City board modifies staff recommendations based on applicant’s arguments.

A 1952 La Jolla home has been designated a historical resource – with caveats – despite city of San Diego staff recommendation against the action.

The property located at 7960 La Jota Way qualifies for historic designation as a notable work of master architects Robert Mosher and William Drew, the San Diego Historical Resources Board determined July 25.

The designation excludes a 1998 addition and garage work, however.

A historical research report prepared at the behest of the homeowners, who contend the one-story, ranch-style single-family residential building with a detached garage is significant under Criteria C for its details as well as D, met with city staff disagreement, city planner Alvin Lin said.

The La Jota property is “not eligible for designation under any HRB criteria,” Lin said.

Since the original construction of the U-shaped floor plan with low-pitched roofs and an interior facing courtyard with a covered patio and glass doors, “the building has undergone several modifications,” Lin said.

The modifications include a 1998 construction project that modified the original entry and the original service entry, and also included a two story addition, a garage extension and a kitchen addition. 

“Several other alterations are evident,” he said, including modifications to the north elevation windows as well as the interior courtyard awning windows. 

“The cumulative impact of the alterations [is] the property does not retain [enough qualifying] materials, design, feeling and workmanship,” Lin said.

Speaking for the applicant, Scott Moomjian and Ione Stiegler of IS Architecture took umbrage with Lin’s remarks.

The homeowners, Daniel and Carrie Aisen, have “done everything that has been asked of them by the city of San Diego,” Moomjian said, “spending extreme resources, time, energy [and] money in restoring the home, which merits designation.”

When the Aisens bought the property, it was in a “shocking degree of deterioration, as you can see in these photos,” Stiegler said.

Meticulous efforts were taken, she said, to meet Secretary of the Interior’s standards regarding replacement due to deterioration on historic properties.

“Candidly, I’m surprised that the staff report questioned” items like the paint choices and “whether our installation of the shingles was historically accurate,” Stiegler said, noting her team “fully researched the home’s shingles for size, spacing, finish, exposure and installation methods.”

Furthermore, in contrast to her typical support of staff and city preservation standards, Stiegler took issue with the city’s approval process, stating written consultation with city staff about the extant second floor addition and the proposed rehabilitation “never indicated [city staff] would not support the designation.”

“Rehabilitation is the process by which a home or building can be made usable for a current modern use, and additions are fully allowed,” Stiegler added. 

The submitted documentation “was not a full report,” responded city staff member Suzanne Segur, “so we did not understand the full amount of modifications to the property.”

City staff were asked “to assist this property owner with moving towards designation and to rehabilitate the property without harming their chances for designation,” Segur added, which included working with the applicant ”to minimize the appearance of that second story addition.”

After reviewing the full historical resources research report, “we don’t believe that it rises to the level of significance to be individually eligible for designation,” she said.

Moomjian nonetheless asked that the HRB move to designate the house historic under Criterion C, as the home has “all of these character defining features” of a custom ranch home as defined by San Diego standards, such as including custom details, being L- or U-shaped around a courtyard, containing wood siding, historical colors and more in a single-story building.

“​​We did everything appropriately by the book approved by the city in pursuit of historic designation,” he said. 

It’s also a representative example of Mosher and Drew’s work, Moomjian said, which would qualify the home for designation under Criterion D, as the home illustrates numerous techniques employed by Mosher and Drew, reflecting the architects’ early work at the start of their collaboration and it retains integrity related to its 1952 period of significance.

The purpose of “rehabilitation is to keep a property in service,” said La Jolla resident and historical expert Diane Kane during public comment. “There are going to be changes made because [structures] deteriorate over time [and] have different owners that have different requirements.”

“The owners are to be commended” for their restoration efforts, Kane said. 

Adding further opposition to staff’s recommendations, Bruce Coons, executive director of the Save Our Heritage Organisation, said “this property is eminently qualified for the local register; it meets all the criteria.”

The Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation “anticipate changes to the structure” to keep a property “viable in the present economic market,” Coons said.

“It’s a beautiful house, and I commend you for all of the restoration work,” HRB member Ann Woods said, however noting the drawings supplied did not match what she saw, leading her to support city staff recommendation. “There are substantial integrity issues.”

The HRB discussed perhaps designating the house as historic under Criteria C and D and excluding the additions.

Ultimately, a motion to designate the house under D, excluding the 1998 second-story addition and the garage expansion, passed unanimously. 

A second motion to designate the house under C with the same exclusions did not pass, as it fell short of the unanimous six votes needed for such an amendment.