Loading...
sr-072809-6aCity Council Meeting: July 28, 2009 Agenda Item: ~~ To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness Application for rehabilitation of a Landmark residence and contributing site features located at 236 Adelaide Drive. Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council deny appeal 09APP-009 and approve Certificate of Appropriateness application 09CA-006 consisting of a rehabilitation plan for the Landmark residence and Contributing site features located at 236 Adelaide Drive based on the draft findings contained in this staff report. Executive Summary This report supports the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness application filed by property owner Three Sycamores Trust for rehabilitation of the Landmark single-family residence (Isaac Milbank House) and Contributing site features (detached carriage house, guard house, pergola, and circular driveway) located at 236 Adelaide Drive. On May 11, 2009, the Landmarks Commission unanimously approved the project by a vote of 7-0. This report presents analysis of the proposed project in light of the required findings for approval set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.140 and also addresses the key points of the appeal filed by a neighboring resident that, in summary, asserts that the proposed project is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and is therefore not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); that the project will create health issues for surrounding neighbors for many years resulting from noise, dust, debris, pollution, and asbestos; that the project will violate the City's noise ordinance; that the property was improperly designated in 2002; that staff intentionally tried to discredit neighbor at the Landmarks Commission public hearing; and that Landmarks Commissioners prejudged the . application and were influenced by the celebrity status of the applicant and neighboring project supporters. In consideration of the full record to date, including review of the appellant's appeal statement, it is recommended that the appeal be denied and the Certificate of Appropriateness application be approved. Background The Landmarks Commission designated the approximately 5,600 square foot single- family residence as a City Landmark and identified Contributing site features on March 11, 2002. At that time, the Commission determined that the Isaac Milbank House is a significant example of the work of the Los Angeles master design firm the Milwaukee Building Company (architects Meyer & Holler). The Commission found that the residence was constructed in response to the early 20th Century northward expansion of the City of Santa Monica's boundary and was built as part of an early 20th Century trend by wealthy Los Angeles families to build coastal vacation homes. Isaac Milbank House Viewed from Adelaide Drive (left); Rear Elevation of Residence (right) The Commission also determined that the single-family residence is an excellent and highly intact example of the Craftsman style and that the architectural consistency of the design and the attention to detailing, including the design of the accessory garage (carriage house), shed (guard house), and porte-cochere (pergola) makes this property one of the most valuable to a study of the early 20th Century Craftsman style in the City of Santa Monica. Finally, in its determination, the Commission identified the Morton Bay Fig Tree, two Canary Island Palms, and circular drive as features that have aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. -2- The Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action regarding its March 11, 2002 designation is presented as Attachment F. Discussion On May 26, 2009, the applicant, Kelly Sutherlin-McLeod Architecture, filed a Certificate of Appropriateness application on behalf of property owner Three Sycamores Trust, requesting approval of a rehabilitation plan for the Landmark, two-story Craftsman style residence and four Contributing site features in the rear yard: carriage house, guard house, pergola, and circular driveway. The approximately 32,500 square foot parcel is located on the south side of Adelaide Drive in asingle-family residential neighborhood; there are two- and three-story multi- family residential buildings across a 20'-0" wide alley directly to the south (San Vicente Place North). Aerial and site context photos are provided in Attachment D & G. Landmarks Commission Action The Landmarks Commission held a public hearing for the Certificate of Appropriateness application on May 11, 2009. At the public hearing, the Commission heard a presentation from the applicant's preservation architect and landscape architect, and comments from two members of the public, including the appellant who expressed concern about several procedural matters and stated that the scope of the project would violate the designation criteria under which the resources were fouhd to be significant. With respect to the project design, the Landmarks Commission expressed strong support for the Certificate of Appropriateness and found that the applicant's rehabilitation design would not detrimentally change, destroy, or adversely affect any exterior feature of the Landmark or contributing site features because, as conditioned, the project is consistent with Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. More specifically, the Landmarks Commission found the project design to be appropriate for the resources on site due in part to the modest changes being proposed -3- for the main residence and the incorporation of appropriate materials and treatments in the rehabilitation and restoration plan The Commission also stated that the project design has been executed in a skillful way; that the design is consistent with the Craftsman philosophy/lifestyle of bringing indoor and outdoor spaces together; and it preserves the original owner's intent for the site. Finally, the Commission commended the current owners for the careful thought given to the details of project design and for their stewardship of the property. The Landmarks Commission approved the project by a vote of 7-0. As a condition of approval, the Commission required the applicant to submit for staff review and approval a revised landscape plan to commemorate the historic presence of the circular driveway in the rear yard. During the public hearing, the Commission also asked staff questions regarding its assessment that the necessary finding for a Landmark Parcel had not been made by the Commission at the time of its consideration of the site for Landmark designation in 2002; therefore, certain site improvements proposed on the parcel would not be subject to Landmarks Commission review. While some Commissioners expressed concern about whether a Landmark Parcel finding was intended for the site when the residence and contributing site elements were originally designated in 2002, the Commission chose not to initiate an optional action identified by staff as a mechanism to modify its previous determination to include a Landmark Parcel. designation for the property. The Commission stated that such action was not necessary in this case due, in part, to its confidence in the team assembled for the project and its resulting rehabilitation design for the property. The full text of the Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment C. The May 11, 2009 staff report and meeting minutes are presented as Attachments D and E, respectively. -4- Appeal Summary The following is a summary of the appellant's appeal filed on May 18, 2009 and two supplemental statements submitted on June 12 and June 15, 2009; the full text of the appeal is contained in Attachment A: Project Design • The proposed project violates the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and is therefore not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • The roof line and slope will be changed on the main residence; two story structures will be built and the 44 square foot kitchen addition will hide views of the Moreton Bay Fig Tree from the street; and changes to the guard house, carriage house, and circular driveway will violate the designation criteria from the 2002 Landmark designation. Procedural Issues • The property was improperly designated in 2002 without a Landmark Parcel designation. • Work being performed on site following the submittal of the appeal requires the appeal hearing to be postponed. Other • The project, during construction, creates health hazards for neighbors. • The project will violate the City's noise ordinance. • Staff intentionally tried to discredit the appellant at the Landmarks Commission public hearing. • Landmarks Commissioners, who all visited the site, prejudged the application and were influenced by the owners celebrity status and not the application merits. • Council member Shriver should recuse himself. from the proceedings because the property owner had placed a political campaign sign in support of Shriver in his yard. The City Council, in its de novo review of this appeal, must determine whether the proposed rehabilitation project meets the following criteria for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.140 (a) & (g): (a) In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, removal or relocation, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or to a Landmark Parcel, the proposed work 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. -5- (g) The Secretary of Interior's Standards shall be used by the Landmarks Commission in evaluating any proposed alteration, restoration, or construction, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark, Landmark Parcel, or to a Contributing Building or Structure within a Historic District. Appeal Analysis Based on the full record to date, including review of the appellant's appeal and supplemental statements, there is ample support for the Commission's unanimous decision to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application. Therefore, staff continues to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as detailed more fully in the staff report provided for the Landmark Commission hearing (Attachment D). The following discussion briefly describes and assesses the proposed project, addresses the appellant's key arguments, and also summarizes the basis for staff's determination. Description of Project Design The following summarizes the primary components of the proposed rehabilitation plan presented in Attachment E: Single-Family Residence: • 44 square foot addition to existing kitchen on east elevation with extension of existing balcony over addition above. • Install new first floor concrete terrace on the west side of the residence; construction of new open wood guardrail; design to be differentiated from original guardrails. • Reconstruct original open wood guardrails (previously removed) at existing front terrace and existing second floor balconies on north and east elevations. • Remove non-original stone pavers from existing front and rear terraces; install new scored concrete flooring. • Replace existing non-original chimney with new chimney; design to match original. • Existing non-original exterior shakes at main house to be removed and replaced with sawn cedar barn shakes to match original size and installation pattern. • Refurbish redwood window casings, sashes, outriggers, rafters, eaves and fascia. • Remove four non-original posts (added to support outriggers) at north terrace and non-original tie rods at north balcony. • Refurbish original exterior doors; replace non-original/non-matching exterior. • Restore open porch at second floor southwest corner to original design with open low walls to match original; non-original flat ceiling/roof and windows to be removed. • Re-finish deck at second floor balconies with rolled edge per original design. -6- • New roofing material with rolled edge at eaves to match original design. Reinstall original window (previously framed ih) at south second floor elevation per archival photos. • Install new screens at second floor porch, southeast corner. Accessory Structures & Circular Drive: Existing non-original exterior shakes on guard house and carriage house to be removed- and replaced with sawn cedar barn shakes to match original size and installation pattern. • Existing guard house to be relocated with new concrete step to match existing. • Rehabilitate existing carriage house; remove existing non-original garage car door; install new fireplace and two new doors at east elevation. • Install new roof with rolled edge at eaves to match original on carriage house and guard house. ® Reconstruct existing wood pergola to match original, construction to be stain grade old growth lumber. • Remove existing concrete circular driveway and curb (non-original material) in rear yard; replace with landscaping and intermittently-placed stone pavers to reference its original circular form. Analysis of Project Design: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards As with all requests for alterations to designated City Landmarks, proposed work must be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Properties. The proposed work includes rehabilitation as the primary treatment associated with the proposed project. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards define rehabilitation as "(t]he act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values". However, the project also incorporates restoration, preservation, and reconstruction efforts in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation state the following -7- 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 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. Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 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. 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. Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 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 will 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. 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 proposed project has been evaluated for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; for the purposes of analysis and discussion, some of the individual components of the project have been grouped into categories of related work. As detailed more fully below, in contrast to the appellant's unsubstantiated assertion, both staff and the Landmarks Commission agree that the proposed project is consistent -8- with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and with the required findings for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness application set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.140. The following summarizes the basis for staff's determination on this matter: Treatment of Exterior Building Surfaces, Finishes and Architectural Details: Consistent with Standards for Rehabilitation #2, #5, and #6, the proposed restoration and rehabilitation of portions of the Craftsman style residence includes a treatment plan that incorporates assessment of existing conditions of historic fabric and the preservation and restoration of materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. On the main residence, these features to be refurbished and restored include the existing redwood window casings and sashes; existing original doors; existing outriggers, rafters, eaves and fascia. The applicant's project team, led by a preservation architect, also includes a materials conservator who has provided analysis regarding the original finish of exterior wood wall shakes that remain in place on the residence. This analysis will also assist in the restoration of these original wood shakes on the residence so that treatment is proposed consistent with Standards #5 and #7 and will not include abrasive cleaning methods application of harsh chemicals that would detrimentally change or significantly degrade these original exterior materials. This analysis has also informed the applicant's selection of appropriate in-kind replacement custom-milled, cedar shake cladding for the residence, guard house, and carriage house that will match the original dimensions and installation pattern of the original historic material, and also reflect the building's historic lighter color/finish accented by dark brown stained eaves, outriggers, and fascia. In accordance with Standard #6, previously-removed, original guardrails at the existing front terrace on the primary elevation and existing second floor balconies on the north -9- and east elevations will be reconstructed based on physical evidence and photo documentation. The applicant has provided a detail of the original balcony and terrace guardrails to be reconstructed using old growth redwood lumber (detail sheet is Proposed East Elevation of Residence: 44 square foot addition and balcony extension shown. provided as part of the project plans). Non-original posts added to support outriggers and non-original tie rods at the porch/front terrace on the primary elevation will be also removed. Consistent with Standards #5 and #6, original exterior doors and windows will re- furbished; non-original/non-matching exterior doors will be replaced with appropriate in- kind replacement doors; and new windows for the 44-square foot addition will be installed based on original features still in place at the residence. Consistent with Standard #2, the proposed project will restore the original configuration of screens at the existing sun porch on the southwest corner of the second floor that was previously enclosed with non-original windows and restore a window at the southeast corner of the second floor that was previously filled in. -10- Proposed Addition to Single-Family Residence: The applicant proposes a 44-square foot addition to the kitchen on the east elevation of the residence (shown on following page); an extension of the existing second floor balcony over this 44-square foot addition; an adjacent double door entrance and step to the south of the addition; and a new, unenclosed first floor terrace on the west side of the residence that would connect to the existing front terrace on the primary elevation. I ~ f I . I =1I I,~ae. I I I - .~.~~. ~~~~ . .~.® _._ _ - --~--. ~-~ -_.v-.' ~ :. _ ._ .. 3 .._ _.. ,~ '.. _.._. _._._ ._._ ~.®.m.e._ rfe~na.~.w. m.~. '. _. 5 ~s"' r ~RireY--+ Proposed East Elevation of Residence: 44 square foot addition and balcony eMension shown. In contrast to the appellant's claim, there are no two-story structures being proposed on the site; the applicant is proposing only a small extension of an .existing unenclosed second floor balcony over the proposed 44-square foot kitchen addition. Furthermore,. in contrast to the appellant's assertion, this 44-square foot addition on the ground floor and the second floor balcony extension will not block views of the Moreton Bay Fig Tree from the Adelaide Drive due to the tree's substantial trunk size, expansive canopy, and its placement on the parcel. Consistent with Standard #g, each of these elements is modest in size and utilizes compatible materials, finishes, and architectural details, and will be appropriately differentiated from the historic fabric as result of several design elements. In particular, the new guardrails on the east balcony extension and on the -11- west terrace will have an appropriately subtle design differentiation that will allow these areas to be identified as new. The applicant also proposes to install new roofing material to match the existing material and to reconstruct the chimney based on its original design. Again, in contrast to the appellant's statement, no alteration'of the roof line is proposed. Both of these improvements are appropriate property maintenance items that will help to ensure that the physical integrity of the residence is maintained. Proposed Treatment of Accessory Structures and Circular Drive: The applicant proposes to relocate the existing guard house and concrete landing from its current location near the southeast corner of the rear yard to a space in the rear yard just south of the existing wood pergola. In its current location, the structural integrity of the guard house is being compromised due to the presence of root growth from the adjacent Moreton Bay Fig Tree beneath and surrounding the structure. After relocation, the applicant will restore the structure's existing windows, door, and. eave details; replace its deteriorated roofing with matching material; and replace its non-original wood shakes with new cedar barn shakes to match the size and installation pattern of the original cladding. The proposed relocation and restoration of its original features will still -12- riupuseu rvesi oevanon or rtesioence: proposes west [errata snows In foreground; section Ot accurately restoretl guardrail previously removed from the existing second floor balcony on north elevation shown at left. allow the structure to convey its significance as an original accessory building at the rear of the property and will not affect the property's overall integrity of design or feeling.. Proposed site plan for 236 Adelaide Drive The applicant proposes to remove anon-original wood garage door on the east elevation of the existing carriage house located near the southwest corner of the rear -13- Existing Carriage House (left); Proposed rehabilitation plan shown in elevation (right) yard. The non-original wood shakes on the carriage house will be replaced with the same wood shakes proposed for the main house and guard house. The applicant's rehabilitation plan includes an addition of a new fireplace and two new doors at east elevation. These modifications will not be visible from the street and. in contrast to the appellant's claim, will not change the overall scale, massing, or character of the carriage house since no additional square footage is proposed and, consistent with the intent of rehabilitation, will allow the applicant to implement a compatible use for the structure while still preserving its historic character. In accordance with Standard #6, the applicant proposes to reconstruct the existing wood pergola located at the center of the rear yard near the south property line. The applicant proposes to reconstruct the pergola to match its original design and specifications are based on a full documentation and assessment of its existing condition and review of historic photos. The reconstructed pergola will feature staih- grade old growth redwood lumber (clear stained). The applicant has retained a structural engineer to assess the existing pergola and has determined that the majority of the existing structure consists of new wood, indicating that it was rebuilt and repaired in previous years. The existing structure is suffering from decay and is no longer structurally sound due, in part, to inconsistent repairs over the years, damage sustained -14- Existing pergola to be reconstructed (left); Moreton Bay Fig Tree with Guard House in background (right) from the Northridge earthquake, and the presence of deteriorated wood. The structural engineer's assessment of the existing structure has, however, identified two original, old growth wood members that will be restored, preserved and integrated into the reconstruction design. Finally, the applicant proposes to remove the existing concrete circular drive and curb in rear yard. Staff evaluated the original, historical context and setting for the circular driveway based on review of historic photos and images - in light of the current context and property setting, and the applicant's desire to utilize the rear yard of the property in a manner consistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation. The configuration and location of the driveway appears to be consistent with historic photos of the rear of the property, but its existing concrete surface and curb is not original. The circular driveway was originally developed when additional land was owned to the south of what is now the rear property line at the alley. It served to facilitate vehicle access to the site and linked the garden/field space beyond what is now the alley - to the rear of the residence and back-yard. Today, the circular drive consists of a large, concrete surface that appears to be out of proportion with the existing size and layout of the rear yard, particularly in light of the size and scale of the Existing concrete circular driveway in the rear yard of 236 Adelaide Drive -15- Moreton Bay Fig Tree on the east side of the property. Staff has assessed the request to remove this circular driveway feature and implement a new rear yard landscaping plan for consistency with the Landmarks Commission's condition of approval which specified that a clear reference to this element be incorporated in the landscape plan. The applicant's landscape architect has designed a landscape plan that commemorates the historical presence of the circular driveway, allows for more permeable green space in the rear yard, and preserves the property's significant Moreton Bay Fig Tree and two Canary Palms. More specifically, the applicant's revised landscape design includes an appropriate reference to the historic presence of the circular driveway in the rear yard through implementation of a series of intermittently-placed cobblestone pavers that follows the natural, raised topography of the driveway's center circle and responds to the existing curvature of the Moreton Bay Fig Tree's root structure along the east side of the driveway. While this circular drive was identified in the 2002 designation of the main residence as a noteworthy feature, its removal, coupled with an appropriate commemorative landscape element, will not affect the property's overall integrity and will not affect its ability to convey its significant associations with historic development patterns and architectural designs from the past. -16- Summary of Select Materials and Finishes DESIGN ELEMENTS PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND FINISHES Wood Shakes Custom-milled sawn cedar shakes to match original (residence and dimensions and installation pattern; Color selection accesso structures informed b historic photos and existin materials. Roof (residence and New roofing material with rolled edge at eaves. accessory structures) Windows Existing redwood window casings and sashes to be refurbished; clear protective stain to allow visibility of natural color and finish. Window sashes to be painted blue as an accent color (see Attachment F). New wood frame windows to be installed in 44 SF kitchen addition. Doors (residence and Original doors to be restored; non-original doors to be carria a house) replaced with doors to match on final. Outriggers, Rafters, Original material to be refurbished and stained dark brown Fascia and Eaves (see Attachment F). Terrace Guardrails Old growth redwood lumber with clear protective stain to allow visibilit of natural color and finish. Terrace and balcony Scored concrete flooring (color and pattern indicated in floor Attachment F). Discussion Regarding Landmark Parcel Designation The applicant's project plans provide detail three items that are specifically noted as not a part of the application: construction of a new, one-story detached garage in the southeast corner of the property; removal of the existing front brick entry walk (non- original materials) located at the northwest corner of the front yard; and installation of a new entry walk leading to the existing front terrace. These components are not subject to design review since the designation of the Isaac Milbank House as a City Landmark did not include findings for designation of the property commonly known as 236 Adelaide Drive as a Landmark Parcel. Accordingly, these three components, while shown for reference on the project plans, are not a part of the formal Certificate of Appropriateness application. -17- 'The. need to separately identify and make findings for a Landmark Parcel designation - in addition to the identification of a specific improvement(s) as a Landmark - is based on the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance. SMMC Section 9.36.030 provides separate definitions for a Landmark and a Landmark Parcel. A Landmark Parcel is defined as "any portion of real property, the location and boundaries as defined and described by the Landmarks Commission, upon which a Landmark is situated, which is determined by the Landmarks Commission as requiring control and regulation to preserve, maintain, protect or safeguard the Landmark." SMMC Section 9.36.120© provides in part: "At the conclusion of the public hearing [on the Landmark application], or any continuation thereof, the Commission shall approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the application for the designation of a landmark, and may define and describe an appropriate Landmark Parcel." Accordingly, a specific identification of the location and boundaries of the real property determined to be designated as a Landmark Parcel is required, and in taking this action, the Commission must find that the Landmark Parcel designation is required in order to preserve, maintain, protect or safeguard the Landmark. Section 9.36.140 of the Landmarks Ordinance identifies criteria for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and makes a clear delineation between work (alteration, restoration, construction, relocation, etc.) proposed of or to a Landmark or to a Landmark Parcel (SMMC 9.36.140 (a)). As well, there is a separate finding required for any proposed construction of a new improvement upon a Landmark Parcel (SMMC 9.36.140 (c)). Based on the above-.referenced sections of the Landmark Ordinance, in the absence of a finding for designation of a Landmark Parcel., proposed construction of anew improvement on the property and proposed alterations that are not of or to a Landmark would not be subject to regulation by the Landmarks Commission. The appellant asserts that because she believes the Landmark Parcel designation was intended by the Commission in its 2002 action to designate the main residence as a Landmark and identify Contributing site features, the Landmarks Commission hearing -18- should have been postponed because if the "Landmarked property was not properly designated, then ... there are many other designations in jeopardy." However, as previously noted, while some members of the Commission expressed concern about whether a Landmark Parcel finding was intended for the site when the residence and contributing site elements were originally designated in 2002, the Commission did not elect to postpone or continue the public hearing to a later date despite the appellant's request, and the Commission did not elect to initiate an optional action identified by staff as a mechanism to modify its previous determination to include a Landmark Parcel designation for the parcel. As previously discussed, the Commission stated that such action was not necessary in this case due, in part, to its confidence in the team assembled for the project and its resulting rehabilitation design for the property. Discussion Reaarding Other Appeal Issues The appellant states that because work at the 236 Adelaide Drive site has commenced following the submittal of the appeal, the City Council public hearing should be postponed. The property owner has obtained a building permit for installation of temporary security fence on the site which was required after a trespassing incident in the main residence was identified; the owner has also performed landscaping on the property and installed protection fencing around the Contributing Moreton Bay Fig and Canary Palm Trees in the rear yard in order to ensure that the root structure and trunks of these significant landscape elements are protected. The owner has also begun some non-structural work on interior finishes and features of the residence. Staff is aware of these activities on site, has reviewed them pursuant to the regulations set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance, and has determined that the installation of a temporary security fence and tree protection fencing helps to preserve the integrity of the features and does not negatively affect the integrity of the resources on the site, and that general landscaping and interior work are not within the purview of the Landmarks Commission -19- and therefore not within the scope of work that is the subject of the pending appeal. Therefore, no postponement of the hearing is required. The appellant also asserts that the project will violate the noise ordinance and "violate major health issues for those low income residents living within 20 feet from the construction site with no air conditioning who must open windows. The noise and dust and debris pollution (including asbestos] will affect the neighbors for years. It will be a health hazard." Staff has discussed with the appellant the provisions of the noise ordinance that govern construction activities and is aware of the steps necessary to report a suspected violation of the noise ordinance. The applicant is also aware of the noise ordinance requirements. The appellant has also been advised by staff that the applicant will be required to comply with all South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) procedures regarding removal/handling of asbestos during construction. More specifically, (SCAQMD) establishes notification and work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities. State law requires that a copy of the asbestos demolition notification form be provided to the City's Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of permits for the proposed project. In summary, the appellant's claims regarding significant health effects to neighbors resulting from the proposed project is not supported by substantial evidence and is not relevant to the Certificate of Appropriateness findings the Council must utilize to evaluate the proposed project. Finally, the City Council's review of the Certificate of Appropriateness application is de novo. Consequently, any of the appellant's alleged procedural concerns regarding the Landmarks Commission's May 11, 2009 proceedings is negated by the City Council proceedings. -20- Conclusion Based on the whole of the record, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and approve Certificate of Appropriateness application 09CA-006 for a rehabilitation plan for the Landmark residence and four Contributing site features located at 236 Adelaide Drive based on the draft findings and conditions set forth in Attachment B. Alternatives As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may consider the following with respect to the pending appeal if supported by the full evidentiary record: 1. Uphold the Appeal. 2. Remand the application to the Landmarks Commission for reconsideration. Environmental Analysis The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class. 1; Section 15302, Class 2; Section 15303, Class 3; and Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists of minor alterations and modifications to an existing single-family residence and to existing accessory structure on the site, and construction of a new accessory structure on the site. As detailed more fully in this report, the proposed project has been designed in a manner .consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, in that it consists of the rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of a Landmark single-family residence and associated Contributing accessory structures and landscape feature on the property. -21- Public Outreach The public notice for this hearing was published at least 10 days prior to the hearing in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. Prepared by: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Senior Planner roved: l~leen P. F g Director, an ng a d ommunity Development Forwarded to Council: 4mont Ewell Manager Attachments A. Appellant's Appeal and Supplemental Statements B. Draft Findings and Conditions C. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action, May 11, 2009 D. Landmarks Commission Staff Report and Hearing Submittals, May 11, 2009 E: Landmarks-Commission Minutes: May 11, 2009 F. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action (Designation), March 2002 G. Architectural Plans and Renderings & Additional Documentation from Applicant -22- ~J 7'~-~ ~® / i i Redwaod Window Casing Stain ~$ Excel edge 3 ,~ ' , ~ "~'.,•, ~~,;',z J . ~ ¢~rv.p IBS ,l .. ... , <q4„, '. Wood Railing Stain #Y i i i Paint #1 i Terrace C¢eek Concrete #1 Terrace Edge Banding Concrete #2 Existing Copper ®ownspouts Exteai~rPlast:¢r WindawSash Pain~~~ Paint ~#2 Outriggers, Rafters, Eaves and Fascia Sawn Cedar Barn Shakes to match original stain 1°~^_w ~~, ~ ~~- ~ 3 ~ ~e~~n ~~e. S ~ . , W ~ a~ a ;` ~~, r} ,~ -7 ~~ ~ ~ _, '~~`'~~ 1 ,. , .. ,~ . ;v~ 2,v~-~fx-- ~~'~2,c-A ova. i i '~ r I ~ .J'~ ~~ ~ ~~ Cl `? ;~' . L%,S y- ,~ • vy1 W G`1-.~...t~t.~ L7~V'i.~i,L,--~. ~ ~"°vL. r~s // f ~ /(../~'`~'~^-C/~~'-dVt- ~ ~'G;{-i~'>°~~y~,, ii!/L~. /~A.'~1/'~."~i'J~,J ~t/..1~ Lti'7~.-,~~-.2,/ ~'~~.., / ~ _~ ~~~ ~f~' `'~ L~'~t~7 ~`-i~ ~ - ~- ~ LL`s -~.-~~ f~'Y't.-4Z~+,'~ t~j,'~l~f~~ t ,`/ ~_ L~'~~~.L~;.~C`wi,Q s-~ ( ~tJ~..f..~, GJ;j`t, ,~wJ r~'~j/t.n~-~.~~i ~'~~'rL~_ ~y ~" / ~_ v~-t-~,~t-,. ~ ;~~{J .~L.lc.~c,`v~,- ~~v'lZ~~..!"t~°te~~: `~1;cr~i~J G"~i,,r},~ -!,~'i~.~ . -f ~:a ~,~ f I~,r, ,~ .. (/ X n ..-~Tr'1 X o ,f ,fin }Y i din ii n 1 ~n n A t ,n ~, Q. ~°'[/~ :.1~° _ , r A ~/ ? _~ ~ ~ ~ r y J ~ t 1 ~ ~ ,~, R c~ f / X/ jJ r/f /~1{(~ f~ ~J ~ ., ,~~~~~~' ~~~~ v~ `i" ~}~{rte-~~~, - ~~~ ~--~ ~~~1~ ~,u-z.~-~ ~.'v~~,,~,~_ _.~-u . ~~,.~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ;~- ~J ~~ ~~~ J `/ ~~ .'~ j ,~,~'~ _ ' ~`, f ~~ ,~ J-1 Gzv . Gt ~' c~`t~~~a CL's r~u~~ ~~ ~~a-.~ `! ~~ -, ~~~~~ ~ `~, ~ {~~ ~ 02 ~ ~ t ~~'llit• l..'11 '/L~-_yr~-~'~d~r/((~~W'-~CT~--'~ ~~t'~`lsis`:v``,ff~tr,~-~y;i /~"rS . ~i? e~-, v~ , .~,it--~`-,,L ~f1{.11u .V ~l.~.t'-,/L..> - 1.s"l,-~:a~ G{~~--"'~-~, ~/y ~Lz ~~L a''li?~V`. ~ t~ ~" ~-~..~C_, I ~LV t~~'~,Zt~v. /~-~=~^l\, t' rlsG~ ~`1r 1~ i{~it,~Vtfl/~.J ~~ ., 11fJ ~f~ t S2~ J t 1 t~ ~r~-rl C{~~ 1 ~ d f'L /~~ ,~ ~1r1-c~ ~f~i ~1<?. r^t~~Ec'~~av1 ~~ 1~1F5~ ~{^E~S, )b'1fS T~~Ct~le ~^` ~V~ ~ f o2CS Z7 t d , l ~ ~}"~ 6'Y'1 l,~ ~°'~'1JA-v`-~y ~~'UiL/ ~t/~ ~_ ~.-,~-y-~ ~ ~~ VL, L ,~ , U - _ '` ~ j ~ Jj~/J{'~v j / t ~~ ~-~ ~ ~ J~~ f ~~~. ~~ .~ ~~ t 1 Zed 7 ~~~ ~ ~~ ,~-. ~/ -~ R CS r c-CI 1~ ' ~ C.~(~t~iZ...~~-us~t _L'/t.~-L~.Y.~~' r fj t (~ ~Z t ~-- ~,r ; ~, ,,, t~,S I-~ girl. ~'Ulr .~~~-~ ~ -~'' ~'~-~ tom`--c~.-~' -~rt,`t1~Z~~~" Li'~~,c,v-~.. ~%-v~~ /V(,c-'~'_,(,~~-,'L G~YI v~"1~U~~lU~-t-,~ ~~.. ~°Lti~Y~s?.-~.y. L~i,~.c-~..Ff e fJJ ~ ~ _ ---- ~ ~, ~_ i ~ I ) (3 ~ ~~ G ~ ~.. v`U' /~. ~I~ . Ca-,~--~~;,1 ~~t~z~.~.,~.,~% ~ wee ~ •', ~~ _ ~, ~~ `7.'~'~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`_ J~ ~u,~v ~ f U 1/ U /~' ;f . _~i ii~\ ~./' 1.(,t-c.~~ ~1` ,-.~t~~'-si t%~7~...~~t~".v~ ~r^-~~~ ~'~ce..<°"~`y---fic~ i~~'~1,:'ti.~,I ~i~ i1 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ i t/ f 1 ~ ~ ~ - rp { ~' ~~ i ' a~~ y ~ ~f ~+Lst/L4,~,{ l ,,~,/ dsC.,+~ ~ L 4 ' ~ ~f i i €- f a f1{ ..... L -~ ; ! ", ~~ 1 r 1 4 f' i s y) -~ ~ ~ ., f ttL L<..3.,~ ~~L-tft~ _S'_ . ~~ GL 1 ",???. iF ,t'_ ti_ {.. r~, ~~~ f , r ~. / ~ ~ . ~s~ ~ 1 r` I ~ tl y'J ~i./~Y`~ _. 1 ~, t.i ~ j ~ ~1 :; iJ ~~t tJ ~i/j ~~ + _S J ~ j ( '/l S t J L'tl ~~~~f1,j /{-.r~~i r... L SC.i~ ~t '-t'S y~ I i ~l ~ ~ a ~iCl~ ~t=~1 ~rV,../i Gt ~~r' ~C:'~j'Lt?,•`~'z,.-~ ~~,L,~~ ~~! ~'t ___ J J jt - .t..,.,,~y ~ r r r'j $'~~'.1 fy u,~t +~j, t'i/~..~- ~-2vyf£~.`.~-" !Ljlids~yl : ; x~~,~ `~ _tj~ ~ 3,~r ~' ~ - (j s ~Lt-t` i.+~LLi~~~-r 1~p-1+\ ~L.~r ~ ~V'L~~-~./(eF-.i?i '! ~ ..,1~,{.y, ~t~ - ~' '' Cam. {,,'°~-c,cx..c.:-yam ,t%-Cy ,t--a/ L~Z~ ~`~`~ j'~~- ~ '~~-C~i -c,4..m-' t;-~, %a.~ G~ °\1 "'~ V _ fi` ,tr-Y.IJ r~.rti...$~ ~r`-~-•r~-~ ~~-+,~..:C.Z~-,..d-a.. ,'~--~`-~2.---C._ , ~{.~~-te.:,as ~u~-'~~~~--~,1 ~~~ ~~_ rflr~ ~~~~~ __~___ f~~~ t~f ~_z~~.~, ~'-~-c~'~- ~~I,C~ i~~ f ~~ ~ C~~ x' ~ ~ ~`' !l a ~l ~ 0 {} ~ i~~'?~ tsc~ y~ . Zvi . (,c? ~1,~~~ Gc~/L~~-~.. ~ . ~' . ~y ~ ~`-~.~ ~-~.;~i ,~-~ ~1 ems- ~ iU~, ~~~-- ~~~~~- ~,~ ~~~~ -~~-~-~-fie .. Z~~.~-t-y ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~' - ~~ I [[~~ r ---- p -~~ ~ ,j ~' ~~tic.-~. ,t~u~~'1,~.~t-ate` Gv~/l.~r~-y ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ff 3~ {~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ `~'` is () .~- c /1 ~f {~ u ~~~~, ~~ ~;~ f Additional documents available in City Clerk's Office.