APPEAL OF ACTION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS
ADVISORY COMMISSION RE:
THE CORAL CASINO BEACH & CABANA CLUB PROPOSED PROJECT,
MAY 16, 2005
Failure to Meet the Purpose and Intent of Chapter
18A
The purpose of this
chapter is to promote the economic welfare and prosperity of the
county by preserving and protecting those places, sites, buildings,
structures, works of art and other objects having a special historic
or aesthetic character or interest, for the use, education and view
of the general public and to remind the citizens of this county and
visitors of the background of the county.
The action of the HLAC, to approve a
project with Class I impacts on a County landmark, does not
“preserve and protect.”
There is no authority in Chapter 18A for the alteration of a
landmark where it would result in acknowledged, significant,
unavoidable impacts to the Historic Resource
Failure to Adopt
Alternatives
The HLAC failed to impose reasonable
conditions or to analyze and/or adopt reasonable alternatives, which
would meet the applicant’s basic goals without destroying the
historic fabric of the landmark. The environmentally superior
alternatives in the EIR were rejected without substantial evidence
of infeasibility.
Failure to Meet CEQA
Requirements
See attached letter
Failure to Use Consistent Standards or
Criteria
The HLAC abused its discretion and its
decision was arbitrary and capricious and without support in the
evidence because it failed to apply and follow its adopted
guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The proposed project is
inconsistent with the Standards in numerous respects. See attached
letter.*
*see attached
letter below
CORAL CASINO PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE
PO Box 2148
Santa Barbara, CA 93120
May 16,
2005
Historic
Landmarks Advisory Commission
County
of Santa Barbara
Planning
and Development Department
123 East
Anapamu Street
Santa
Barbara, CA
93101
Re: Coral
Casino Beach and Cabana Club
Honorable Commissioners:
The
Coral Casino Preservation Committee (CCPC) is writing to urge the
Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (HLAC) to carry out its
code-mandated duty to modify or impose conditions on the proposed
Coral Casino project (Project) for the reasons set forth in this
letter. The Coral
Casino is designated as a County Historic Landmark. Therefore, the
HLAC is charged with ensuring that the Project is undertaken in a
manner that protects the historic and architectural integrity of the
Coral Casino. There are reasonable and entirely feasible conditions
or an alternative that allow for attainment of the real objectives
of the project. The HLAC has both the power and the duty to approve
such conditions or modify the Project to avoid unnecessary
impairment of the integrity of this important historic
resource. Judging from
the overall record in this matter, however, the HLAC seems intent on
rubber-stamping an approval that is based on “house of cards”
logic.
OVERVIEW
In
December 2002, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors (Board
of Supervisors) designated the Coral Casino as Santa Barbara County
Historic Landmark No. 43. See Board of Supervisors’ Resolution
2002-02-438. As such,
the HLAC is obligated to protect the Coral Casino by imposing
appropriate conditions.
Anything less is an abrogation of duty.
In
undertaking its review, the HLAC has previously and quite
appropriately established that the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Structures (Standards) are the relevant guidepost both for
assessing impacts and to understand what appropriate conditions may
be needed to protect Historic Landmarks. As a threshold matter, the
CCPC asks the HLAC to inform the public whether it intends to apply
the Standards in reviewing the Project and if not THE Standards,
then what standards would be applied? Certainly, the HLAC is not
free to arbitrarily make up and change the rules whenever convenient
or based on the perceived power or purpose of the
applicant.
Beyond
the clear identification of the standards it is using and the
objective application of those standards to the Project, the HLAC
has several other mandatory duties that are of the utmost
importance. First, the
HLAC must adopt written findings to support its action and the
findings must be supported by evidence in the record. The failure to carry out
these duties will constitute a failure to proceed in the manner
required by law. See Cal. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
Further, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
HLAC is a responsible agency and therefore must carry out certain
mandated duties in connection with the EIR and make certain
findings. The failure
of the HLAC to comply with CEQA will render any otherwise valid
approval (assuming the HLAC carries out its other duties in a lawful
manner) illegal and void.
As amply
demonstrated in the balance of this letter, it is abundantly clear
that the Project does not conform to the Standards and that
reasonable and appropriate conditions are available that the HLAC
must impose to protect the Coral Casino. The following sections
provide detailed analysis of the County’s scheme for protection of
historic landmarks, the HLAC’s duty as a responsible agency under
CEQA, the factual basis upon which the HLAC must find that the
Project does not protect the historic and architectural integrity,
and the reasonable conditions that CPCC urges the HLAC to adopt to
protect the Coral Casino.
PROTECTION OF
HISTORIC LANDMARKS
As you
know, the purpose of designation as a Historic Landmark “is to
promote the economic welfare and prosperity of the county by preserving and
protecting those places, sites, buildings, structures, works
of art and other objects having a special historic or aesthetic
character or interest, for the use, education and view of the general
public and to remind the citizens of this county and
visitors of the background of the county.” (Santa Barbara County Code
(SBCC) Section 18A-1 (emphasis added).)
Under
SBCC Section 18A-5, the HLAC may recommend and the Board of
Supervisors may adopt certain special conditions set forth in the
Code. In the case of
the Coral Casino, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following
special conditions:
(a)
Demolition, removal or destruction, partially or
entirely, may be prohibited unless express consent in
writing is first had and obtained from the historic landmarks
advisory commission. Such consent may impose all reasonable
conditions deemed appropriate by the commission to accomplish the
purposes of this chapter.
(b)
No alterations, repairs, additions or changes (other than
normal maintenance and repair work) shall be made unless and until
all plans therefor have first been reviewed by the historic
landmarks advisory commission and approved or modified, and
reasonable conditions imposed as deemed necessary and that all
such work shall be done under the direction and control of the
historic landmarks advisory commission or other qualified persons
designated by it.
(See
Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2002-02-438 and SBCC Section
18A-5(a)-(b) (emphasis added).) In reviewing a project that
involves partial or total demolition of a historic landmark, it is
clear that the HLAC has the power to modify the Project and the duty
to impose reasonable conditions to protect the Coral Casino in
accordance with the purposes of the County’s historic preservation
law.
Decisions of public agencies such as the HLAC cannot be
arbitrary and capricious.
To avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions, the HLAC’s
actions must be based on findings and the findings must be supported
by evidence in the record.
Further, as noted above, in the case of alterations and
additions to landmarks, the HLAC must impose reasonable conditions
as deemed necessary.
(See SBCC Section 18A-5.)
However,
the HLAC is not free to simply decide as it goes along whether to
approve or disapprove a project. Without rules, findings and
evidence, actions of the HLAC would be arbitrary and capricious and
therefore would constitute a failure to proceed in the manner
required by law. Here,
the HLAC has adopted guidance for review of alterations to
landmarks. Quite
appropriately, the HLAC has adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings, “the Standards.” In this regard, the HLAC
would be consistent with the practice of many local historic
commissions and with CEQA itself. In any event, the HLAC
may only approve the project if it adopts findings and if the
findings are supported by evidence in the record. (See e.g. California Code
Civil Pro 1094.5)
HLAC MUST CARRY
OUT CEQA MANDATES
In
approving the Development Plan for the Project, the Montecito
Planning Commission acted as the lead agency under CEQA. However, the HLAC’s role and
obligations are separate and distinct from the Montecito Planning
Commission. Therefore,
the HLAC is a responsible agency under CEQA, and therefore must
review the FEIR, make required findings and adopt a statement of
overriding considerations.
The HLAC
is a public agency with jurisdiction by law over the Coral Casino
historic resource. (See
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15366.) Here the HLAC is also a
“responsible agency” within the meaning of CEQA:
Where an agency having jurisdiction by law must exercise
discretionary authority over a project in order for the project to
proceed, it is also a Responsible Agency . . .
(See
State CEQA Guidelines Section 5366.) CEQA also provides the
following definition:
"Responsible Agency" means a public agency which proposes to
carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing
or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of
CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies
other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power
over the project.
The very
nature of the HLAC’s role makes it clear that it has discretionary
approval power over the project. As noted above, a project
which alters a historic landmark must first obtain the approval of
the HLAC and the HLAC may approve or modify the project and impose
conditions. (See Board
of Supervisors Resolution No. 2002-02-438 and SBCC Section
18A-5(a)-(b).) This is
the type of approval power that CEQA treats as
discretionary:
"Discretionary project" means a project which requires the
exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body
decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as
distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely
has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable
statutes, ordinances, or regulations . . .
(State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15357.)
As a
responsible agency, the HLAC must make findings regarding each
significant effect and may need to adopt a statement of overriding
considerations:
When
a final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead
Agency and each Responsible Agency shall make a finding under
Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a
statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the
project.
(State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(a) (2).) In this case the Final EIR
for the Project identified significant effects even after
mitigation. Therefore, the HLAC must adopt the findings
required by CEQA in Section 15091. Given the importance of these
findings and the apparent ongoing failure of the HLAC to comply with
the plain requirements imposed on responsible agencies by CEQA, the
entire section is set forth here:
(a)
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes
one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. The possible findings are:
(1)
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2)
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can
and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3)
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b)
The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
(c)
The finding in subsection (a) (2) shall not be made if the agency
making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency
to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives. The finding in subsection (a) (3) shall describe the
specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and
project alternatives.
(d)
When making the findings required in subsection (a)(1), the agency
shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the
changes which it has either required in the project or made a
condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e)
The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the
documents or other material which constitute the record of the
proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f)
A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for
the findings required by this section.
(State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.) We urge the HLAC and County
Counsel to pay close attention to the clear duty imposed on the HLAC
by CEQA. Several things
are clear. It is clear that the HLAC cannot lawfully approve the
Project without one of the three findings set forth in Subsection
(a). The first two of
the three findings must be read together with the special conditions
imposed under Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2002-02-438 and
SBCC Section 18A-5(a)-(b).
It is clear that the HLAC is the agency with the authority to
impose conditions on the Project to protect the Coral Casino.
Therefore, the potential finding set forth in Subsection (a) (2)
does not apply. Rather,
the HLAC must grapple with the changes or alterations that would
lessen or avoid the significant impact on the historic and
architectural integrity of the Coral Casino. In this particular
regard, the HLAC’s duties under CEQA and the special conditions
imposed by Resolution No. 2002-02-438 and SBCC Section 18A-5(a)-(b)
are entirely consistent.
Before
the HLAC jumps to a conclusion of infeasibility or overriding
considerations, it should read again the plain language of the CEQA
guidelines:
The
finding in subsection (a) (3) shall describe the specific reasons
for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project
alternatives. (See
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(c).)
The
findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by
substantial evidence in the record. (See State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(b).)
We note
here that the Final EIR and the findings adopted by the Montecito
Planning Commission are entirely void of any basis for concluding
that mitigation measures or alternatives are infeasible. In fact,
the Levikow/CCPC Alternative was rejected without any findings of
infeasibility, and without any evidence to support infeasibility.
To the
contrary, the whole record makes clear that the Project objectives
can be accomplished while avoiding the destructive harm to the Coral
Casino proposed by the applicant. See the discussion below of
the feasibility of fully protecting the resource.
HOW OWNER’S
OBJECTIVES CAN BE MET BY THE LEVIKOW/CCPC
ALTERNATIVE
- To improve views
from the Dining Room
By removing the
later additions of the La Perla Circle, the curtained storage and
one bay of the La Perla Dining Room extension, the views from the
resulting Club Dining Room are to the ocean, the restored outdoor
bar and into the interior of the landmark architecture of the
Club. These views are
made available through the use of glass perimeter walls in the Club
Dining Room
- To improve views
from the pool deck to the
ocean
By removing the
later additions of the La Perla Circle, the curtained storage and
one bay of the La Perla Dining Room extension, views from the pool
deck to the ocean are greatly enhanced.
- To improve kitchen
proximity to the Dining Room
By returning the Bar
to its original location, the Club Dining Room expands toward the
kitchen. By remodeling
the 2,400 square foot kitchen area, the kitchen expands toward the
Dining Room, bringing both the kitchen and the Dining Room closer to
each other.
- To improve
circulation
By creating a
flexible vestibule, servers do not come into circulation conflict
with members entering the Bar or Dining Room. When there is a member
event in the banquet room, the flexible vestibule can move out of
the way to allow member entry to the banquet room. Non-member banquet attendees
enter the banquet space through the west end, as they do now, and do
not crowd the members’ entry.
Members and guests enter through the main entrance as they
always have and do now. There is no need for a new entrance on the
Club’s primary façade.
- Improve
security
Banquet attendees
remain in the west side of the building, using their own
restrooms. Members and
guests are screened at the main entrance, as they are
now.
APPLICATION OF
STANDARDS
The only
thing that is clear from the record is that the project does not
conform to the Standards.
One only has to read the County’s own EIR, which explicitly
finds that the project does not conform to the Standards. (See FEIR
pp, 129 and 133). As
detailed in this section, many aspects of the project do not conform
to the Standards.
Standard
1:
A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be
placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining
characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
Relevant Guidelines:
“. . . a rehabilitation project may be successfully
planned and completed—one that, first, assures the preservation of a
building’s important or “character-defining” architectural materials
and features, and second, makes possible an efficient contemporary
use.”(Introduction to the
Guidelines p. ix)
“The guidance that is basic to the treatment of all
historic buildings—identifying, retaining, and preserving the form
and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are
important in defining the historic character—is always listed first
in the ‘Recommended’ column.” (Introduction to the Guidelines p.
ix)
“. . . it is most important that such alterations do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces,
materials, features or finishes.” (Introduction to the Guidelines p.
xii)
“THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN EXTERIOR ADDITION TO A HISTORIC BUILDING MAY SEEM TO BE
ESSENTIAL FOR THE NEW USE, BUT IT IS EMPHASIZED IN THE GUIDELINES
THAT SUCH NEW ADDITIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED, IF POSSIBLE, AND
CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER IT IS DETERMINED THAT THOSE NEEDS
CANNOT BE MET BY ALTERING SECONDARY, I.E., NON CHARACTER-DEFINING
INTERIOR SPACES”
(Introduction
to the Guidelines p. xii).
“An attached exterior addition to a historic building
expands its ‘outer limits’ to create a new profile. Because such expansion has
the capability to radically change the historic appearance, an
exterior addition should be considered only after it has been
determined that the new use cannot be successfully met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.”(New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
90)
“New additions should be designed and constructed so
that the character-defining features of the historic building
are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in
the process of rehabilitation.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
90)
“Recommended:
Placing functions and services required for the new use in
non-character-defining interior spaces rather than constructing a
new addition.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
“Not Recommended:
Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a
new addition when the new use could be met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Recommended:
Constructing a new addition so that there is the least
possible loss of historic materials and so that character-defining
features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Attaching a new addition so that the character-defining
features of the historic building are obscured, damaged, or
destroyed.” (New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
“Recommended: Locating the attached
exterior addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a
historic building; and limiting its size and scale in relationship
to the historic building.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Designing a new addition so that its size and scale in
relation to the historic building are out of proportion, thus
diminishing the historic character.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended: Constructing additional
stories so that the historic appearance of the building is radically
changed.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
“Not
Recommended: Cutting
new entrances on a primary elevation.” (Building Exterior, Entrances and
Porches, p. 37)
“Recommended:
Designing and installing additional entrances or
porches when required for the new use in a manner that preserves the
historic character of the buildings, i.e., limiting such
alterations to non-character-defining elevations.”
(Building Exterior, Entrances and Porches p.
40)
“Not
Recommended:
Installing secondary service entrances and porches that are
incompatible in size and scale with the historic building or
obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining features.” (Building Exterior, Entrances and Porches
p. 40)
“Recommended:
Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and the
landscape.”
(Building Site
p.69)
“Not Recommended: Removing or relocating
buildings or landscape features thus destroying the historic
relationship between buildings and the landscape.” (Building Site p.
69)
How the Proposed Project
Does Not Comply with Standard No.
1:
a.
The
new use proposed by
this project is the construction of a publicly accessible “first
class” restaurant on the roof of a landmark building, where an
enclosed dining area was not part of the original
design.
b.
This new
use requires a major change, not a minimal
change to the defining
characteristics of the building, as the new use requires demolition
and consequent irreversible loss of:
·
ten
original cabañas,
·
demolition or relocation of original perimeter railings,
·
demolition of the original shade pavilion,
·
diminution of the tower as a prominent design element,
·
alteration and loss of the original rooftop sundeck, a
significant element of the original Gardner Dailey FAIA design,
·
alteration and loss of the original ground floor courtyard
dining room, a significant element of the original Gardner Dailey
FAIA design (this is still a regulated landmark space, as the
courtyard roof covering was constructed after the defined period of
significance and represents a non-contributing
addition);
·
loss of original landscape context at the Channel Drive tower
·
loss of original landscape context at the oceanfront lawn
area
·
the original bar fireplace
at the ground floor.
c.
A defining characteristic of the building is its
horizontality, also identified by the applicant’s historical
consultant, Preservation Planning Associates, as a significant
character-defining feature.
d.
The proposed new entrance
in the base of the tower will cause a major change in the Channel
Drive façade’s original design concept, not a minimal change. To provide entrance and
exiting for the numbers of patrons that can be accommodated by the
connections indicated to the banquet room assembly space and the
proposed new rooftop restaurant, the existing 36 inch wide fire exit
door will require widening to comply with California Building Code
requirements. New lighting, signage, and replacement of landscaping
with paving will be required.
This entrance as currently proposed is indicated to require a
new ramp to a new lowered entrance landing elevation. This does not
constitute a minimal
change to
the building’s site and its environment.
For all of the
above-stated reasons, the Project does not conform to Standard No.
1.
Standard No. 2:
The historic character of a
property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
Relevant
Guidelines:
“. . . repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy
materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the
building’s historic character.”(Standards for Rehabilitation
p.vi)
“. . . a rehabilitation project may be successfully
planned and completed—one that, first, assures the preservation of a
building’s important or “character-defining” architectural materials
and features, and second, makes possible an efficient contemporary
use.”(Introduction to the
Guidelines p.ix)
“The guidance that is basic to the treatment of all
historic buildings—identifying, retaining, and preserving the form
and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are
important in defining the historic character—is always listed first
in the ‘Recommended’ column.” (Introduction to the Guidelines
p.ix)
“. . . loss of character is just as often caused by the
cumulative effect of a series of actions that would seem to be minor
interventions”
(Introduction to the
Guidelines p ix)
“. . . it is most important that such alterations do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces,
materials, features or finishes.” (Introduction to the Guidelines p.
xii)
“THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN EXTERIOR ADDITION TO A HISTORIC BUILDING MAY SEEM TO BE
ESSENTIAL FOR THE NEW USE, BUT IT IS EMPHASIZED IN THE GUIDELINES
THAT SUCH NEW ADDITIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED, IF POSSIBLE, AND
CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER IT IS DETERMINED THAT THOSE NEEDS
CANNOT BE MET BY ALTERING SECONDARY, I.E., NON CHARACTER-DEFINING
INTERIOR SPACES”
(Introduction
to the Guidelines p. xii).
“An attached exterior addition to a historic building
expands its ‘outer limits’ to create a new profile. Because such expansion has
the capability to radically change the historic appearance, an
exterior addition should be considered only after it has been
determined that the new use cannot be successfully met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.”(New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
90)
“New additions should be designed and constructed so that
the character-defining features of the historic building are not
radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of
rehabilitation.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 90)
“Recommended:
Placing functions and services required for the new use in
non-character-defining interior spaces rather than constructing a
new addition.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
“Not Recommended:
Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a
new addition when the new use could be met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Recommended:
Constructing a new addition so that there is the least
possible loss of historic materials and so that character-defining
features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Attaching a new addition so that the character-defining
features of the historic building are obscured, damaged, or
destroyed.” (New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
“Not Recommended:
Designing a new addition so that its size and scale in
relation to the historic building are out of proportion, thus
diminishing the historic character.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Constructing additional stories so that the historic
appearance of the building is radically changed.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
How the Project Does Not
Comply with Standard No. 2:
a.
The
historic character
of the Coral Casino Beach and Cabana Club is as an indoor/outdoor
space. The proposed
project will alter the historic character by adding enclosed space
on the rooftop sundeck, a space intended to be open to the sea and
sky, for relaxation next to the waves.
b.
The
historic character
of the Coral Casino is as a recreational, swim, cabaña and beach
club. While early
members dressed up for dining and dancing in the original courtyard
dining room, the overall style and feel was casual Californian. To enclose an original
sunbathing and cabaña area for a “first class dining experience,”
goes against the original architect’s design intention and the
historic character of the site.
c.
The
historic character
of the Coral Casino is as an International Style Modern building,
with a dramatic horizontal emphasis and clean spare lines. The proposed construction of
a restaurant on its rooftop interrupts its existing predominant low
scale, one story horizontal character. This creates an addition of
substantial size, bulk and scale, incompatible with the building’s
existing historic character.
d.
The
proposed removal of historic materials and alteration of
features is extensive,
including at least:
·
Ten
original cabañas at the west side,
·
Original
railing at the perimeter of the roof
sundeck,
·
Original
railings at the dining room courtyard opening
·
Roof
level shade pavilion,
·
The
original ground level bar fireplace
e.
The roof level sundeck is a
significant design element in the overall scheme, a “planned void”
as referred to in Preservation Brief 14, from the Secretary of the
Interior. This sundeck is still a
regulated, landmark space, as the courtyard roof covering is
constructed after the defined period of significance and represents
a non-contributing addition. The
enclosing of this space is a significant alteration of one of the building’s
original spaces.
For all the
above-stated reasons, the Project does not comply with Standard No.
2
Standard
No. 9:
New Additions, exterior
alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
Relevant
Guidelines:
“. . . repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy
materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the
building’s historic character.”(Standards for Rehabilitation
p.vi)
“. . . repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy
materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the
building’s historic character.”(Standards for Rehabilitation
p.vi)
“The guidance that is basic to the treatment of all
historic buildings—identifying, retaining, and preserving the form
and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are
important in defining the historic character—is always listed first
in the ‘Recommended’ column.” (Introduction to the Guidelines
p.ix)
“. . . it is most important that such alterations do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces,
materials, features or finishes.” (Introduction to the Guidelines p.
xii)
“THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN EXTERIOR ADDITION TO A HISTORIC BUILDING MAY SEEM TO BE
ESSENTIAL FOR THE NEW USE, BUT IT IS EMPHASIZED IN THE GUIDELINES
THAT SUCH NEW ADDITIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED, IF POSSIBLE, AND
CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER IT IS DETERMINED THAT THOSE NEEDS
CANNOT BE MET BY ALTERING SECONDARY, I.E., NON CHARACTER-DEFINING
INTERIOR SPACES”
(Introduction
to the Guidelines p. xii).
“An attached exterior addition to a historic building
expands its ‘outer limits’ to create a new profile. Because such expansion has
the capability to radically change the historic appearance, an
exterior addition should be considered only after it has been
determined that the new use cannot be successfully met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.”(New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
90)
“New additions should be designed and constructed so that
the character-defining features of the historic building are not
radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of
rehabilitation.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 90)
“Recommended:
Placing functions and services required for the new use in
non-character-defining interior spaces rather than constructing a
new addition.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
“Not Recommended:
Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a
new addition when the new use could be met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a
new addition when the new use could be met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Recommended: Locating the attached
exterior addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a
historic building; and limiting its size and scale in relationship
to the historic building.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Designing a new addition so that its size and scale in
relation to the historic building are out of proportion, thus
diminishing the historic character.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Constructing additional stories so that the historic
appearance of the building is radically changed.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
How the Proposed Project
Does Not Comply with Standard No. 9:
a.
The
proposed new addition will destroy the following historic
materials,
including;
·
Ten
original cabañas,
·
Roof
level shade pavilion,
·
Rooftop
railings,
·
Ground
level fireplace at the bar,
b.
The
proposed roof top restaurant addition is not compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the original
Gardner Dailey FAIA design, in the following
ways:
·
Massing
of the original, existing building achieves a dynamic symmetry,
balanced and organized around the dominant vertical tower feature.
The proposed design alters this balance significantly by the
increased volume and perceived increase in visual
profile.
·
Diminution of the original emphasis on horizontality by a
placing a large volume addition on a second
level.
·
Glazed
railings as proposed terminate with no handrail profile and are
incompatible with the existing historic Dailey railing design. While
achieving differentiation from the original design, a less dramatic
difference would be more compatible.
·
Glazed
clerestory window openings above a blank façade as proposed are
incompatible with the historic Dailey design.
For all the
above-stated reasons, Project does not comply with Standard No.
9
Standard
No. 10:
New additions and adjacent or
related new construction shall 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.
Relevant
Guidelines:
“. . . repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy
materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the
building’s historic character.”(Standards for Rehabilitation
p.vi)
“. . . a rehabilitation project may be successfully
planned and completed—one that, first, assures the preservation of a
building’s important or “character-defining” architectural materials
and features, and second, makes possible an efficient contemporary
use.”(Introduction to the
Guidelines p.ix)
“The guidance that is basic to the treatment of all
historic buildings—identifying, retaining, and preserving the form
and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are
important in defining the historic character—is always listed first
in the ‘Recommended’ column.” (Introduction to the Guidelines
p.ix)
“. . . loss of character is just as often caused by the
cumulative effect of a series of actions that would seem to be minor
interventions”
(Introduction to the
Guidelines p ix)
“. . . it is most important that such alterations do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces,
materials, features or finishes.” (Introduction to the Guidelines p.
xii)
“THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN EXTERIOR ADDITION TO A HISTORIC BUILDING MAY SEEM TO BE
ESSENTIAL FOR THE NEW USE, BUT IT IS EMPHASIZED IN THE GUIDELINES
THAT SUCH NEW ADDITIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED, IF POSSIBLE, AND
CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER IT IS DETERMINED THAT THOSE NEEDS
CANNOT BE MET BY ALTERING SECONDARY, I.E., NON CHARACTER-DEFINING
INTERIOR SPACES”
(Introduction
to the Guidelines p. xii).
“An attached exterior addition to a historic building
expands its ‘outer limits’ to create a new profile. Because such expansion has
the capability to radically change the historic appearance, an
exterior addition should be considered only after it has been
determined that the new use cannot be successfully met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.”(New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
90)
“New additions should be designed and constructed so that
the character-defining features of the historic building are not
radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of
rehabilitation.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 90)
“Recommended:
Placing functions and services required for the new use in
non-character-defining interior spaces rather than constructing a
new addition.”
(New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
“Not Recommended:
Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a
new addition when the new use could be met by altering
non-character-defining interior spaces.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Recommended:
Constructing a new addition so that there is the least
possible loss of historic materials and so that character-defining
features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed.” (New Additions to Historic Buildings p.
91)
“Not Recommended:
Attaching a new addition so that the character-defining
features of the historic building are obscured, damaged, or
destroyed.” (New Additions to
Historic Buildings p. 91)
How the Proposed Project
Does not Comply with Standard No.
10:
a.
The
County’s architectural historian consultant states that the proposed
project is not reversible, i.e., it could not be removed
in the future, with
the essential form and integrity of the historic property
. . . unimpaired.
b.
The
proposed project would irreversibly alter and seal closed the
original open courtyard of the original dining
room.
c.
The
proposal would require removal of existing interior structure and
reconstruction of the original tower element, in order to construct
the open stair and interior skylight
indicated.
d.
The
proposed project would irreversibly alter the original shade
pavilion.
e.
Demolish
ground level fireplace at the original bar
area.
f.
The
proposed project would alter the original landscaping layout
indicated by period photographs and original Dailey
drawings.
For all the
above stated reasons, the Project does not comply with Standard No.
10.
FEASIBLE
CONDITIONS TO PROTECT THE CORAL
CASINO
It is clear
from the record that the Project will have a significant adverse
effect on the Coral Casino.
However, the basic objectives of the project, as previously
presented to the HLAC are:
1. To improve views from the
Dining Room
2. To improve views from the
pool deck to the ocean
3. To improve kitchen proximity
to the Dining Room
4. To improve
circulation
5. Improve
security
These
objectives can be fully accomplished by the Levikow/CCPC. Again, as noted above the
HLAC has the power to modify the Project. Alternatives and conditions
are not infeasible simply because an applicant says he or she won’t
do them. If that were the test, then mitigation measures would never
be imposed nor better alternatives selected. Section 18A-5 does not say
that the HLAC can only modify a project if the applicant wants the
modification. Why
bother with any approval process at all if that is the way it
works?
If the HLAC is
unwilling to exercise the power granted to it to select the
preservation alternative, at a minimum the HLAC should impose the
following conditions:
1. The height of any new
construction shall not exceed the height of existing structures, as
specified in the Montecito Community Plan. The definition of the
“height of existing structures” shall be evaluated by a State
Historic Preservation Officer for compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards
2. No architectural
projections, which exceed the height limits in order to create new
occupiable spaces, should be allowed
3. The Project shall fully
comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation
4. The applicant shall further
develop the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for
review
CONCLUSION
The HLAC
has the power to modify the Project and to impose conditions to
preserve and protect the Coral Casino. It is clear from the record
that the Project does not conform to the Standards. That is the
exact conclusion of the Final EIR. Further, the Project also
does not comply with the Standards for the reasons detailed in this
letter.
The HLAC
should adopt the Levikow/CCPC Alternative as it is feasible and
there is no evidence in the record to support infeasibility. If the HLAC does not modify
the Project, at a minimum it must impose reasonable conditions that
would protect the Coral Casino.
The HLAC must also adopt
written findings based on evidence in the record as to the basis of
its decision. Further, the HLAC must comply with the clear mandates
of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(a)(2), 15091 and
15093.
The failure to undertake these mandatory
duties will expose the Project to very real legal
vulnerabilities. A
legally defective approval is hardly a way to ensure “smooth
sailing” for a project.
Sincerely,
Cynthia
Ziegler
CORAL CASINO PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE
cc:
Alan Seltzer, County Counsel
Susan Brandt-Hawley, Esq.
