Historic-resources review and concept design for Cliff Drive subdivision continued after commissioners request design revisions

The Historic Landmarks Commission on Oct. 22 continued review of a proposed four‑lot subdivision and Phase 2 Historic Structures Report for 1250 Cliff Drive, asking the applicant to revise the concept plans so that new houses and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are more clearly subordinate to the site’s Craftsman house and to study paving, materials and landscaping.

The commission’s continuation covers both the project concept and the Phase 2 historic‑structures report; commissioners instructed the applicant to return with revised drawings and recommended refinements on color, massing, plan footprint and driveway treatment. Commissioner motions to continue the project and the report were put to roll call and passed unanimously.

Why it matters: the site contains a large, resource‑eligible Craftsman house and a historic motor court with sandstone curbing and palm‑tree colonnade. The commission’s review affects the treatment of those character‑defining features and the approach planning staff will forward to the Planning Commission for the related land‑use entitlements.

Most important facts: the owner proposes a four‑lot subdivision that keeps the existing Craftsman house and converted barn on separate lots and would add two new primary residences (each with an ADU), retain most of the property’s 48 trees, and reconstruct sandstone gate piers. Planner Sarah Bronstedt told the commission the property was first inventoried after earlier renovations; Tim Hazeltine, the project historian, concluded the main house, driveway and motor court are historic resources and supported the project’s ability to retain historic integrity if new construction is carefully sited.

Commissioners focused on three design areas: (1) architectural character and footprint — several commissioners said the new buildings read as later‑era tract houses and urged simpler plans and Craftsman‑compatible details so they remain visually subordinate to the primary historic house; (2) color and materials — commissioners recommended muted, recessive palettes (grays or earth tones rather than matching the house’s red) so new buildings do not compete with the historic resource; and (3) driveway and gate treatment — the commission asked the team to study keeping consistent paving on both driveways (to avoid widening the historic driveway) and options for placing the reconstructed sandstone piers so the historic drive remains legible.

Public comment during the item included neighbors’ questions about potential view impacts and requests that the design be sensitive to adjacent homes. One neighbor asked whether the new two‑story houses would block ocean views; planning staff reminded the public that private view protections are not within the HLC’s purview.

Formal actions: the commission voted to continue the project concept and to continue the Phase 2 Historic Structures Report to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans that respond to the commission’s comments. The continuance was made with unanimous roll‑call votes.

What’s next: staff and the applicant will prepare revised drawings and an updated report. Planning Commission consideration of the related land‑use application is scheduled for Nov. 13; staff told the HLC that the project is being reviewed under the State’s Housing Crisis Act (objective‑standards review), and any inconsistencies with subjective design standards cannot be used to deny the housing project under that law. The HLC will see the revised materials before it returns to the Planning Commission process.