It’s rapidly becoming a habit – the City Council’s condemnation of

landmarks. The Landmarks Commission, by any measure the most scrupulous board in Santa Monica,  designates them, and the Council disposes of them.

Two weeks ago, by a 5-2 majority, the Council upheld a developer’s appeal of a Landmarks Commission landmark designation of the historic Sci Arc building.

At Tuesday night’s Council meeting, staff will ask it to deny a residents’ appeal  of a Planning Commission variance that would permit an existing landmark, at 1012 Second Street,  to  be swallowed whole by a larger, taller  condo development.

The   property owner, 1012 Second Street LLC, wants to build a  four-unit

condominium that, according to the staff report, “includes retention and rehabilitation of an existing City Landmark designated Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage and construction of three new condominium units on the rear of the parcel…

“the applicant requested the following seven modifications to development

standards subject to approval of a Variance for projects that retain and preserve designated historic resources: 1) maximum building height; 2) maximum number of stories; 3) building volume above 35 feet in height; 4) maximum parcel coverage above 3rd story; 5) rear yard setback requirement; 6) additional 2’-0” average side yard setback

requirement; and 7) unexcavated side yard requirement. This Variance procedure was specifically established for preservation projects by the City Council in 2006.

“On February 18, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a Variance.(and other enabling adjustments )…

“On February 27, 2009, three appeals of the Planning Commission’s determination were filed by Scott Taylor, Robert L. Glushon on behalf of Coalition to Protect Zoning on Second Street, and by David Green…

‘…the residence retains a high degree of architectural and historical integrity which strongly reflects and manifests elements of the City’s early development and architectural history.  More specifically, the residence was one of the first cottages built within the original town site of Santa Monica and therefore helped set a precedent for future residential development in the immediate neighborhood during the early Twentieth Century.  The Landmarks Commission also found that the residence embodies unique late Victorian architectural design elements, and is one of the last intact

original township of Santa Monica.”

Given its singularity, its historic   significance, its architectural integrity, it’s obviously an important   landmark. It’s three-dimensional history, a tangible, irreplaceable resource.

The City staff report makes a very  strong case for its preservation, but its

effort to defend and justify the Planning Commission’s variance is as convoluted,  and ludicrous, as the variance itself.

In fact, it is indefensible. No rational person would argue that tucking a Victorian cottage into a new condo complex will not fatally compromise   it.

But there is nothing rational about this dispute. Neighbors are protesting the

precedent the outsized four-story project would set in their residential neighborhood, as well as the degradation and disfigurment of a landmark.

It also breaks a much-bruited promise in the latest land use revison iteration  (LUCE)  that residential  neighborhoods will remain intact and unsullied.

The seemingly interminable staff report proves, again, that the City

has a double standard – one for itself and projects it favors, and amother for the rest of us.

In the course of any year, the City approves any number of new rules and regulations – presumably for our benefit – individually and collectively.

When a resident breaks a rule, the City calls it “a violation.” When the City breaks  the rules, the City calls il’s  “policy-making. ” We call it “wrong.”