|
|
|
Scott Leonard Sweetser House Owner First, I suggest that everyone who feels they have a say in what I do in the private, non visible from public access part of my property, read the Redondo Beach rules. Bottom line, the preservation aspects do not apply to what is not visible from a public right of way. What we want to do is not. Plus, all the rules are written to apply to buildings and a literal application to landscape is not appropriate. (RB Staff has said otherwise. This is troublesome. See comments below.) Second, I suggest everyone read the Interior’s Standard that are quoted by staff. Some issues: First there are four standards. RB staff decided to apply the most stringent. The following which comes directly from The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. “How to Use the Standards and Guidelines. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings are intended to provide guidance to historic building owners and building managers, preservation consultants, architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to treatment. As noted, while the treatment Standards are designed to be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places—buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects—the Guidelines apply to specific resource types; in this case, buildings.” RB is applying the guidelines to landscaping, which is a problem. Also, the standards are not legal. They are recommendations. They carry no weight in what a resident can do or not. Staff suggested otherwise. It is the city that sets the rules. Lastly, while the city can try to stop us from adding to the property buildings that are viewable from the public right of way, it has little true power. The worst that the city can do to us is revoke our Mills Act. Which would cost us over $100,000 in fines. However, the way a Mills Act is revoked by the city is to determine that the property owner has changed the property such that it is no longer historic. So by revoking the Mills Act, the city also revokes any control of the property from a historical perspective. Thus allowing full development of the site. My final comment, is the city staff has misrepresented to the Preservation Committee what the rights of the city and property owners are with respect to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Redondo Beach rules. However, don’t take my word for it, read their’s. Direct Quote from Teresa (Gianos) in an email: “1. The Commission has to make findings to approve any changes to historic sites.” Notice how she said “any changes.” Direct Quote from RB: 10-4.401 “Actions requiring certificate of appropriateness. (a) For landmarks or properties within an historic district, no person shall alter, restore, demolish, remove, or relocate any exterior improvement or architectural feature visible from any public right-of-way; or alter, restore, place, erect, remove, or relocate any permanent sign visible from a public right-of-way without being granted a certificate of appropriateness, except as provided under Article 6 of this chapter. Approval of such work shall be required even if no other permits or entitlements are required by the City.” This is mainly meant to deal with buildings, not landscape, but regardless, it is very apparent that the committee has no right to tell me what I can and can not do in my back yard, which will sit behind a fence they have already approved. Back to Sweetser House Page |