Compliance & Technical Advisory Board Meeting - December 19, 2025

The Compliance and Technical Advisory Board (JCAT) convened on December 19, 2025, to review historic preservation permit applications, approve the 2026 meeting calendar, and ratify the minutes from November 21. The session included public testimony regarding specific property renovations and concluded with a vote on a complex application involving fence and retaining wall installation.

Consent Calendar

• 2026 Meeting Calendar: Motion passed unanimously to approve the tentative calendar, establishing that meetings will occur on the Friday following the Historic District Review Committee (HDRC) Pre-meetings. The first hearing date noted is January 23, 2026.
• November 21, 2025 Minutes: Motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes from the previous scheduled meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Lili François (President, Revisión Colonists Association): Expressed concern and stated the applicant at 406 N. Pine St. is not complying with association guidelines regarding a concrete retaining wall. She requested that the staff ensure the applicant documents the work as stipulated to avoid future confusion. She did not explicitly state full opposition but questioned the approval status.
• Jamie Spinoza (Property Owner/Representative): Stated full support for the safety and insurability of the property over aesthetic adherence, explaining that a structural assessment forced a porch replacement to secure insurance for a brother with limited income. She expressed that if the insurance company had accepted the original porch, no changes would have been made.
• Lili François (Again, re: 1909 Bonnet St.): Expressed agreement with staff recommendations that the current porch profile and balustrade do not match the original historic character of the Dignity Hill colony and that the work must be returned to a state similar to the original.
• Alina Martinez (Property Owner, 28 Herminie Blvd): Expressed a strong desire for approval of both a concrete retaining wall and a vertical cedar picket fence, citing public safety due to increased traffic speeds (50-55 mph), erosion, and the need to protect children and pets. She argued the design maintains historical character and noted support from long-term neighbors.

Discussion Items

• 406 N. Pine St. (Case 2025-330): Discussion centered on a retained concrete wall acting as a front wall. Commissioner Spiller Fullerton expressed uncertainty regarding the original approval of the pavement and asked for clarification. Commissioner Sepúlveda expressed a position that the work is in compliance despite the six-to-seven-year gap since the last HDRC review. Staff confirmed no violation was identified regarding the current scope.
• 1909 Bonnet St. (Case 2025-336): The Board discussed the replacement of a front porch. The applicant argued the changes were necessary for insurance. Commissioner Vázquez clarified that the work is currently non-compliant because the columns and balustrades differ in profile and material from the original. Staff clarified that matching the original height and closest possible profile would be the path to compliance, noting the current work is "atypical" and removes the defining character of the Dignity Hill neighborhood.
• 223 S. 14th St. (Case 2025-331): The Board reviewed a proposal to replace four historic wood windows. The Board noted the windows are in good condition and recommended repair rather than replacement. A Commissioner expressed support for referring the applicant to outside organizations for climate/insulation assistance rather than window replacement. The Board emphasized the importance of maintaining the original material.
• 28 Herminie Blvd. (Case 2025-333): A lengthy discussion occurred regarding the applicant's request for a concrete retaining wall and a four-foot cedar fence.
  • Technical & Precedent Issues: Staff noted that while concrete walls exist in the area, a four-foot fence is not historically typical for this specific block of Park Terrace. Commissioner Sepúlveda questioned if the fence could be installed in the right-of-way. Commissioner Fullerton noted that a recent similar approval (123 Terreno Blvd) was approved due to proximity to commercial centers and train tracks, whereas the current property is in the middle of a long block with no historical fence precedent.
  • Safety vs. Aesthetics: The applicant emphasized that the fence is critical for safety against speeding traffic and that neighbors support the change. A Commissioner countered that the lack of fences on the block is a key aesthetic feature and that exceptions are typically granted only near commercial corridors or specific high-traffic interfaces.
  • Procedural Disruption: The meeting experienced a temporary loss of quorum due to the absence of Commissioner Sepúlveda, who was experiencing audio/video delays. This paused the voting process until she reconnected.

Key Outcomes

• 2026 Calendar: Approved unanimously (6-0).
• Minutes: Approved unanimously (6-0).
• 406 N. Pine St.: Approved unanimously (6-0) based on staff determination of compliance. A Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued via email within 10 days.
• 1909 Bonnet St.: Approved unanimously (6-0) to accept the staff recommendation. The Board directed the applicant to work with staff to modify the porch (columns and balustrades) to match the original profile and dimensions before re-applying. The Board expressed compassion for the insurance situation but upheld the design guidelines.
• 223 S. 14th St.: Approved unanimously (6-0) to accept the staff recommendation. Windows must be repaired rather than replaced. The Board will refer the owner to local climate and restoration resource providers.
• 28 Herminie Blvd.: Approved in accordance with staff recommendations (5-1: Fullerton supported, Vazquez supported, Davis, Bergard, Sepúlveda, Poek voted; Poek voted NO). The Board denied the request for the four-foot fence. The vote tally was 5 in favor of the staff recommendation (repair/retaining wall only) to 1 against, but the motion passed. The retaining wall was not explicitly approved in this vote, but the denial of the fence motion implies the scope was not approved as requested. Correction based on transcript context: The motion passed to accept the staff recommendation which was to deny the fence and require the applicant to work with staff. The vote was 5-0-1 (Davis, Bergard, Fullerton, Vazquez, Sepúlveda: Yes; Poek: No; Spiller Fullerton/Sepúlveda presence noted as quorum). Wait, recounting: Davis: Yes, Bergard: Yes, Fullerton: Yes, Poek: No, Vazquez: Yes, Sepúlveda: Yes. Total 5 Yes, 1 No. The motion to accept the staff recommendation (which did not approve the fence) passed. The applicant must work with staff.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned with holiday greetings.

Note: The transcript contains conflicting counts of attendance and quorum due to the technical difficulties with Commissioner Sepúlveda (Juanita). She was present via voice after a delay and the quorum was re-established before the final vote on 28 Herminie Blvd.