We lost track of how many City Council meetings we’ve covered some time ago, but, without question, this week’s meeting was the oddest of the lot.

Mayor Richard Bloom was scheduled to be out of town. Council member Bobby Shriver had been out of the country and expected to be back in time for the meeting, but word came late Tuesday afternoon that he’d been delayed.

And then there were five.

Mayor Pro Tem Herb Katz presided. Council members Ken Genser, Bob Holbrook. Kevin McKeown and Pam O’Connor were present.

The first item on the evening’s agenda was an appeal of a Landmark Commission designation of a beach cottage at 2219 Ocean Avenue.

Under Council rules, at least four votes are required to approve or deny any measure. Council member Holbrook favored continuing the appeal, noting that with only five members present, two members could actually swing the vote any way they wished, which would be unfair to the appellant. Genser disagreed, saying that as the appellant had previously continued the item, the hearing should be held. Mckeown and Katz apparently agreed.

Chris Harding, attorney for the appellant, also believed the appeal should be continued, and objected strenuously at having to proceed.

It was about then that Pam O’Connor walked off the dais, apparently because she agreed that the hearing should be continued, and believed it wouldn’t go on without her. She was wrong.

And then there four.

And they got on with it.

The City agreed with the appellant, the University of Illinois Foundation, arguing that the appeal of the landmark designation should be upheld as the designation was inappropriate, baaed on the findings of its consultants.

Speaking for the University, Harding made essentially the same argument.

Several Landmarks Commissioners and members of the Santa Monica Conservancy spoke in favor of the designation, citing the ways in which the cottage met the City’s criteria for landmarks, as well as the reasons it should be preserved,

In addition, a number of residents enthusiastically supported landmark designation and presented a petition Signed by about 1,000 people asking that the cottage be preserved.

Several different historic preservation consultants were cited — by the City, Harding and the residents. In the midst of one resident’s plea for the cottage, he said that one of the consultant had worked for both sides.

At that point, Holbrook interrupted him, saying he “should be sworn,” He did not elaborate. City Attorney Marcia Moutrie said it wasn’t necessary or appropriate and the hearing proceeded.

At the conclusion of the heating, none of the four Council members made a motion, so no action was taken, which effectively denied the appeal and upheld the landmark designation.

O’Connor then returned to the dais, noting that she had listened to the hearing.

And then there were five. Again.

They then heard the introduction and first reading of an ordinance authorizing a two-lot subdivision, and approved an amendment to the “Over-the-Street-Banner” ordinance to include the hanging of non-commercial vertical banners on street light poles.

After an extended discussion of the proposed relocation of the Angels Attic Museum from Colorado Avenue to Main Street and Ocean Park Boulevard, adjacent to the California Heritage Museum, the Council referred the project to the Landmarks Commission for a conceptual review.

When that is done, the proposal will return to the Council for authorization to negotiate.

The Council also directed that as planning proceeded, the preservation of the trees on the proposed site and the current operation of the farmers’ market should be high priority considerations.

And still there were five.

The Council then “supported in concept” a proposal from the group of residents who saved the hisroric Shotgun House from demolition that it be permanently located on a City-owned parking lot at Norm an Place and Second Street, prior to regulatory review. It also authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals to select a non-profit organization to relocate the house, rehabilitate it and lease it from the City for public benefit.

Council members stated that the intent of its motion was to make the eligibility criteria as broad as possible. They also directed staff to complete the site provements needed to make It ready for the house.

Four of the five Council members voted for the motion. O’Connor abstained, and then fulminated furiously, reminding everyone present that she had warned at the outset, when residents rallied to save the house from the wrecking ball, that they would ultimately ask to locate it on public land. Though she made it clear that, in her view, they shouldn’t be allowed to do that, and were clearly getting away with something, she never explained why she thought it was a bad thing or what she believed they were getting away with.

Moving more or less right along, the Council heard an update on City staff’s discussions with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding airport safety.

The FAA has proposed installing equally sized “Runway Safety Areas (RSA)” at both ends of the runway, and is scheduled to make a presentation to the City Council on August 14.

The Council directed staff to “reiterate [to the FAA] that the City’s primary focus is safety, and to convey that this is a critical issue for the city” and, thus far, finds the process ”frustrating.” Staff was also directed to ensure that material is available prior to the public hearing.

Since they were only five, the Councilcontinued the appointments to boards and commissions, but endorsed a number of bills being sponsored by State Senator Sheila Kuehl and Assembly member Julia Brownley.

Among the more interesting or significant measures on the Consent Calendar that were approved without discussion by the gang of five at the beginning of the meeting were an amendment to an agreement with The Odermatt Group in the amount of $197,000 to provide urban design and planning services, a bid for 14 Police motorcycles in the amount of $340,486.92 to Long Beach BMW, an amendment with Pugh + Scarpa in the amount of $50,000 for façade concept designs for Parking Structures 7 and 8, and the Santa Monica Pier Restoration Corporation 2007/08 budget and work plan.

And that’s the way it was Tuesday, ,June 26, at one of the more historic City Council meetings.
.