San Clemente panel reviews preservation-linked addition at WOC residence (Project 24-485)

The Design Review Subcommittee of the City of San Clemente reviewed Project 24-485 — a proposed 55-square-foot powder-room addition and related preservation work at a historically designated residence — and asked the applicant to submit a revised plan set that incorporates several items from an existing historic preservation/property tax agreement before the matter advances to the Zoning Administrator.

City staff presented the application and a comparative set of earlier and revised plans, noting the existing house footprint listed in the staff report as about 2,156 square feet and that the powder-room addition is roughly 55 square feet. Zach Ream, the staff presenter, said the package now includes a number of items from a 10-year historic preservation agreement (HPPA) the city executed with the property in 2022 and recommended conditioning approval so the work addresses HPPA items through at least 2025.

Why this matters: the proposal pairs a small, functional interior addition with several exterior and site improvements that the HPPA requires over multiple years, including drainage upgrades, tile and retaining-wall repairs, termite remediation, and a comprehensive landscape plan. Committee members emphasized that the subcommittee’s review must balance proposed new work with preservation goals and the Secretary of the Interior standard that changes to historic fabric be reversible.

In the presentation staff summarized HPPA commitments: a structural analysis (recently completed), termite inspection and patching, drainage and gutter improvements, replacement or repair options for a cracked front historic retaining wall (the consultant recommended addressing it by 2024), repair/replacement of courtyard tile, and ongoing stucco and wrought-iron maintenance. Ream told the subcommittee the applicant had agreed to design the new bathroom and new windows so they could be reversed in the future and to avoid exact replication of historic materials: “The Secretary of the Interior, Standard 9, says that any improvements should be reversible,” Ream said.

The applicant, who identified himself as a resident of the property and requested the bathroom to add a downstairs shower, described practical reasons for the design choices and emphasized drainage work around the entire perimeter. “It’s not flooding at our house right now, but where the one drain is, it goes down through the garage… we’re trying to create drainage around the whole perimeter that goes out to the curb cut,” the resident said. He also described preserving original features where possible and noted that he already completed some items from the HPPA (for example, sealing small voids and treating pest issues) and intends to include the remaining items in the revised plan set.

Committee discussion focused on design details and reversibility. Members and staff recommended a simpler single bay projection for the powder-room bump-out (rather than two separate projections), window designs that read as compatible but not exact copies of historic fenestration, and waterproofing/attachment details that would allow the addition to be removed without damaging historic framing. The applicant and staff discussed an expansion joint at the attachment to facilitate future removal and minimize permanent alteration of original framing or stucco.

Landscape and HPPA compliance were also discussed. Staff explained the HPPA requires a comprehensive landscape plan to be submitted to the city (the plan is typically reviewed by the city landscape architect) and that some HPPA items had target completion years from 2022 through 2026; the applicant intends to fold many of those commitments into the current revision and submit one more revised plan set before the ZA hearing. Ream said staff expects “one more revised set of plans before we go to the Zoning Administrator” to document the items the subcommittee wants addressed.

There was no formal subcommittee vote recorded on the project during the meeting; instead members signaled support to “move it along” and requested technical and design clarifications to be included in the revised submittal. Staff indicated the next available ZA hearing is in about three and a half weeks and encouraged the applicant to provide any additional changes or clarifications prior to that hearing.

Looking ahead: staff will prepare a final set of comments and the applicant will submit a revised plan set that calls out which HPPA items are completed, which will be implemented now, and which will remain scheduled for later years in the agreement. The ZA will receive the project with the subcommittee’s recommendations; the subcommittee said it will revisit compliance with HPPA requirements during future monitoring of the site if necessary.