We are still ‘in the building department’ at the City (apparently Annie changed the plans to read ‘cat house’), so while we are waiting, we took some photos of the house construction for two dogs next door.  Those two dogs sure got the good life, staying at fancy hotels when ever the pinkies are away.   We are on the right.  There were two dogs at our house, but they are gone now.

Aug 18, 2008

July 31, 2008

July 17, 2008

May 17, 2008

Annie gets familar with the plans

“Hey ! There’s only one litter box on the 2nd Floor – where is Daisy going to go ?  I ain’t sharing no stinking litter box !  What were the pinkies thinking? “

City Chips Away At Historic District

The project is described as a pair of rectangular boxes clad in tan stucco and wood. Nevertheless, this project was approved by the landmarks commission. Neighbors opposing the project appealed the decision to City Council who denied their appeal Feb. 12
smdp042108

Lights Out On Third

Third Street Historic District Becomes Home For The Amish

The council approved earlier this year a provision in the Third Street Historic Guidelines that bans automobiles, electricity, plumbing and any modern-day uses from homes that lie within the boundaries.  The change in the guidelines was a response to compaints from long-term residents of the recent trend in modern home development in the district, including proposals to build modernist style houses on Second Street and Third Street.
smdp040108

first-floor-plan

second-floor-plan

Old and New Collide in SM Developments

Maybe it’s time to amend the zoning codes to outlaw “modern” or “International style” in historic neighborhoods
smdp021808

Genser’s ire escalated during a discussion of an Appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s approval for demolition of a “non contributing structure” and construction of new residence at 2642 Second Street in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.

In questioning Associate Planner Roxanne Tanemon, who prepared the staff report, which supported the Commission’s decision, Genser behaved as if he were a prosecuting Attorney and Tanemon were a defense witness.  The illustrated report was exhaustive and detailed, but he peppered her with questions that had less to do with its content than its organization.

It’s a complex question: what is appropriate in a Historic District?

Though Genser added more heat than light to the proceedings, the appellants, the property owners and their architect, and other interested residents, as well as City staff, focused on the issue.   But, in the end, the Council failed to answer the question, voting 3-3 on both a motion to deny the appeal and a subsequent motion to remand the project to the Landmarks Commission for further work.

As a result, under the rules, the Landmarks decision was upheld.

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/?p=296

Appeal of Landmarks Commission approval for demolition of a non-contributing structure and construction of new residence at 2642 2nd Street, located within the 3rd Street Neighborhood Historic District – recommendation to deny the appeal and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application for demolition of a non-contributing structure and construction of a new single-family residence based on the findings set forth by the Landmarks Commission. Appellant: Beatrice Nemlaha, et al; Applicants: Mark Gorman and Beth Burns.

Agenda Item 6-A
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080212/a20080212.htm

Staff report
Staff recommends the City Council deny appeal 07APP-010 and approve Certificate of Appropriateness application 07CA-009 for demolition of a non-contributing structure and construction of new a single-family residence located at 2642 Second Street, based on the findings set forth by the Landmarks Commission in its action on December 10, 2007.
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080212/s2008021206-A.htm

Power Point Presentation

Minutes Item 6-A
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080226/February%2012,%202008%20Minutes.pdf

Historic District Challenged

In the last year, two new and one recent property owner have sought to build modern shoeboxes at 2646 and 2642 Second Street and 2617 Third Street in the very heart of the District. The Landmarks Commission has approved both projects on Second Street; 2642 is currently on appeal to the City Council.
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArchiveArticle.asp?eid=7010

Controversial Project Appealed
Neighbors Rally Against Construction Project in Third Street District

A group of long-time residents and preservationists have filed an appeal to a new residential construction project in the heart of the Third Street Historic District, the latest chapter in a saga that has seen neighbors pitted against neighbors in this normally quiet community.

The appeal to the proposal at 2642 Second St. was filed on Dec. 20 in response to a Landmarks Commission decision about 10 days prior that gave property owners Mark Gorman and Beth Burns the green light to erect a two-story home that neighbors have called “modernist.”

The appeal moves on to the City Council which could hold a hearing on the issue sometime this month. Appeals to projects can be filed within 10 days of a Landmarks Commission decision, keeping building permits from being issued until the matter is resolved, according to Roxanne Tanemori, the planning associate liaison to the Landmarks Commission.

The appellants — Tony Haig, who owns a Victorian on Beach Street, Scott Campbell, who owns the so-called craftsman “airport” bungalow off Ocean Park Boulevard, and Bea Nemlaha, who owns a bungalow on Third Street — contend that the design of the proposed house does not keep with the spirit of the historic district and violates its guidelines.

smdp010308

Victorian on Beach Street (237 Beach Street) – 2007

237 Beach Street (original location 2547 Second Street) – 1992
Edwina and William Hostetter House, Queen Anne cottage built ca. 1885