sr-090809-1oc7®
City Council Report
City of
Santa Monica
To: Mayor and City Council
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2009
Agenda Item: `'-~
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community Development
Subject: Statement of Official Action Denying Appeal of Landmarks Commission
Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09-006 for 236
Adelaide Drive
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official
Action denying Appeal 09-009 and upholding the decision of the Landmarks
Commission to approve Certificate of Appropriateness application 09-006, for the
property at 236 Adelaide Drive.
Executive Summary and Discussion
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action
for Appeal 09-009. After holding a public hearing, the City Council denied Appeal
09APP-009 and affirmed the Landmarks Commission's approval of Certificate of
Appropriateness application 09-006 for the rehabilitation of a Landmark residence and
contributing site features located at 236 Adelaide Drive, based upon the findings and
subject to the conditions contained in the attached Statement of Official Action.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Scott Albright, AICP, Senior Planner
to Council:
~ifeen P. Fogar~tji//
Director, Planning & Community
Development
Attachment: Statement of Official Action
1
C
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
City of
Santa'Monica"
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
APPELLANT:
Appeal 09-009
236 Adelaide Drive
Kelly Sutherlin-McLeod Architecture
Linda Liles
PROPERTY OWNER: Three Sycamores Trust
CASE PLANNER: Scott Albright, AICP, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Appeal 09-009 of Landmarks- Commission Approval of
Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09-006.
CEQA STATUS: 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.
3
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
July 28, 2009 Date
X
Appeal upheld and Landmarks Commission approval reversed
based upon the findings below:
Appeal denied and Landmarks Commission approval upheld
based on the following findings:
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: July 28,2009
After holding a public hearing, the City Council denied Appeal 09APP-009 and affirmed
the Landmarks Commission's approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application 09-
006 for the rehabilitation of a Landmark residence and contributing site features located
at 236 Adelaide Drive.
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence,. both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project: All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence. in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any
such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that
fact.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.36.140)
1. The proposed project will not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect
any exterior feature of the Landmark upon which such work is to be done in that
the proposed project is consistent with Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. More specifically, 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 proposes to replace noh-
original materials with appropriate in-kind replacement materials such as 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
shakes. Original doors and windows. will be restored; and missing original.
features such as open wood guard rails will be reconstructed based on physical
evidence. The design of new features such as railings for a new open deck and a
new 44-square foot kitchen addition will be compatibly designed yet appropriately
differentiated to be identified as new. Treatment of the accessory structures on
4
the site will include restoration of original features and cladding, and introduction
of hew elements such as new doors and windows, and a new exterior fireplace
that will not detrimentally change the character of the carriage house structure.
The reconstruction of the existing pergola is required due to deterioration and
inappropriate repairs done in past years; the reconstruction design is based on
full assessment and documentation of its existing design .and will incorporate
remaining original wood members in the new structure. Finally, the proposed
removal of the existing concrete circular drive located in the rear yard 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, in part, because the project landscape plan includes a
designed element that commemorates the historical presence of the circular
driveway.
CONDITIONS
1: This approval is for project plans received on June 23, 2009, which are on file in
the City Planning Division, except as amended herein.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide for review and
approval by the City's Community Forester, a detailed protection plan identifying
the means and methods for protecting the property's Moreton Bay Fig Tree-
during construction.
3. This Certificate of Appropriateness 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 one
year if the authorized work is not commenced. Should the applicant be unable to
comply with this restriction, an extension may be granted pursuant to Section
9.36.250 for an additional 180 days maximum. 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 fora 180-day
period after being commenced.
4. All required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
VOTE
Ayes: Bloom, Davis, Holbrook, O'Connor, Mayor Censer,
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent: McKeown, Shriver
5
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under Article 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which provision has been
adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
.Q~....~ ~ q-q- o
MARIA M. STEWA T, City Clerk Date
F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STOAS\2009\D9APP-009 Council STOA (236 Adelaide Drive).docx