The West Hollywood City Council unanimously denied an appeal on Aug. 3 of the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision not to designate a property at 8001-8003 Santa Monica Blvd. as a historical resource.

On Feb. 5, Resident Lynn Russell filed an appeal of the HPC’s decision to remove the building from West Hollywood’s Commercial Historic Resources Survey because of new information, alleged technical and factual errors, and inadequate or unsupported findings by the HPC. The appeal hearing was delayed until Aug. 3 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Owned by Stevens Land Company, the property is a one-story commercial building that was constructed in 1922 in the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style. The building was converted into a medical clinic in 1934 and then converted again to retail use in the 1960s, according to a staff report.

A 2016 survey noted the building was found to be significant in the “Sherman and Adjacent County Lands 1895-1925” category under criteria for its association with the history of commercial development in West Hollywood. It is considered to be one of a small number of commercial buildings from the 1920s on Santa Monica Boulevard that was constructed as a result of the former streetcar line that once ran along the boulevard.

Over the years, the building underwent numerous changes including the replacement of original doors and windows, according to a staff report.

Due to a time delay between the approval of the final survey by City Council in 2016 and the time when all the properties identified in the survey were flagged by the Planning and Development Services Department as potential historic resources, the Stevens Land Company applied in November 2017 for a permit to re-roof the building. The city, in error, permitted a new roof to be installed on the structure, said Doug Vu, a senior planner for the historic preservation planning division.

As a result of the re-roofing, the property lost character defining features, including a red clay tile roof, circular roof towers and a notched wooden beam above the breezeway. With those changes, the building was no longer eligible to be considered or deemed a cultural resource in the city.

“The commission expressed deep concerns of the issuance of a building permit for replacing of a roof without a certificate of appropriateness and that changes were permitted to historic-defining features,” Vu said.

Russell’s appeal asserted that the original staff report to the HPC did not include a copy of the re-roofing permit and the work on the site had “grossly exceeded” the scope of the permit, which prevented commissioners from making a well-informed decision.

Todd Elliot, who represents the Stevens Land Company, acknowledged that the original HPC staff report may have alarmed members of the historic preservation community. He added the damage to the roof was far greater than expected and the roofing company completed additional work to prevent future water intrusion.

Commissioner Jacob LaJoie, who chaired HPC at the time of the vote, said staff admitted to HPC they had made a mistake, but there was no evidence to believe that this was anything other than an error by the city.

“It is not at all clear that HPC would have made a designation of the building in its prior condition,” LaJoie said. “But when the item came before us, we had to take the building in its current condition as we found it.”

Mayor Pro Tempore John Heilman said the City Council should make a decision on whether the building meets the requirements for preservation based on the building’s current condition. The rest of the council agreed and rejected the appeal, but not without asking city staff to bring back an item with concrete steps to prevent an issue like that from occurring in the future.

“I would like to ask that staff bring back an item in the future, so that this type of thing doesn’t happen again,” Councilwoman Lauren Meister said. “I know that they brought it to the Historic Preservation Commission, and I would be interested in knowing [what the city is doing to prevent similar problems] as well because it really is disappointing and sad to lose a historic resource in this way.”