City Council Meeting: February 19,
2008
Agenda Item: 1-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning
and Community Development
Subject: Certification of the Statement
of Official Action Denying Appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s Denial of Certificate of
Appropriateness for reconstruction of brick work at a designated City Landmark
at
Recommended
Action
Staff recommends that the
City Council approve the attached Statement of Official Action Denying Appeal 07APP-001
and upholding the decision of the Landmarks Commission to deny Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-021 for
reconstruction of brick work on the front porch of a contributing residence
located within Hollister Court, a designated City Landmark at 2402 4th
Street Unit 4.
Executive
Summary and Discussion
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action for Appeal 07APP-001. After holding a public hearing, the City Council denied Appeal 07APP-001 and upheld the Landmarks Commission’s denial of the proposed project. The City Council’s decision was based upon the findings 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:
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen P. Fogarty, Director Planning
& Community Development |
|
P. City
Manager |
Attachment:
A. Statement of Official
Action
ATTACHMENT
A
STATEMENT
OF OFFICIAL ACTION
|
|
PROJECT CASE NUMBER: Appeal
07APP-001
LOCATION: APPLICANT: Tammy
Cameron APPELLANT: Tammy
Cameron Property Owner: Alpha
Primo, LLC CASE PLANNER: REQUEST: Appeal 07-001 of
the Landmarks Commission’s denial of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-021
for reconstruction of brick work on the front porch of a contributing
residence located within CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) in
that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves. |
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
|
January 8, 2008 |
Determination Date |
|
|
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions
below. |
|
X |
Denied. |
|
|
Other: |
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: January
8, 2008
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.
FINDINGS:
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
FINDINGS (SMMC 9.36.140)
1. Based on the record and testimony presented at the appeal public hearing held on January 8, 2008, the project at 2402 4th Street #4 will detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect exterior features of the Landmark-designated Hollister Court property in that the bricks used are not appropriate and the widening of the porch is disproportionate with other porches facing the courtyard, particularly the porch of the opposite unit, which previously matched this porch. The red brick porches are a unifying element and character-defining feature of the Landmark complex. Allowing this 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. The multi-colored brick utilized, which has been treated to look “old”, does not match the removed solid-color red bricks in-kind, as required by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Specifically, the brick work does not conform with Standards 5 and 6, which state the following:
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 new
brickwork does not match the old brick in color, texture, or design. The use of the treated multi-colored brick
contrasts with the distinctive solid-red color brick that is used in the brickwork
of others porches in the complex.
Furthermore, the bull nose bricks used to cap the wall surrounding the
porch introduce a new design that is inappropriate for this early 20th
century bungalow courtyard property. The
top layer of brick in the surrounding bungalows is the same brick used for the
wall but turned on its side. The rounded
edges, texture, and thickness of the bull nose brick are not compatible with
the pointed, original brick used throughout the complex.
Based on the
foregoing, the proposed project is not consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and adversely
affects the historic character of the
VOTE
Ayes: Bloom,
Genser, Holbrook, McKeown, O’Connor, Shriver, Mayor Katz
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to
further appeal under the City of
I hereby certify that this Statement of
Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the City Council
of the City of
_____________________________ ______________
MARIA M. STEWART, City Clerk Date
F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STOAS\2007\07APP-001
Council STOA (2402 4th St #4).doc