Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds historic‑preservation checks, modifies conditions for 1627 Pine Street
Summary
After an appeal by the property owner, Eureka City Council modified the Historic Preservation Commission's conditions requiring replacement of nonhistoric siding and restoration of infilled windows at 1627 Pine Street, directing final plans back to the HPC and ordering two lower windows reestablished; the motion passed with the mayor's tie‑breaking vote.
Eureka City Council on Aug. 4 modified the Historic Preservation Commission's conditional approval for after‑the‑fact alterations at 1627 Pine Street, requiring the owner to return a siding plan that matches the historic siding profile and to reestablish two lower back‑floor windows while retaining other HPC conditions.
Senior Planner Chris Lohefner told the council the property, listed on the local register and dating to about 1900, underwent unpermitted work beginning in January 2025 and later required an after‑the‑fact review. He said the commission had approved the project with conditions that include removing non‑historic Hardie lap siding and restoring the number and location of historic openings. "The owner made unpermitted alterations to the historic home and was subsequently required to apply for an after the fact permit for Historic Preservation Commission review," Lohefner said during his presentation.
Owner William Starter told the council he purchased the house at foreclosure, described the structure as dilapidated, and said emergency repairs — and the cost of a new roof — drove his decisions. "We got a roofing company out there, and it was $40,000 just for the roof," Starter said, adding he had tried to match the house's horizontal siding and that the work improved a formerly condemned property.
Historic Preservation Commissioner and contractor Sean Herlihy urged careful matching of profiles and materials, explaining why the commission recommended wood or a profile‑matched substitute to preserve the streetscape. Commissioners and staff noted about 600 square feet of Hardie siding was installed while the initial like‑for‑like permit was for roughly 200 square feet.
Council members debated tradeoffs between preserving historic fabric and enabling rehabilitation that creates housing. The council adopted a motion to modify conditions C and D — keeping conditions A, B and E — that requires the applicant to: submit a modification application and plans to the Historic Preservation Commission showing siding that matches the historic profile (or an approved matching Hardie profile), pay applicable fees, and restore two lower back‑floor windows at locations to be approved by the HPC. The motion included council findings that the modifications comport with the Secretary of the Interior standards and invoked a Class 31 CEQA categorical exemption; staff will draft findings to support the action.
The motion carried after a recorded roll call with Council member Castellano recused and Council member Moulton absent; the motion passed 3‑yes (motion carries). The council directed staff and the applicant to package required building‑code corrections and the preservation modifications in one package so the project does not return repeatedly for piecemeal changes.
