STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

Date: November 28, 2018

PLANNER: Christopher Wright, Associate Planner II

SUBJECT: Cultural Heritage Permit 15-028, Yap Duplex, a request to allow the construction of a new residential duplex at 236 West El Portal. The site abuts a historic structure.

BACKGROUND

In 2008, the Planning Commission approved a Cultural Heritage Permit for the construction of a duplex at 236 West El Portal (“the site”), but the approval expired because building permits were not obtained within two years (See Attachment 6 for previously approved elevations). Since then, the property was sold. The current owner and applicant, Mr. Calvin Yap, requests to develop a duplex similar to the project approved in 2008.

The project site is a vacant 5,223 square-foot lot located in the Residential Medium-Density zone and Coastal Zone overlay. The lot slopes significantly upward from the street. The neighborhood includes a mix of single and multi-family residential development with one and two stories. The site is one lot removed from the rear property line of the Las Palmas elementary school. The project site abuts a historic structure to the east at 234 West El Portal. Figure 1 on the next page is an image of the site.

The adjacent historic structure is a two-story residential building developed in approximately 1928. A detached garage was constructed in 1942 at the front of the site and reconstructed in 1993 due to fire damage. The garage has a large roof deck. The historic two-story primary building is located further to the rear of the lot, on the hill above the garage. The City 2006 historic resource survey found the building’s condition and integrity was good, and appeared to be eligible as a contributor to a potential National Register district under Criterion A for its association with the Ole Hanson/Spanish Village by the Sea period of development. It also appeared eligible at the local level as a contributor to a potential historic district. Refer to Attachment 3 for the most recent historic resource survey of the structures’ historical significance, condition, and character defining features.

Why is DRSC Review Required?

Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.12.025 requires Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) review of Cultural Heritage Permits (CHP). The project requires Planning Commission approval of a CHP because the site abuts a property on the City’s list of designated historic structures. DRSC review is required to advise applicants on how projects can best comply with policies and/or design guidelines. The DRSC’s recommendation is forwarded to the Planning Commission which is the final decision making authority for this item.

2A-1

AGENDA ITEM: 2-A

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed duplex has Spanish Colonial Revival architecture with two stories of living space and decks above a four-car tandem garage built into the slope. The duplex has 4,175 total square feet of living space with three bedrooms in each unit. The front dwelling unit, Unit A, is 1,946 square feet and Unit B at the rear is 2,229 square feet. The two dwelling units are accessed from a stairway on the east side of the building and elevators located in a vestibule at the rear of the garages. Each unit includes balconies and a roof deck. The property qualifies for a tandem parking configuration because the lot is narrower than 50 feet. Drought tolerant landscaping is proposed at the front of the lot where paving isn’t needed for building access paths and driveways. A trash enclosure is proposed on the west side of the driveway to screen trash from the street, as required by the Municipal Code. The enclosure has three-foot, six-inch stucco walls and a stained wood door and cover. Figure 2 below is a rendering of the project. A materials board will be available at the meeting.

Figure 2 – Project Rendering

Historic structureSite

Figure 1 – Existing conditions

2A-2

ANALYSIS

Development Standards

The project meets development standards and other requirements, as shown in Table 1 below. The landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City’s landscape architecture consultant and found to be in compliance with standards.

Table 1 – Development Standards

Development Standard Proposed

Complies with

standards Density: 1 unit per 1,800

square feet lot area 2 units Yes

Height (Maximum) 25’ 24’ Yes Setbacks (Minimum):

Front Garage West side yard East side yard with entrances Rear yard

15’ 18’ 5’

5’ to building/8’ to entry

5’

15’ 18’ 5’

5’ to building/8’ to entries 7’-9”’

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Lot coverage (Maximum) 55% 54% Yes Required parking (Minimum): 4 spaces with 2

covered 4 tandem covered

spaces Yes*

Front yard landscaping (Minimum):

Drought tolerant plants where

paving isn’t needed for access, Two 15-

gallon trees

Drought tolerant plantings and two 24-inch box trees

Yes

*Tandem is allowed on lots narrower than 50 feet.

Design Guidelines Consistency

The project is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. The site in not in the Architectural Overlay so the project isn’t required to have Spanish Colonial Revival (SCR) architecture, but the project should have high quality design consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. The proposed duplex has attractive SCR architecture. Traditional wood plank garage doors are proposed. The exterior finishes is consistent with traditional materials used with SCR architecture, namely, single-barrel clay-tile roofing, exposed rafter tails, smooth hand-troweled stucco, recessed windows with divided lights and mullions, wrought iron guardrails, and wood trellises. Fiberglass windows are proposed,

2A-3

which has been identified as an acceptable substitute to wood when projects are not in the Architectural Overlay.

The buildings’ scale and mass are consistent with the neighborhood. Several properties on the block have garages built into a slope and one or two stories of living space above that is stepped up to follow the topography similar to the proposed project. The site’s slope would be graded so a portion of the building mass and height is located below original grade, as shown on pages SP-2 of the plans. The massing of project would also be divided into smaller parts with recesses, building offsets, and details, including decks and building setbacks at the front on each upper level. For a more detailed analysis of the design guidelines, see Attachment 4.

General Plan Consistency

The project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies for historic preservation, architectural quality, and neighborhood compatibility. The project meets development standards, including density, height, and setbacks. The architecture is high quality with proportions, materials, and details that are consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. The front elevation has proportions that mimic the garage and roof deck at the front of the adjacent historic structure.

The mass and scale of the project are in character with the neighborhood and is compatible with the historic building. The duplex has adequate articulation with upper level set backs and decks on the front elevation, building offsets on the sides, and varied rooflines. The duplex steps up the slope of the site so a portion of the duplex is built into the hillside below original grade. This would reduce the apparent scale and mass of the proposed building and its visual impact on the historic structure. Also, the site plan provides a larger side yard setback between the buildings than what is required. On the east of the site adjacent to the historic structure, the proposed duplex is set back 8 feet from the property line where a 5-foot setback is required. This building setback would provide space between the buildings that ranges from 12 to 21 feet to reduce visual impacts on the historic structure. For a more detailed General Plan analysis, see Attachment 5.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff supports the design of the project as proposed. Following this DRSC meeting, staff recommends the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Attachments:

1. Location Map2. Photos of existing conditions3. Historic survey sheet on 234 West El Portal4. Design Guidelines analysis5. General Plan policy analysis6. Previously approved elevations (2006)Plans (Under separate cover)

2A-4

ATTACHMENT 1

City of San ClementeProject: CHP15-028Address: 236 W El Portal

E0 75 15037.5

Feet Feet

LegendHistoric Structure²

2A-5

ATTACHMENT 2

2A-6

State of California -- The Resources AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD

Primary #HRI#TrinomialNRHP Status Code 3D

Other ListingsReview Code ______________ Reviewer __________________________ Date __________

Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: 234 W EL PORTAL

P1. Other Identifier:P2. Location: a. County Orange

and (P2b and P2C or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T ; R ; 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec ; B.M.c. Address 234 W El Portal City San Clemente Zip 92672d. UTM: Zone ; mE/ mN

Not for Publication Unrestricted

e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number: 692-062-17

P3a. Description:The property contains a two-story single family residence with a rectangular plan and wood-frame construction. Designed in theSpanish Colonial Revival style, it has a low-pitch hip roof with clay tiles and exposed rafter tails. The exterior walls are clad withsmooth stucco. The primary (north) facade is dominated by a forward-projecting two-car garage. The garage is capped by a flat roofwith a stepped stucco roofline balustrade, and features a side staircase. The residence features wood-frame windows flanked bydecorative wood shutters. An upper level projecting balcony features a shed roof with a wood balustrades and porch supports. Theresidence is in good condition. Its integrity is good.

P3b. Resources Attributes:P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other

P11. Report Citation: None.

Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object RecordDistrict Record

Photograph Record Other:DPR 523A (1/95) HRG

P5b. Description of Photo:South elevation, north view. May2006.

P6. Date Constructed/Sources:

1928 (E) Tax Assessor

HistoricPrehistoric

Both

P7. Owner and Address:Smith, Douglas G. 210 N El Camino Real

P8. Recorded by:Historic Resources Group, 1728Whitley Avenue, Hollywood, CA90028

P9. Date Recorded: 9/18/2006

P10. Survey Type:City of San Clemente HistoricResources Survey Update

Sketch MapArchaeological Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art RecordArtifact Record

ATTACHMENT 3

2A-7

State of California -- The Resources AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Primary #HRI#

Page 2 of 3 NRHP Status Code 3DResource Name or #: 234 W EL PORTAL

B1. Historic Name: (Unknown)B2. Common Name: (Unknown)B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Single-family residenceB5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial RevivalB6. Construction History:

B7. Moved? Date: Original Location:No Yes UnknownB8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: (Unknown) b. Builder: (Unknown)B10. Significance: Theme Ole Hanson/Spanish Village by the Sea Area City of San Clemente Period of Significance 1925-1936 Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria A

This two-story single family residence was built in 1928. This property is a typical example of the Spanish Colonial Revivalstyle as represented in San Clemente. This property appears eligible as a contributor to a potential National Register districtunder Criterion A for its association with the Ole Hanson/Spanish Village by the Sea period of development. It also appearseligible at the local level as a contributor to a potential historic district. It is recommended for retention on the HistoricStructures List.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: 02 Single Family Property:

B12. References: Orange County Tax Assessor Records; Historic ResourcesSurvey, Leslie Heumann and Associates, 1995.

B13. Remarks: (none)

B14. Evaluator: Historic Resources Group, Hollywood, CADate of Evaluation: 9/18/2006

(This space reserved for official comments.)

DPR 523B (1/95) HRG

2A-8

Page of Resource Name or #:

Recorded by: Historic Resources Group Date:

State of California -- The Resources AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET

Primary #HRI#Trinomial

Continuation Update

DPR 523L (1/95) HRG

3 3 234 W EL PORTAL

9/18/2006

Photographs of the Subject Property, Continued:

2A-9

Analysis: Design Guidelines

Table 1 below is an analysis of the project’s consistency with the Design Guidelines. The site in not in the Architectural Overlay so the project isn’t required to have Spanish Colonial Revival (SCR) architecture, but the project should have high-quality design consistent with general design guidelines.

Table 1 – Design Guidelines Analysis

Design Guideline Project Consistency 1. Design Guidelines II.B.3, Scale, Mass,

and Form. “Design buildings to becompatible in scale, mass and formwith adjacent structures and thepattern of the neighborhood.”

Consistent. The building has setbacks between adjacent uses and the project’s scale and size are in character with existing buildings in the commercial center.

2. Design Guidelines II.C.2, BasicPrinciples of ‘Spanish ColonialRevival’ Architecture. “Building andsite design should follow basicprinciples of Spanish Colonial Revival(SCR) architecture.”

Consistent. The proposed duplex has attractive Spanish Colonial Revival architecture. Traditional wood plank garage doors are also proposed. The exterior finishes would be consistent with other traditional materials found on Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, namely, single-barrel clay-tile roofing, exposed rafter tails, smooth hand-troweled stucco, recessed fiberglass windows with divided lights and mullions, wrought iron guardrails, and wood trellises.

3. Design Guidelines II.C.3.b, BuildingForm and Massing. “Reduce theperceived height and bulk of largestructures by dividing the buildingmass into smaller scale components.”

Consistent. The buildings’ scale and mass are consistent with the neighborhood. Similar to the proposed project, several properties in the block have garages built into a slope and one or two stories of living space above that is stepped up to follow the topography. The site’s slope would be graded so a portion of the building mass and height is located below original grade. The massing of project would also be divided into smaller parts with recesses, building offsets, and details, including decks and building setbacks at the front on each upper level.

2A-10

ATTACHMENT 4

Design Guideline Project Consistency 4. Design Guidelines II.C.3.b, Building

Form and Massing. “Avoid long andunrelieved wall planes. As a generalprinciple, relieve building surfaceswith recesses that provide strongshadow and visual interest.”

Consistent. There are architectural elements and building offsets on the elevations to break up building surfaces.

5. Design Guidelines II.C.3.b, BuildingForm and Massing. “Varied roofheights are encouraged.”

Consistent. There are several roof elements with varied heights and roof orientations.

6. Design Guidelines II.C.3.c, Proportionand Scale. “Create a visual balance inthe relation between dimensions ofbuildings and their parts.”

Consistent. The proposed building has a scale, articulation, massing, and materials that are in character with SCR architecture.

7. Design Guidelines II.C.3.d. BuildingMaterials, Color, and Texture. White,off white, or earth tone cementplaster/stucco finishes areencouraged along with whitewashedbrick or adobe; windows should bewood framed or non-corrosive metalfinish; awnings are encouraged; darkand reflective glass are discouraged.

Consistent. The recommended materials are proposed.

8. Design Guidelines II.F, BuildingEquipment and Services. “Locate anddesign building equipment to minimizevisual impact on public streets andneighboring properties.”

Consistent. The trash enclosure has materials and a design in character with the duplex that would provide adequate screening from the street.

2A-11

Analysis: General Plan Policies

Below is an analysis of the project’s consistency with General Plan policies that should be considered.

Table 1 – General Plan Analysis

Policy Project Consistency

1. Historic Preservation Element PolicyHP‐2.06, New Development: “Werequire that all new single‐family andmulti‐ family residential developmentabutting historic resources, and newcommercial and multi‐familydevelopment of three or more unitswithin a 300‐foot radius from ahistoric resource be compatible withthe historic resource in terms ofscale, massing, building materialsand general architectural treatment.”

Consistent. The proposed site plan and architecture are compatible with the historic structure. The front elevation has proportions that mimic the garage and roof deck at the front of the adjacent historic structure. A portion of the duplex would be built into the hillside below original grade to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the proposed building and its visual impact on the historic structure. On the east side, where the proposed building is closest to the historic structure, the dwelling units are set back 8 feet from the property line where the zone requires a minimum setback of five feet. This building setback would provide space between the buildings that ranges from 12 to 21 feet.

2. Land Use Element Residential LandUses Goal: “Achieve a mix ofresidential neighborhoods andhousing types that meets the diverseeconomic and physical needs ofresidents, that is compatible withexisting neighborhoods and thesurrounding environmental setting,and that reflects communityexpectations for high quality.”

Consistent. The project meets development standards and has a design, mass, and scale that is in character with the neighborhood.

3. LU-1.05 Multi-Family ResidentialUses: “We require that multi-familyresidential projects be designed toconvey a high level of quality anddistinctive neighborhood character inaccordance with the Urban DesignElement and Zoning Code…”

Consistent. The project has a high quality, attractive design expected to improve the aesthetic condition of the property and neighborhood.

2A-12

ATTACHMENT 5

Policy Project Consistency

4. LU-1.06. Residential Infill: “Werequire that new residential development be compatible with adjacent structures and land uses and we require: … b) use of complementary building materials, colors, and forms, while allowing flexibility for distinguished design solutions.”

Consistent. The project meets setback standards to provide space and buffers between land uses. The project has a design and materials that are high quality. The building’s scale and massing is in character with and compatible with adjacent properties.

5. UD-5.10., Scale and Massing. “Werequire that the scale and massing ofdevelopment be compatible with itssurroundings and with the GeneralPlan, applicable specific plan and orarea plan.”

Consistent. The project’s scale and size is in character with the surrounding neighborhood, consisting of a mix of one-and-two story single-family and multi-family residential buildings with a comparable scale and massing built into the sloped lots on both sides of the street.

6. UD-5.18, Drought Tolerant/NativeSpecies Landscaping. “Ornamentalplantings in new, non‐residentialdevelopment should consist primarilyof drought tolerant and Californianative species. Only in small areasand special public locations, such ashigh‐use areas of parks, should lawnsor other high water use vegetation beused.”

Consistent. A preliminary landscape plan has been provided and reviewed by the City’s landscape architect consultant, Summers Murphy Partners. The plans are in compliance with requirements. Detailed irrigation plans are required prior to issuance of building permits.

2A-13

ATTACHMENT 6Previously approved elevations2006 Cultural Heritage Permit

2A-14

2A-15