the applicant time to return
with information on the possibility of staining the new brick to match the older bricks
used in other porches in the complex. The applicant returned with the information at the
Commission's January 8, 2007 meeting and indicated that there were limited options for
staining and that staining would cost several thousand dollars because she was only
able to identify out-of-state companies to do the work. The Commission voted to deny
the brickwork on the basis that the work did not comply with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Commission found
that:
• The brickwork does not comply with Standards 5 and 6 which state that
distinctive finishes and materials should be preserved and where replacement of
deteriorated features is necessary, the new feature should match the old in color,
texture, and design;
• The new, multi-colored brick, which has been treated to look "old", would
adversely affect the historic character of the Landmark complex because the new
bricks do not match the removed solid-color red bricks, as found in other porches
in the complex; and
• Allowing the porch to remain as built without prior approval would introduce a
modern intrusion into the consistent design and materials of the historic porches
in the central courtyard; and
4
The rounded edges, texture, and thickness of the bull nose bricks used to cap
the wall are not compatible with the pointed, original brick used throughout the
complex and introduce a new design that is inappropriate for the 20t" century
bungalow courtyard property.
The Landmarks Commission staff report can be found on-line at the following address:
http://santa-monica.orq/planninpllandmark/agendas/2006/Ica20061211.htm. The
Statement of Official Action is included in Attachment B.
The applicant/appellant, filed an appeal on January 18, 2007, objecting to the
Commission's decision. This matter is before the City Council de novo.
Appeal Analysis
To summarize the points of appeal, the applicant/appellant states that:
• The Commission made arbitrary comments regarding the dimensions of the
porch because the size of the porch was not altered by the construction of the
new brickwork;
e The new brickwork incorporated some of the original brick that was able to be
salvaged;
• The new brickwork could potentially be stained but more time is needed by the
appellant to gather an estimate to complete the work; and
• The expectation that the deteriorated brick could be replaced with identical brick
was an unreasonable request by the Commission.
The full text of the appeal statement is contained in Attachment A.
5
Staff had initially recommended that the Landmarks Commission conditionally approve
the brickwork. Staff's recommendation was partially based upon prior consultation with
the applicant and her contractor, who indicated that the removal and replacement of the
bull nose brick and staining of the multi-colored brick was a possibility, albeit a difficult
one. The applicant further researched brick staining companies and indicated that the
staining would be quite costly and was not sure whether it was even possible. Given
that it appears that it is unknown whether the brick could be appropriately stained to
match the original brick, staff reconsidered the initial recommendation. Based on the
entirety of the record ultimately presented at the Landmarks Commission hearings and
in considering the key issue of whether the as-built brickwork complies with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards, staff concurs with the Commission that the
brickwork is inconsistent with these standards and therefore, supports the decision to
deny the Certificate of Appropriateness.
All changes to Landmarks properties are reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In the case of the
current proposal, the Standards for Rehabilitation would apply, specifically, Standards 5
and 6 which read as follows:
Standard 5:
"Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved."
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."
6
The applicant/appellant contends that the Commission made erroneous statements
regarding the dimensions of the porch after reconstruction of the brickwork. In
reviewing old photographs of the porch taken in the early 1990s, the size of the porch
appears to be very similar to the size after the brickwork was completed. On this point,
staff would agree with the applicant/appellant that the porch appears to have retained its
original size after the new brickwork was completed.
The applicant/appellant emphasizes that she was undertaking work required by her
Mills Act contract. However, the demolition and reconstruction of the front porch
brickwork with the new, multi-colored brick was quite different than the work
contemplated by the contract. The applicant/appellant also contends that it is
unreasonable to require that. identical brick be used in the reconstruction and that the
new brickwork does incorporate some of the original bricks that were able to be
salvaged. Although staff can confirm that the location and size of the new brick is
similar to the old brick and that a limited number of old brick was re-used; the color,
texture, and design of the new brick is inappropriate and detrimental to the historic
character of the Landmark complex. Specifically, the multi-colored brick does not match
the solid-color red brick that was removed and the rounded edges of the bull nose brick
are a modern design that is incompatible with the pointed brick used throughout the
complex. Staff does not agree that using similar, solid-red colored brick is
unreasonable when replacement of the old brick is necessary. This is due to the fact
that the red brick porches are a unifying element and character-defining feature of the
complex. Consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, brick of identical
7
color, texture, and design should be used for the replacement work. Furthermore, it is
also reasonable to require that the top layer of brick be consistent with others in the
complex. Alteration of the thickness, size, and shape of the top layer of brick is
inconsistent with Standards 5 and 6, which require that distinctive finishes and
construction techniques be preserved and that new features match the old.
The applicant/appellant further contends that the Landmark Commission's decision was
unduly influenced by the testimony of a former Landmark Commissioner who resides
within the same complex. The applicant/appellant claims there is ill will between her
and the former Commissioner. However, the former Commissioner's testimony was
directed to the merits of the subject application and the Landmarks Commission's
decision was focused on these substantive issues. Moreover, the City Council's review
is de novo.
Environmental Analysis
The project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the State Guidelines in that CEQA
does not apply to projects that are disapproved.
Public Outreach
A notice of public hearing was mailed to all residents and property within 300 feet at
least 10 days prior to this hearing and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press.
8
Budget/Financial Impact
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared by:
Jing Yeo, AICP, Senior Planner
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
Attachments
A. Appellant's appeal statement
B. Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action
C. Landmarks Commission Determination designating Hollister Court as City
Landmark
D. Mills Act Contract for 2402 4th Street #4
E. Landmarks Commission Staff Report and hearing submittals
Additional
attachments
available in City
Clerk's Office.