Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee vets full rehabilitation of wreck-tagged house at 122 East Escolones
Summary
The Design Review Subcommittee reviewed Cultural Heritage Permit 26-031 for 122 East Escolones after a partial roof collapse. Staff and the applicant described a full-scale rehabilitation that replaces or repairs deteriorated materials and preserves character-defining features; the subcommittee recommended material and landscape clarifications before forwarding to the Planning Commission.
Staff opened the public hearing for Cultural Heritage Permit 26-031 at 122 East Escolones, noting the property was wreck-tagged after a partial roof collapse and that an emergency permit stabilized the structure.
"This property was wrecked tagged in March on 03/06/2025 due to a failure at the rafter and ridge board connectors, which resulted in a partial roof collapse," Staff member said while summarizing the Historic Resource Assessment Report that the applicant's consultant prepared and CRM Tech peer reviewed. The HRAR concluded that "through extensive rehabilitation involving wide scale repair or replacement in kind of most materials, the owner can restore the historic look and feel of the property while modernizing the home for contemporary needs." (staff presentation)
Applicants and consultants told the subcommittee they plan a full interior remodel, repair or replace exterior materials in kind where beyond repair, and document removed features to minimize loss of historic fabric. The design team plans to preserve character-defining features such as the wide projecting porch, tapered wood posts, low-pitch gable with clay tiles, exposed rafter tails and stucco chimney where feasible, but said many elements must be replaced because of deterioration. "When you looked under the hood ... we got a permit specifically authorized to remove the roof because it was actively failing," the preservation consultant said.
Committee members pressed the project team on Mills Act eligibility, landscape maintenance, and how the proposed addition relates to rehabilitation standards. Staff clarified the addition (ADU/JADU) is reviewed administratively per state law and is not considered in the cultural heritage determination; the addition is inset six inches from the original structure to distinguish old from new. The subcommittee requested the team specify a smooth hand-troweled stucco finish, clarify starter-course details for the replacement roof tiles, avoid recessed window treatments not original to the front elevation, remove the front porch gutter, and refine the landscape plan prior to Planning Commission review.
The subcommittee did not take a final binding action; staff will forward a recommendation and the revised materials to the Planning Commission for final consideration.
