Ventura County

Cultural Heritage Board

Agenda

Monday, September 30, 2013 Special Meeting

Notice is hereby given that on Monday, September 30, 2013 at 1:15p.m., the Cultural Heritage Board will convene for a Special Public Meeting at the Ventura County Government Center, Administration Building, Third Floor, Room 311, located at 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA. Members of the public are welcome to attend.

1. ROLL CALL Patricia Havens, Ricki Mikkelsen, John Kulwiec, Don Shorts, Gary Blum, Stephen Schafer,

Miguel Fernandez

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Discussion is limited to items not on this agenda which are within the purview of the Board.

Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. Board may question the speaker but there will be no

debate or decision. Staff may refer the matter for investigation and report.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 24, 2013 Minutes

4. CONVENE THE MEETING OF THE FILLMORE CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD Landmark No. 162, Fillmore Ladies Ebell Club, 407 Second Street, Fillmore, CA , Proposed

Adaptive Reuse to a Single Family Dwelling and New Construction of a One-Story Addition of an Office and Two-Car Garage with Rooftop Deck

Action: Consider Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness, Project No. CH13-0023

5. DISCUSSION

a) Board Members Reports b) Staff Reports

Tricia Maier to discuss County Planning Director letter to CHB members

Caroline Raftery to demonstration the Interactive Landmark Map

Historic Preservation Program/CLG Goals

6. MEETING ADJOURNMENT

In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Nicole Doner at 805-654-5042. Reasonable advance notification of the need for accommodation prior to the meeting (48 hours advance notice is preferable) will enable us to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

1

1. Tour of the Pratt House and grounds given by Mr. Moses, property owner at 1:25p.m.

2. Meeting was called to order at 2:20pm by Chair Blum Commissioners Present: Don Shorts-Vice Chair, Gary Blum - Chair, Stephen Schafer,

Miguel Fernandez and John Kulwiec Absent: Patricia Havens and Ricki Mikkelsen

Staff Present for meeting: Nicole Doner Outside Consultants present during the Tour: Mike Inaba, Arborist and Chris

Brandstrom, project representative (also attended the public hearing). 2. Oral Communications None. Items taken out of order 4. Convene the Meeting of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Landmark No. 94 – Second Consideration of a Request for a Certificate of

Appropriateness for a Single Family Dwelling and Attached Garage Ms. Doner presented the staff report and the following recommended actions:

1. CONDUCT public hearing, hear testimony, and CONSIDER the staff report; and 2. FIND the project proposal is consistent with the Standards and the Cultural Heritage

Ordinance and 3. Based on the preceding evidence and analysis, APPROVE a Certificate of

Appropriateness for the proposed project with any Board recommendations determined necessary to conform to the Standards.

Presentation of public speakers in favor of the recommended actions: Chris Brandstrom, project representative Mr. Bill Moses, property owner VCCHB's Disclosures: None. VCCHB Deliberation and Vote: Mr. Schafer discussed his concerns that the proposed residence would look too similar to the Pratt House. He did not want the proposed residence to be mistaken for the Pratt House 100 years from now. Mr. Moses discussed changing the cloister which has the clerestory windows above. Mr. Schafer stated that the cloister and clerestory windows were the designs that differentiated the new residence from the old residence. Mr.

Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes

June 24, 2013 at 1:15p.m. County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency • Planning Division

800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 • (805) 654-2478 • ventura.org/rma/planning

2

CHB Meeting of June 24, 2013 Page 2 of 2

Kulwiec disagreed with Mr. Schafer and stated that the proposed design should not change. Mr. Fernandez had concerns with the new residence’s potential impacts to existing trees and the rock wall. Further discussions arose about the potential façade changes such as horizontal siding or gunite the house’s exterior below 4ft. Mr. Shorts made a motion to approve the COA. The motion was amended by Mr. Shorts to approve the COA but require the applicant to differentiate the new residence’s façade from the Pratt House and enhance the landscape buffer around the new residence.

Mr. Schafer seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1.

3 Minutes:

None. 5. Board Reports

Staff Discussion:

Reminder regarding the Ventura County Fair - July 31 - August 11, 2013

Standing Item - Historic Preservation Program/CLG Goals.

CLG Grant for $24,000 awarded by SHPO.

6. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board by Chair Blum.

3

SUBJECT: Landmark No. 162, 407 Second Street, Fillmore, Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Proposed 890 Square Foot Room Addition, Rooftop Deck and the Adaptive Reuse/Renovation of the Ebell Clubhouse for Single Family Dwelling Use; Project No. CH13-0023 PROPERTY OWNER: Teresa Reese and David Bernstein 3601 Wrightwood Drive Studio City, CA 91604 REQUEST: The applicants are requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to adaptively reuse the Ebell Clubhouse building (Landmark No. 162) as a single family dwelling, renovate the existing bathroom, and construct an 890 square foot room addition (office, full bath and two-car garage) and rooftop deck to the existing building at 407 Second Street in the City of Fillmore. LOCATION AND PARCEL NUMBER:

The project site is located at 407 Second Street, Fillmore, CA. The Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) is 050-0192-100. BACKGROUND: The subject property consists of a one-story rectangular-shaped former women’s clubhouse building built in 1931. The existing building is clad in shake shingles set in double layered bands giving the look of siding from a distance (Historic Resources Report, C. Fisher, June 2013 – Exhibit 2) and is approximately 3,070 square feet constructed over two lots on the corner of Saratoga and Second Streets. The architect of the building was Robert Sutherland Raymond and the contractor was William S. Yeakle of the Fillmore firm, Hastings & Yeakle.

In December of 1914, a group of ladies, wives and relatives of the local civic and ranching leaders formed the Fillmore Ebell Clubhouse. The Ebell Club’s Building Committee purchased the lots and contracted to have the building designed and built in 1931. The building was maintained and property taxes paid through rummage sales

Staff Report and Recommendations

Agenda of September 30, 2013, Item 4

County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency • Planning Division

800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 • (805) 654-2478 • ventura.org/rma/planning

4

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 2

and other fund raising events held by the Ebell Club members. Many cultural events, recitals, plays, weddings, and meetings were held until the 1994 Northridge Earthquake damaged the building. The clubhouse consists of an auditorium/stage floor, kitchen, sunroom, study, ladies lounge and attached full bath, and a half bath. The front porch was enclosed using multi-paned French doors and windows extending across the façade. This enclosure was described in a June 19, 1931 Fillmore Herald article that pronounced that the architect for the Ebell Clubhouse was calling for bids on the Clubhouse. The article described that the proposed porch enclosure was not in the original plans, but was a change that was to be made as a part of the construction. The building consists of a central section with two offset wings. Exterior shutters are located on either side of each of the main windows and French doors. The 1994 Northridge earthquake damaged the building’s original fireplace and chimney. The City of Fillmore repaired the damage to the building, removed the chimney and sealed the fireplace.

(Photo taken in 2013 of Ebell Clubhouse front looking northwest)

5

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 3

(2011 Aerial photo of Ebell Clubhouse site) PROJECT ANALYSIS

The new property owners have retained the services of Nancy Ganucheau of Home Front Build to complete the plans and design the improvements. The owners are proposing to adaptively reuse the Ebell Clubhouse building as a single family dwelling. A room addition of an office, full bath and two-car garage is proposed to allow for the reuse of the building. A rooftop deck is proposed over the new garage and room addition. The project was reviewed by Mr. Charles Fisher, historian, who prepared an Historic Resources Report in June of 2013 (Exhibit 2 - HRR) to assist the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) staff in their compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The report analyzed the historical significance of the interior structure and the project’s potential impacts to historic resources. According to the HRR report, the new property owners intend to retain the historic elements of the original building. The following improvements are proposed (Exhibits 3 through 6 – Project Plans):

Adaptive reuse/renovation of the Ebell Clubhouse for a single family dwelling use

Room addition of 890 square feet comprising an office, full bathroom and two car garage;

Rooftop Deck of 602 square feet above the garage and office surrounded by a 42 inch parapet wall and accessed by a circular stairway;

Two sets of original windows and frames to be removed and relocated to the Eastern wall of the proposed office;

6

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 4

The original framing for the windows will be retained in place with the opening toward the west being converted to a doorway and the opening to the East being filled and dry walled in (see Exhibit 2 - HRR, page 15);

Two new 10-lite exterior French doors to rear garden;

Original shingle siding on the wall of the addition will be retained in place.

Three new wood windows (casement and single hung) along the northern wall of the office to match existing wood windows in materials and style.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYLSIS: In determining if the project has a significant impact to historic resources; there is a two-part test: (1) Is the resource “historically significant?” and, (2) Would the project cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the resource? If so, the Lead Agency must conclude that the impact is significant and apply appropriate mitigations to reduce the project impact to less than significant. (Bass, Herson, and Bogdan, CEQA Deskbook, 2002, p. 103) Historic significance of the site. The project site was designated as County Landmark No. 162 in 2001. The project was reviewed by Mr. Charles Fisher, historian, who prepared an Historic Resources Report in June of 2013 The report analyzed the historical significance of the site and the project’s potential impacts to a historic resource. Except for the removal of the fireplace and minor fixture upgrades to the kitchen and bath, the existing clubhouse has maintained its overall historic integrity. The Board must decide if the project adversely affects the overall historic fabric of the County Landmark. Project impact on the historic resources. The Standards applicable to related new construction are Standards Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10. Each of the Standards is outlined in the table below with the corresponding comments from CHB staff. In the HRR report, Mr. Fisher recommended that the project be conditioned to require a preservation consultant to evaluate plans for conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and that the applicant shall produce high resolution photographs of the significant features to be altered. The Cultural Heritage Ordinance (Sections 1364-12) requires that your Board use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (The Standards) to review projects. The Board’s review must be based upon the Standards. The Significance of the New Construction and the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines Review

7

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 5

Standards Recommended Staff Comments

#1 A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the building and its site and environment.

As stated in the HRR, the club and its activities associated with the property no longer exist. Fisher determined that the minor changes to the proposed building plan are necessary to accommodate the new residential use. Per Fisher, the proposed project partially conforms to the Standards. Staff concurs with Fisher’s conclusions.

#2 The historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Fisher concluded that the rear addition would result in the loss of some interior historic building fabric with the removal of two windows. However, these windows are proposed to be relocated /reused in the new addition. In addition, retention of the window framing within the original wall will ensure that they could be replaced in the future should the addition be removed. Staff concurs with Fisher’s conclusions and considers these elements are in conformance with the Standards.

#3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

It does not appear that conjectural design features are proposed.

The removal of the two original windows from the north side to be reused at the east side of the building addition would not be considered a conjectural feature since they are the original windows. The original building’s gable roof has an East-West direction. The addition’s roof would be somewhat of a mansard looking roof in that the roof would hide a portion of the 42-inch parapet wall of the rooftop terrace

#5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

The original exterior wall and the original window frames would be preserved in place and covered over by the new construction. The two original windows and frames would be removed and relocated to the addition. Staff considers these elements to be in conformance with the Standards

8

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 6

Standards Recommended Staff Comments

#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.

Fisher determined that the new addition would be compatible in style, size, scale, massing and architectural features by using the same shingle siding pattern but differentiated from the original building with the addition of a rooftop deck and parapet wall.

Furthermore, the addition would be located at the rear of the property and could not be seen from the either public view of Saratoga or Second Streets. The garage would take access off of the alleyway. Staff considers these elements to be in conformance with the Standards

#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.

The original exterior wall and the window frames would be preserved in place and covered over by the new construction. The two original windows and frames would be relocated to the addition. It appears that if the new construction were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be unimpaired. Staff considers these elements to be in conformance with the Standards

Cultural Heritage Ordinance

In taking the steps noted above your Board must also make the specific Ordinance finding which logically follows to approve or deny the project. For approval the following finding must be made: Section 1365-1(c)(1) states: “The proposed work will neither adversely affect the significant architectural features nor adversely affect the character of historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the County Landmark and its site.” OR For denial one or both of the following findings must be made: Section 1365-1(g)(1) states: The proposed project is to remove or demolish a County Landmark that is determined by the Cultural Heritage Board to be significant and important to the history of the County.”

9

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 7

Section 1365-1(g)(2) states: “The proposed project would adversely affect the historical significance of the County Landmark or would not be compatible with the use and/or exterior of the County Landmark or its site.”

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

RECOMMENDATION ACTIONS:

1. CONDUCT public hearing, HEAR testimony, and CONSIDER the staff report;

2. FIND the project proposal of the adaptive reuse/renovation of the Ebell Clubhouse building for single family dwelling use and the new construction of an 890 square foot addition and rooftop deck would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Cultural Heritage Board Ordinance;

3. Based on the preceding evidence and analysis, Staff recommends that your

Board APPROVE the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) with any Board recommendations determined necessary to conform to the Standards

Prepared by: Nicole Doner, Senior Planner 805-654-5042 Attachments: Exhibit 2: Fillmore Ebell Clubhouse Historic Resource Report Exhibit 3: Existing Site and Floor Plans Exhibit 4: Proposed Site and Floor Plans Exhibit 5: Existing and Proposed Elevations Exhibit 6: Proposed North Elevation Detail

cc: Kevin McSweeney, City of Fillmore Planning Department

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Existing Site and Floor Plans

Exhibit 3

47

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 9

Proposed Site and Floor Plans

Exhibit 4

48

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 10

Existing and Proposed North and South Elevations

Exhibit 5

49

Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH13-0023 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of September 30, 2013 Page 11

Existing and Proposed East Elevations

Exhibit 5

50

Proposed North Elevation detail

Exhibit 6

51