Montevista property at 219 West Elmer postponed after neighbor concerns about rock landscaping and retaining wall

The Historic Compliance and Technical Advisory Board on May 23 postponed a decision on a certificate-of-appropriateness request for 219 West Elmer Place to give the applicant time to consult with the Montavista neighborhood association and revise the proposal.

Michelle Forty, the contractor representing the applicant, told the board the front-yard plan replaces turf that has repeatedly failed with a combination of planting beds, jasmine borders, two trees and hand-set river rock intended to match neighborhood material and reduce irrigation. Forty said irrigation lines would be removed in portions of the yard to conserve water and that the rock color was chosen to complement the house. She told the board, in Spanish, that she had “installed turf three times and it has failed.”

Neighbors spoke during public comment, saying the work began without permits and that the proposed rock and a short retaining wall conflict with Montevista design guidelines. Ryan Reed, a nearby resident who said he represents the neighborhood’s historic-review committee, urged consistent application of guidelines across similar projects. Rey Wilson and other neighbors also raised concerns about precedent and whether the proposal would effectively nullify neighborhood rules if approved.

Board members focused on two issues: whether the proposed short retaining wall and the extent of rock cover are compatible with the historic-district regulations (staff applies a 50% vegetation threshold for front-yard gardens), and whether the applicant’s conservation claims were sufficiently documented given existing shaded conditions from mature trees. Commissioners suggested a compromise that would retain the two existing tree rings and increase planting along the front edge while limiting rock coverage.

Commissioner discussion culminated in a motion to postpone the item to allow the applicant to meet with Montavista representatives and staff and potentially return on the consent agenda if an agreement is reached. The motion passed on roll call: Davis, Flores, Riggard, Zetzer, Fullerton and Vázquez voted yes; Pollock voted no; Hernández voted yes (recorded in roll call). The board directed staff to provide guidance and encouraged the parties to pursue a midline compromise such as leaving the two retaining layers and adding more vegetation.

The board noted the certificate of appropriateness process does not replace municipal permits; any work must comply with city permitting after a favorable historic-review decision.

Next steps: the applicant may return to the board with revisions or documentation of a neighborhood agreement; staff said the next regular meeting where the case could reappear is June 20.