City Council Meeting: October 9,
2007
Agenda Item: 6-B
To: Mayor and City Council
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
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
Discussion
Background
On November 21, 2006, the applicant/appellant,
Subsequent to the designation, the
applicant/appellant 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 applicant/appellant 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 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 applicant/appellant on
October 30, 2006. The
applicant/appellant filed the subject application for the Certificate of
Appropriateness in response to the compliance order.
Figure 1: Brickwork as constructed
Figure 2: Examples of original brickwork
in complex
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
·
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 20th century bungalow courtyard
property.
The Landmarks Commission staff report can be found
on-line at the following address:
http://santa-monica.org/planning/landmark/agendas/2006/lca20061211.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;
·
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.
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.”
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 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.
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen P. Fogarty, Director Planning & Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
A.
Appellant’s
appeal statement
B.
Landmarks
Commission’s Statement of Official Action
C.
Landmarks
Commission Determination designating
D.
Mills
Act Contract for
E.
Landmarks
Commission Staff Report and hearing submittals