San Marino City Council
October 9, 2024

Mills Act Application, Supplemental Narrative
C.G. Fitzgerald Residence
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino, California
Prepared for:

City of San Marino
Community Development Department
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California 91108
Prepared by:

Cecelia and Michael Grace
Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP
July 2024
Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino, California
Table of Contents

Section Page

1 Project Background........................................................................................................... 1 2 Overview of Mills Act Work Plan....................................................................................... 2 3 Description of Work Plan and Treatment Approaches ..................................................... 3 4 Mills Act Tax Adjustment Worksheet .............................................................................. 10

Appendix A: Photographic Overview of Existing Conditions Appendix B: Excerpts from Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, 2017, with specific treatment recommendations for Masonry; Wood; Wrought Iron; Roofs; Windows; and Building Site
Appendix C: Resolution No. R-17-26 (A Resolution of San Marino City Council Designating 708 Winston Avenue as a Local Historical Landmark)
Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 1

1. Project Background
This Mills Act Historic Property Contract application is for the C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, a single-family home at 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino (APN 5331-008-020), located at the corner of Winston Avenue and Lombardy Road in northeast San Marino.

Designed by master architect Roland E. Coate, Sr., in 1929, 708 Winston Avenue was designated in 2017 as a City of San Marino historic landmark (Resolution No. R-17-26). Known as the C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, the home was found to be a
distinctive example of the Monterey Colonial
Revival architectural style. The designation
occurred before the City of San Marino adopted
a broader Historic Preservation Ordinance in
2018 (codified in Municipal Code Chapter 23.18).

The new ordinance establishes criteria for local
historic landmark designation that mirror the
criteria of the National Register of Historic Places
and California Register of Historical Resources.

In 2020, the City of San Marino commissioned a citywide historic context statement and historical resources survey, utilizing the new criteria of significance. 1 As a result of the context and survey, the
findings regarding the architectural style of the C.G. Fitzgerald Residence were correctly updated to note its embodiment of the Traditional Ranch style (Hacienda Ranch subtype). (Although the two styles— Monterey Colonial Revival and Ranch—share stylistic influences and origins, the Ranch category captures the sprawling, one-story plan, the high degree of indoor-outdoor integration, and the focus on rusticity of the C.G. Fitzgerald Residence.) The residence was also found to be a contributing feature to the Huntington Hill Residential Historic District.

With the C.G. Fitzgerald Residence nearing 100 years of age, a number of critical preservation, rehabilitation, and repair projects are needed for the property. The Mills Act property tax abatement would help the owners complete these projects and ensure the long-term preservation of this important property.

As the owners of a unique designated landmark in San Marino, the owners understand the importance of ensuring that all repair, maintenance and rehabilitation projects follow the City guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, in order to avoid adverse impacts to the property and to maintain its historic integrity (and therefore, its status as a landmark).

This Mills Act application includes the following sections: (1) Project Background; (2) Overview of Mills Act Work Plan and Schedule; (3) Description of Work Plan and Treatment Approaches; and (4) Financial Analysis. Following the application, Appendix A provides a photographic overview of the property and its existing conditions; Appendix B provides the original resolution designating the property as a historic landmark. This application was prepared for the owners by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP, a South Pasadenabased historic preservation specialist with over 18 years of experience and a specialized practice in Mills Act applications.
1 City of San Marino, Community Development Department. 2020. “City of San Marino Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.” Prepared by Architectural Resources Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA.

Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 2

2. Overview of Mills Act Work Plan
Prior to commencement of work efforts, Certificates of Appropriateness (CoA) will be obtained by the property owners as required by the City of San Marino Historic Preservation Ordinance, pursuant to Article 18 of the City of San Marino zoning code (“Historic Preservation Ordinance”), Section 23.18.08.

Progress reports will include detailed work descriptions, photographs of work completed, and copies of permits and CoAs/Planning Commission and City staff guidance and input.

The property owners of 708 Winston Avenue will provide annual written updates to the City of San Marino in the final quarter of the year, documenting progress and providing updates and photographs on the Mills Act work plan.

The following provides an overview and schedule for the Mills Act workplan. Details and descriptions of each project component follow in Section 3.

Project Component Completion Year

1. Structural and systems upgrades (pinning foundation, overhaul of 2024-2025 plumbing and electrical systems, new insulation and sealing attic)

2. Repairs and re-pointing brick chimney stack 2024-2025

3. Roof repairs (including new gutters and re-sheathing roof in compatible 2025 fire-resistant shake shingles)

4. Window rehabilitation (repaint, weather stripping and sash repairs where needed) 2026

5. Exterior wood features, spot repairs, refinishing/painting as needed 2026 (including exposed rafter tails, doors, frames)

6. Exterior brick (including sheathing, garden walls, and courtyard post supports) 2027 spot repairs, patching, repointing, and in-kind refinishing

7. Brick floors, entry patio and interior courtyard, spot repairs, buffing, 2028 and refinishing of tile floors

8. Mortarless brick pavers/hardscaping, front and perimeter walkways 2028 repairs/replacement and reinstallation

9. Maintenance: Termite inspections/mitigation Annual inspection

10. Maintenance: Roof inspections and repairs as needed Biannual inspection

11. Maintenance: Exterior brick and wood, repairs as needed Biannual inspection Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 3

3. Description of Work Plan and Schedule
Work efforts described in these plans will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Proposed Project & Description Est. Cost Year

1. Structural and systems upgrades $251,000 2024-2025
This work item includes a range of necessary systems and structural upgrades. In terms of structural improvements and systems upgrades (which will include a complete replacement of the plumbing and electrical systems), all work will be completed according to industry standards and applicable building codes. A qualified contractor will reinforce elements of the foundation in need of stabilization and reinforcement. Project design and implementation for all systems upgrades will not affect characterdefining features and would avoid direct or indirect impacts to character-defining features. Project also includes new insulation and sealing attic.

2. Fireplace Chimney: re-point and flash brick chimney stack $10,000 2024 The brick chimney, located atop the side gable, needs repointing/flashing. The priority will be retaining as much original brick as possible. Should any character-defining brick need replacement, it will be replaced in-kind to match existing in materials, profile/size, color, finishes, and other aspects of appearance. Mortar color, texture, and materials will be selected for compatibility in appearance and performance.

Secretary’s Standards treatment approach for changes to roof include: identify, retain, and preserve “the functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the roof's shape, such as hipped, gambrel, and mansard; decorative features such as cupolas…chimneys, and weathervanes; and roofing material such as slate, wood, clay tile, and metal, as well as its size, color, and patterning.” See Appendix B, 2017 Standards for Rehabilitation, Masonry, pages 6 to 11, for additional guidance.

Overview of brick chimney stack, rear elevation
Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 4
Section 3 Description of Work Plan and Priorities (continued) Proposed Project & Description Est. Cost Year

3. Roof system repairs; re-sheathing with wood-shake shingles; $217,000 2025 installation of new copper rain gutters at edge of eaves The prominent, low-pitched roof of the C.G. Fitzgerald Residence is one of the property’s most important character-defining features. Part of this work effort will include removal of roof shingles and replacement with fire-resistant wood-shake shingles, to retain this important character-defining feature.

Repairs will include evaluating roof system and making repairs and structural reinforcement where needed. Work will be planned to avoid any character-defining features. Gutters will replaced and installed using the least invasive means possible. Should any character-defining features require replacement, those features will be replaced in-kind to match existing in appearance, materials, profile/size, and finishes.

Secretary’s Standards treatment approaches for changes to roofs include: identify, retain, and preserve “the functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the roof's shape, such as hipped, gambrel, and mansard; decorative features such as cupolas…chimneys, and weathervanes; and roofing material such as slate, wood, clay tile, and metal, as well as its size, color, and patterning.” See Appendix B, 2017 Standards for Rehabilitation, Roofs, pages 21 to 24, for additional guidance.

Overview of prominent, low-pitched roof with wood-shake shingles Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 5
Section 3 Description of Work Plan and Priorities (continued) Proposed Project & Description Est. Cost Year

4. Window repairs/rehabilitation $ 55,000 2026
Rehabilitation of historic windows and French doors to include repair of inoperable windows; reweather stripping where needed; window frames, surrounds, and sills prepped and repainted where needed. Original decorative iron grilles will be cleaned and reinstalled using the existing wall perforations for re-installation. Wood shutters will be repaired/repainted where necessary and reinstalled, utilizing existing wall perforations for re-installation.

Treatment approach will include the gentlest methods possible, for iron grilles, shutters, window removal, glazing repairs, and repainting—contractors will not use power-washing or machine sanding for character-defining features. Gentlest means possible, including hand-sanding, will be used in prepping for any exterior repainting. See Appendix B, 2017 Standards for Rehabilitation, Windows, pages 25 to 29, for additional guidance.

Overview of wood-frame windows and French doors, with decorative shutters and iron grilles Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 6
Section 3 Description of Work Plan and Priorities (continued) Proposed Project & Description Est. Cost Year

5. Exterior wood features, spot repairs, refinishing/painting $75,000 2026 (including exposed rafter tails, doors, frames)
Exterior wood features include exposed rafter tails, wood doors, and entrance porch features including support posts, wood-plank ceiling, and framing members. Some wood features require repairs, limited carpentry work, and/or in-kind replacement and refinishing. Repairs to rafter tail ends with signs of deterioration to include but not be limited to use of compatible epoxy consolidants and/or patching. Where needed, any repairs to wood features will retain original materials to the maximum extent practicable. Should repairs be infeasible due to deterioration, replacement will be in-kind to match existing in materials, appearance/patterning, finishes/texture, and size/profile. Finishes will match existing or reflect a period-appropriate palette.

Character-defining materials that are not presently painted or were not originally painted will not be painted but rather finished in accordance with the present finish. Treatment approach will avoid abrasive cleaning methods and use the gentlest methods possible—contractors will not use power-washing or machine sanding for character-defining wood features. See Appendix B, 2017 Standards for Rehabilitation, Wood, pages 12 to 16, for additional guidance.

Overview of exterior wood features and elements, including porch ceiling and post supports, roof rafter tails and overhanging eaves, and doors
Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 7
Section 3 Description of Work Plan and Priorities (continued) Proposed Project & Description Est. Cost Year

6. Exterior brick (including sheathing, garden walls, and courtyard $75,000 2027 post supports) spot repairs, patching, repointing, and in-kind refinishing Exterior brick features (including walls and courtyard post supports) require spot repairs, cleaning, repointing, and in-kind refinishing. Previous incompatible patches will be removed and repatched with compatible materials to match historic mortar as closely as possible in appearance (color and texture) and performance. Brick garden walls with detachment/failing joints will be stabilized and repaired.

The priority will be retaining as much original brick as possible. Should brick need replacement, it will be in-kind to match existing in materials, profile/size, color, texture, and finishes. Mortar color, texture, and materials will be selected for compatibility in appearance and performance. Areas with “rising damp” (i.e., the suction of groundwater into the base of masonry walls), as seen along the south elevation foundation, and the growth of organic matter/mold will be addressed and any water intrusion issues mitigated to prevent or lessen mold growth.

Treatment approach will avoid abrasive cleaning methods (such as pressure washing) and use the gentlest methods possible. Cleaning will utilize a mild detergent and natural or synthetic brush (avoiding use of a steel brush, which can leave metal residue on the brick and can cause rust and staining). Project may include developing and implementing a plan for the removal of the ivy covering the north elevation brick walls encircling motor court. See Appendix B, 2017 Standards for Rehabilitation, Masonry, pages 6 to 11, for additional guidance.

Overview of exterior brick features, including central courtyard porch supports, brick wall enclosing garden and motor court (including portion on north elevation covered in ivy), and exterior walls Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 8
Section 3 Description of Work Plan and Priorities (continued) Proposed Project & Description Est. Cost Year

7. Brick floors, entry patio and interior courtyard, spot repairs, $35,000 2028 cleaning and buffing of brick floors
Repair/replace as needed damaged, cracked, or missing brick pavers at entrance patio and interior courtyard patio. New elements to match existing in size, shape, material, color, and texture. New mortar should match existing in color, texture, strength, and width/profile of the joints and in performance.

Treatment approach will avoid abrasive cleaning or refinishing methods (such as pressure washing) and use the gentlest methods possible. Cleaning will utilize water or a mild detergent and natural/soft brush (avoid use of steel brush, which can leave metal residue on the brick and cause rust and staining).

Where brick presently does not have a sealant or finish, no sealants or finishes should be added. See Appendix B, 2017 Standards for Rehabilitation, Masonry, pages 6 to 11, for additional guidance.

Overview of brick floors, entrance patio and interior courtyard

Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 9
Section 3 Description of Work Plan and Priorities (continued) Proposed Project & Description Est. Cost Year

8. Mortarless brick pavers/hardscaping, front and perimeter walkways $15,000 2028 repairs/replacement and reinstallation
Repair/replace as needed damaged, eroding, or missing brick pavers along the front and perimeter walkways. New elements to match existing in size, shape, material, color, and texture.

Treatment approach will avoid abrasive cleaning methods (such as pressure washing) and use the gentlest methods possible. Cleaning will utilize a mild detergent and natural or synthetic brush (avoiding use of a steel brush, which can leave metal residue on the brick and can cause rust and staining).

Where brick presently does not have a sealant or finish, no sealants or finishes should be added. See Appendix B, 2017 Standards for Rehabilitation, Masonry, pages 6 to 11, and Building Site, pages 30 to 34, for additional guidance.

Overview of brick hardscaping/pavers, front and perimeter walkways

Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 10

4. Mills Act Tax Adjustment Worksheet
The following section provides a summary of the tax adjustment calculation for 708 Winston Avenue; a detailed breakdown of all calculations follows in Table 1 below. Baseline assumptions include monthly rent for this 5,100-square-foot property of $10,000 (which is comparable with current rental rates as of April 2024 in the City of San Marino).

Proposed Component Est. Cost Schedule

1. Structural and systems upgrades (pinning foundation, overhaul of $ 251,000 2024-2025 plumbing and electrical systems, new insulation and sealing attic)

2. Repairs and re-pointing brick chimney stack $ 10,000 2024-2025

3. Roof repairs (including new gutters and re-sheathing roof in compatible $ 217,000 2025 fire-resistant shake shingles)

4. Window rehabilitation (repaint, weather stripping $ 55,000 2026 and sash repairs where needed)

5. Exterior wood features, spot repairs, refinishing/painting as needed $ 75,000 2026 (including exposed rafter tails, doors, frames)

6. Exterior brick (including sheathing, garden walls, and courtyard $ 75,000 2027 post supports) spot repairs, patching, repointing, and in-kind refinishing

7. Brick floors, entry patio and interior courtyard, spot repairs, buffing, $ 35,000 2028 and refinishing of tile floors

8. Mortarless brick pavers/hardscaping, front and perimeter walkways $ 15,000 2028 repairs/replacement and reinstallation
Owner’s Total Investment in 708 Winston Avenue: $ 733,000 Total Tax Savings for Owners (10-year period) $ 467,236 Average Annual Cost to the City of San Marino: $ 12,086 Mills Act Application, C.G. Fitzgerald Residence, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino July 2024 Prepared by Debi Howell-Ardila, MHP Page 11
Table 1. Mills Act Tax Adjustment Worksheet, 708 Winston Avenue Mills Act Application, 708 Winston Avenue, Financial Analysis Property Address:

Type:

Landmark #:

REVENUES Annual
Increase
Current Yr
2024
Year 1 2025 Year 2
2026
Year 3
2027
Year 4
2028
Year 5
2029
Year 6
2030
Year 7
2031
Year 8 2032 Year 9
2033
Year 10
2034

1. Monthly Revenues 10,000.00 10,300.00 10,609.00 10,927.27 11,255.09 11,592.74 11,940.52 12,298.74 12,667.70 13,047.73 13,439.16

2. Annual Rental Income 3.0% 120,000.00 123,600.00 127,308.00 131,127.24 135,061.06 139,112.89 143,286.28 147,584.86 152,012.41 156,572.78 161,269.97

ANNUAL EXPENSES

3. Insurance 5.0% 7,500.00 7,875.00 8,268.75 8,682.19 9,116.30 9,572.11 10,050.72 10,553.25 11,080.92 11,634.96 12,216.71

4. Utilities 6.0% 5,000.00 5,300.00 5,618.00 5,955.08 6,312.38 6,691.13 7,092.60 7,518.15 7,969.24 8,447.39 8,954.24 Total Costs

5. Maintenance 5.0% 55,500.00 58,275.00 61,188.75 64,248.19 67,460.60 70,833.63 74,375.31 78,094.07 81,998.78 86,098.72 90,403.65 $732,976.69 6/7. Management / Other 0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES

8. Sum lines 3 through 7 $68,000.00 $71,450.00 $75,075.50 $78,885.46 $82,889.28 $87,096.87 $91,518.62 $96,165.48 $101,048.93 $106,181.07 $111,574.60

ANNUAL NET INCOME

9. Line 2 minus line 8 $52,000.00 $52,150.00 $52,232.50 $52,241.79 $52,171.78 $52,016.02 $51,767.65 $51,419.39 $50,963.48 $50,391.71 $49,695.37

CAPITALIZATION RATE

10. Interest Component 5.75%

11. Historic Property Risk
Component 4.00%

12. Property Tax Component 1.016%

13. Amortization Component
(Improvement/Land Value x .03) 0.75%

14. Total Capitalization Rate 11.52%

NEW ASSESSED VALUE

15. Mills Act Assessment
(Line 9 divided by Line 14) $451,545.68 $461,931.23 $472,555.64 $483,424.42 $494,543.19 $505,917.68 $517,553.79 $529,457.52 $541,635.05 $554,092.65 $566,836.78 TAXES: AMOUNT TO BE PAID

16. Tax under Mills Act
(Line 15 x .01035146) 4,674.16 4,781.66 4,891.64 5,004.15 5,119.24 5,236.99 5,357.44 5,480.66 5,606.71 5,735.67 5,867.59

17. Current Tax 1.160% 48,807.00 49,373.16 49,945.89 50,525.26 51,111.36 51,704.25 52,304.02 52,910.74 53,524.51 54,145.39 54,773.48 Total Tax Savings

18. Tax Savings
(Line 17 minus line 16) 44,132.84 44,591.50 45,054.25 45,521.11 45,992.11 46,467.26 46,946.58 47,430.08 47,917.79 48,409.72 48,905.89 $467,236.30 TAXES: COST TO CITY Annual Average

19. Annual Cost to City 26% $11,474.54 $11,593.79 $11,714.10 $11,835.49 $11,957.95 $12,081.49 $12,206.11 $12,331.82 $12,458.63 $12,586.53 $12,715.53 $12,086.91 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino, California Assessor's ID #: 5331-008-020 Single-family Residence Current Assessed Value: $ 4,785,000 Designated in 2017 as a City of San Marino historic landmark (Resolution No. R-17-26)

Appendix A
Photographic Overview, 708 Winston Avenue
Figure 1 Overview of 708 Winston Avenue, at the corner of Winston (toward the left of the photo) and Lombardy Road (at the top), aerial perspective Figure 2 Northeast perspective; image shows rear elevation, interior courtyard, motor court, and character-defining brick wall fronting property at the sidewalk Figure 3 Overview of 708 Winston Avenue, northwest perspective; image shows low-pitched front-gabled and hipped roof, deep setback from street, interior courtyard, motor court, and character-defining brick wall fronting property on the north Figure 4 Overview of façade, west elevation, with one-story mass, prominent, wood-shake roof with low-pitched side-gable and hipped form, deep setback from sidewalk, and parklike setting, west perspective Figure 5 Overview, northwest corner of property with deep setback and park-like setting, northwest perspective
Figure 6 North elevation and entrance to motor court, north perspective Figure 7 Overview of interior courtyard, east perspective Figure 8 Overview of interior courtyard, west perspective; this area was originally landscape (pool and extant hardscaping are later additions)
Figure 9 Overview of east elevation of house and backyard, east perspective Figure 10 Detail of façade and brick walkway from sidewalk, west perspective Figure 11 Detail of façade, window design and configuration, west perspective Figure 12 Detail of façade, north perspective
Figure 13 Detail of façade windows, west perspective
Figure 14 Detail of chimney, façade, south perspective
Figure 15 Detail of entry porch, west elevation, north perspective Figure 16 Detail of entrance patio, west elevation, south perspective Figure 17 Southwest corner of house, west perspective
Figure 18 South elevation (limited visibility due to proximity of landscaping), west perspective Figure 19 South elevation (limited visibility due to proximity of landscaping), east perspective Figure 20 South elevation (limited visibility due to proximity of landscaping), southeast perspective
Figure 21 Detail of roof eaves and rounded rafter tails Figure 22 North elevation from public right-of-way, northeast perspective Figure 23 North elevation, servant’s quarters patio, from inside brick garden walls that encircle property on north elevation
Figure 24 Detail of north elevation windows, west perspective Figure 25 North elevation, entrance to servant’s quarters, north perspective, from inside brick garden walls that encircle property on north elevation
Figure 26 North elevation, entrance to servant’s quarters bathroom, east perspective, from inside brick garden walls that encircle property on north elevation Figure 27 East elevation, converted garage and motorcourt, east perspective Figure 28 Interior courtyard and south elevation of converted garage, south perspective Figure 29 Detail of sunroom and interior courtyard, south perspective Figure 30 Detail of interior courtyard windows with iron grilles, northwest perspective Figure 31 Detail of interior courtyard French doors, leading to Master Suite, north perspective Figure 32 Detail, windows on east elevation facing backyard, east perspective Appendix B
Excerpts from Secretary of the Interior’s Standards,
2017, with specific treatment recommendations for
Masonry; Wood; Wrought Iron; Roofs; Windows;
and Building Site

REHABILITATION REHABILITATION

STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION & GUIDELINES

FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS
Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
75 REHABILITATION
76 Standards for Rehabilitation

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

REHABILITATION

GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS

INTRODUCTION
In Rehabilitation, historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the treatment Preservation. However, greater latitude is given in the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either the same material or compatible substitute materials. Of the four treatments, only Rehabilitation allows alterations and the construction of a new addition, if necessary for a continuing or new use for the historic building.

Identify, Retain, and Preserve Historic
Materials and Features
The guidance for the treatment Rehabilitation begins with recommendations to identify the form and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are important in defining the building’s historic character and which must be retained to preserve that character. Therefore, guidance on identifying, retaining, and preserving character-defining features is always given first.

Protect and Maintain Historic Materials and
Features
After identifying those materials and features that are important and must be retained in the process of Rehabilitation work, then protecting and maintaining them are addressed. Protection generally involves the least degree of intervention and is preparatory to other work. Protection includes the maintenance of historic materials and features as well as ensuring that the property is protected before and during rehabilitation work. A historic building undergoing rehabilitation will often require more extensive work. Thus, an overall evaluation of its physical condition should always begin at this level.

Repair Historic Materials and Features
Next, when the physical condition of character-defining materials and features warrants additional work, repairing is recommended.

Rehabilitation guidance for the repair of historic materials, such as masonry, again begins with the least degree of intervention possible.

In rehabilitation, repairing also includes the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes features that can be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Although using the same kind of material is always the preferred option, a substitute material may be an acceptable alternative if the form, design, and scale, as well as the substitute material itself, can effectively replicate the appearance of the remaining features.

Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials and
Features
Following repair in the hierarchy, Rehabilitation guidance is provided for replacing an entire character-defining feature with new material because the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair. If the missing feature is character defining or if it is critical to the survival of the building (e.g., a roof), it should be replaced to match the historic feature based on physical or hisINTRODUCTION 77

REHABILITATION
78 toric documentation of its form and detailing. As with repair, the preferred option is always replacement of the entire feature in kind (i.e., with the same material, such as wood for wood). However, when this is not feasible, a compatible substitute material that can reproduce the overall appearance of the historic material may be considered.

It should be noted that, while the National Park Service guidelines recommend the replacement of an entire character-defining feature that is extensively deteriorated, the guidelines never recommend removal and replacement with new material of a feature that could reasonably be repaired and, thus, preserved.

Design for the Replacement of Missing
Historic Features
When an entire interior or exterior feature is missing, such as a porch, it no longer plays a role in physically defining the historic character of the building unless it can be accurately recovered in form and detailing through the process of carefully documenting the historic appearance. If the feature is not critical to the survival of the building, allowing the building to remain without the feature is one option. But if the missing feature is important to the historic character of the building, its replacement is always recommended in the Rehabilitation guidelines as the first, or preferred, course of action. If adequate documentary and physical evidence exists, the feature may be accurately reproduced. A second option in a rehabilitation treatment for replacing a missing feature, particularly when the available information about the feature is inadequate to permit an accurate reconstruction, is to design a new feature that is compatible with the overall historic character of the building.

The new design should always take into account the size, scale, and material of the building itself and should be clearly differentiated from the authentic historic features. For properties that have changed over time, and where those changes have acquired significance, reestablishing missing historic features generally should not be undertaken if the missing features did not coexist with the features currently on the building. Juxtaposing historic features that did not exist concurrently will result in a false sense of the building’s history.

Alterations
Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed as part of a Rehabilitation project to ensure its continued use, but it is most important that such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes. Alterations may include changes to the site or setting, such as the selective removal of buildings or other features of the building site or setting that are intrusive, not character defining, or outside the building’s period of significance.

Code-Required Work:

Accessibility and Life Safety
Sensitive solutions to meeting code requirements in a
Rehabilitation project are an important part of protecting the historic character of the building. Work that must be done to meet accessibility and life-safety requirements must also be assessed for its potential impact on the historic building, its site, and setting.

Resilience to Natural Hazards
Resilience to natural hazards should be addressed as part of a Rehabilitation project. A historic building may have existing characteristics or features that help to address or minimize the impacts of natural hazards. These should always be used to best advantage when considering new adaptive treatments so as to have the least impact on the historic character of the building, its site, and setting.

INTRODUCTION

REHABILITATION

Sustainability
Sustainability should be addressed as part of a Rehabilitation proj­ ect. Good preservation practice is often synonymous with sustain­ ability. Existing energy-efficient features should be retained and repaired. Only sustainability treatments should be considered that will have the least impact on the historic character of the building.

The topic of sustainability is addressed in detail in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

New Exterior Additions and Related New
Construction
Rehabilitation is the only treatment that allows expanding a historic building by enlarging it with an addition. However, the Rehabilita­ tion guidelines emphasize that new additions should be considered only after it is determined that meeting specific new needs cannot be achieved by altering non-character-defining interior spaces. If the use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an attached exterior addition may be considered. New additions should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building, its site, and setting are not negatively impacted. Generally, a new addition should be subordinate to the historic building. A new addition should be compatible, but differentiated enough so that it is not confused as historic or original to the building. The same guidance applies to new construction so that it does not negatively impact the historic character of the building or its site.

Rehabilitation as a Treatment. When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a documentation plan for Rehabilitation should be developed.

INTRODUCTION 79

REHABILITATION
MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Identifying, retaining and preserving masonry features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building (such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window and door surrounds, steps, and columns) and decorative ornament and other details, such as tooling and bonding patterns, coatings, and color.

Removing or substantially changing masonry features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.

Replacing or rebuilding a major portion of exterior masonry walls that could be repaired, thereby destroying the historic integrity of the building.

Applying paint or other coatings (such as stucco) to masonry that has been historically unpainted or uncoated to create a new appearance.

Removing paint from historically-painted masonry.

Protecting and maintaining masonry by ensuring that historic drainage features and systems that divert rainwater from masonry surfaces (such as roof overhangs, gutters, and downspouts) are intact and functioning properly.

Failing to identify and treat the causes of masonry deterioration, such as leaking roofs and gutters or rising damp.

Cleaning masonry only when necessary to halt deterioration or remove heavy soiling.

Cleaning masonry surfaces when they are not heavily soiled to create a “like-new” appearance, thereby needlessly introducing chemicals or moisture into historic materials.

Carrying out masonry cleaning tests when it has been determined Cleaning masonry surfaces without testing or without sufficient time that cleaning is appropriate. Test areas should be examined for the testing results to be evaluated. to ensure that no damage has resulted and, ideally, monitored over a sufficient period of time to allow long-range effects to be predicted.
[1] An alkaline-based
product is appropriate
to use to clean historic
marble because it will
not damage the marble,
which is acid sensitive.
80 MASONRY

REHABILITATION
MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Cleaning soiled masonry surfaces with the gentlest method possible, such as using low-pressure water and detergent and natural bristle or other soft-bristle brushes.

Cleaning or removing paint from masonry surfaces using most abrasive methods (including sandblasting, other media blasting, or high-pressure water) which can damage the surface of the masonry and mortar joints.

Using a cleaning or paint-removal method that involves water or liquid chemical solutions when there is any possibility of freezing temperatures.

Cleaning with chemical products that will damage some types of masonry (such as using acid on limestone or marble), or failing to neutralize or rinse off chemical cleaners from masonry surfaces. [3] Not Recommended:

The white film on the upper corner
of this historic brick row house is
the result of using a scrub or slurry
coating, rather than traditional
repointing by hand, which is the
recommended method.
[4] Not Recommended:

The quoins on the left side of the
photo show that high-pressure
abrasive blasting used to remove
paint can damage even early 20thcentury, hard-baked, textured brick and erode the mortar, whereas
the same brick on the right, which
was not abrasively cleaned, is
undamaged.
82 MASONRY

REHABILITATION
MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Using biodegradable or environmentally-safe cleaning or paintremoval products.

Using paint-removal methods that employ a poultice to which paint adheres, when possible, to neatly and safely remove old lead paint.

Using coatings that encapsulate lead paint, when possible, where the paint is not required to be removed to meet environmental regulations.

Allowing only trained conservators to use abrasive or laser-cleaning methods, when necessary, to clean hard-to-reach, highlycarved, or detailed decorative stone features.

Removing damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible (e.g., hand scraping) prior to repainting.

Removing paint that is firmly adhered to masonry surfaces, unless the building was unpainted historically and the paint can be removed without damaging the surface.

Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted masonry following proper surface preparation.

Failing to follow manufacturers’ product and application instructions when repainting masonry features.

Repainting historically-painted masonry features with colors that are appropriate to the historic character of the building and district.

Using paint colors on historically-painted masonry features that are not appropriate to the historic character of the building and district.

Protecting adjacent materials when cleaning or removing paint from masonry features.

Failing to protect adjacent materials when cleaning or removing paint from masonry features.

Evaluating the overall condition of the masonry to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to masonry features, will be necessary.

Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of masonry features.

Repairing masonry by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the masonry using recognized preservation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry features when there are surviving prototypes, such as terra-cotta brackets or stone balusters.

Removing masonry that could be stabilized, repaired, and conserved, or using untested consolidants and unskilled personnel, potentially causing further damage to historic materials.

Replacing an entire masonry feature, such as a cornice or balustrade, when repair of the masonry and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible.

MASONRY 83

REHABILITATION
MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Repairing masonry walls and other masonry features by repoint- Removing non-deteriorated mortar from sound joints and then ing the mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration, repointing the entire building to achieve a more uniform appearsuch as disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose ance. bricks, or damaged plaster on the interior.

Removing deteriorated lime mortar carefully by hand raking the joints to avoid damaging the masonry.

Using power tools only on horizontal joints on brick masonry in conjunction with hand chiseling to remove hard mortar that is deteriorated or that is a non-historic material which is causing damage to the masonry units. Mechanical tools should be used only by skilled masons in limited circumstances and generally not on short, vertical joints in brick masonry.

Allowing unskilled workers to use masonry saws or mechanical tools to remove deteriorated mortar from joints prior to repointing.

Duplicating historic mortar joints in strength, composition, color, and texture when repointing is necessary. In some cases, a limebased mortar may also be considered when repointing Portland cement mortar because it is more flexible.

Repointing masonry units with mortar of high Portland cement content (unless it is the content of the historic mortar).

Using “surface grouting” or a “scrub” coating technique, such as a “sack rub” or “mortar washing,” to repoint exterior masonry units instead of traditional repointing methods.

Repointing masonry units (other than concrete) with a synthetic caulking compound instead of mortar.

Duplicating historic mortar joints in width and joint profile when repointing is necessary.

Changing the width or joint profile when repointing.

Repairing stucco by removing the damaged material and patching with new stucco that duplicates the old in strength, composition, color, and texture.

Removing sound stucco or repairing with new stucco that is different in composition from the historic stucco.

Patching stucco or concrete without removing the source of deterioration.

Replacing deteriorated stucco with synthetic stucco, an exterior finish and insulation system (EFIS), or other non-traditional materials. 84 MASONRY

REHABILITATION
MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Using mud plaster or a compatible lime-plaster adobe render, when appropriate, to repair adobe.

Applying cement stucco, unless it already exists, to adobe.

Sealing joints in concrete with appropriate flexible sealants and backer rods, when necessary.

Cutting damaged concrete back to remove the source of deterioration, such as corrosion on metal reinforcement bars. The new patch must be applied carefully so that it will bond satisfactorily with and match the historic concrete.

Patching damaged concrete without removing the source of deterioration. [5] Rebars in the reinforced concrete ceiling have rusted, causing the concrete to spall. The rebars must be cleaned of rust before the concrete can be patched. [6] Some areas of the concrete brise soleil screen on this building constructed in 1967 are badly deteriorated. If the screen cannot be repaired, it may be replaced in kind or with a composite substitute material with the same appearance as the concrete.

MASONRY 85

REHABILITATION
MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Using a non-corrosive, stainless-steel anchoring system when replacing damaged stone, concrete, or terra-cotta units that have failed.

Applying non-historic surface treatments, such as water-repellent coatings, to masonry only after repointing and only if masonry repairs have failed to arrest water penetration problems.

Applying waterproof, water-repellent, or non-original historic coatings (such as stucco) to masonry as a substitute for repointing and masonry repairs.

Applying permeable, anti-graffiti coatings to masonry when appropriate.

Applying water-repellent or anti-graffiti coatings that change the historic appearance of the masonry or that may trap moisture if the coating is not sufficiently permeable.

Replacing in kind an entire masonry feature that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Examples can include large sections of a wall, a cornice, pier, or parapet. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.

Removing a masonry feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new feature that does not match.

Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving components of the masonry feature.

The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed.

Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a replacement masonry feature, such as Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for a step or door pediment, when the historic feature is completely the missing masonry feature is based upon insufficient physical or missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentary historic documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the and physical evidence, but only when the historic feature to be feature to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, the building. it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Introducing a new masonry feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material, or color.

MASONRY 87

REHABILITATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND

OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Identifying, retaining and preserving wood features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building (such as siding, cornices, brackets, window and door surrounds, and steps) and their paints, finishes, and colors.

Removing or substantially changing wood features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.

Removing a major portion of the historic wood from a façade instead of repairing or replacing only the deteriorated wood, then reconstructing the façade with new material to achieve a uniform or “improved” appearance.

Changing the type of finish, coating, or historic color of wood features, thereby diminishing the historic character of the exterior.

Failing to renew failing paint or other coatings that are historic finishes.

Stripping historically-painted surfaces to bare wood and applying a clear finish rather than repainting.

Stripping paint or other coatings to reveal bare wood, thereby exposing historically-coated surfaces to the effects of accelerated weathering.

Removing wood siding (clapboards) or other covering (such as stucco) from log structures that were covered historically, which changes their historic character and exposes the logs to accelerated deterioration.

Protecting and maintaining wood features by ensuring that historic drainage features that divert rainwater from wood surfaces (such as roof overhangs, gutters, and downspouts) are intact and functioning properly.

Failing to identify and treat the causes of wood deterioration, such as faulty flashing, leaking gutters, cracks and holes in siding, deteriorated caulking in joints and seams, plant material growing too close to wood surfaces, or insect or fungal infestation. 88 WOOD

REHABILITATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND

OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Applying chemical preservatives or paint to wood features that are subject to weathering, such as exposed beam ends, outriggers, or rafter tails.

Using chemical preservatives (such as creosote) which, unless they were used historically, can change the appearance of wood features.

Implementing an integrated pest management plan to identify appropriate preventive measures to guard against insect damage, such as installing termite guards, fumigating, and treating with chemicals.

Retaining coatings (such as paint) that protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet light. Paint removal should be considered only when there is paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate coatings.

Stripping paint or other coatings from wood features without recoating. [8] Rotted clapboards
have been replaced
selectively with new
wood siding to match the
originals.

WOOD 89

REHABILITATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND

OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Removing damaged or deteriorated paint to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible (e.g., hand scraping and hand sanding) prior to repainting.

Using potentially-damaging paint-removal methods on wood surfaces, such as open-flame torches, orbital sanders, abrasive methods (including sandblasting, other media blasting, or high-pressure water), or caustic paint-removers.

Removing paint that is firmly adhered to wood surfaces.

Using chemical strippers primarily to supplement other methods such as hand scraping, hand sanding, and thermal devices.

Failing to neutralize the wood thoroughly after using chemical paint removers so that new paint may not adhere.

Removing paint from detachable wood features by soaking them in a caustic solution, which may roughen the surface, split the wood, or result in staining from residual acids leaching out of the wood.

Using biodegradable or environmentally-safe cleaning or paintremoval products.

Using paint-removal methods that employ a poultice to which paint adheres, when possible, to neatly and safely remove old lead paint.

Using thermal devices (such as infrared heaters) carefully to remove paint when it is so deteriorated that total removal is necessary prior to repainting.

Using a thermal device to remove paint from wood features without first checking for and removing any flammable debris behind them.

Using thermal devices without limiting the amount of time the wood feature is exposed to heat.

Using coatings that encapsulate lead paint, when possible, where the paint is not required to be removed to meet environmental regulations.

Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted wood following proper surface preparation.

Failing to follow manufacturers’ product and application instructions when repainting wood features.

Repainting historically-painted wood features with colors that are appropriate to the building and district.

Using paint colors on historically-painted wood features that are not appropriate to the building or district.
90 WOOD

REHABILITATION

WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND

OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Protecting adjacent materials when working on other wood features.

Failing to protect adjacent materials when working on wood features.

Evaluating the overall condition of the wood to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to wood features, will be necessary.

Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of wood features.
[9] Smooth-surfaced cementitious
siding (left) may be used to replace
deteriorated wood siding only on
secondary elevations that have
minimal visibility. [10] Not Recommended:

Cementitious siding with a raised
wood-grain texture is not an
appropriate material to replace
historic wood siding, which has a
smooth surface when painted.

WOOD 91

REHABILITATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND

OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Repairing wood by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise Removing wood that could be stabilized, repaired, and conserved, reinforcing the wood using recognized conservation methods. or using untested consolidants and unskilled personnel, potentially Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a causing further damage to historic materials. compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing components of wood features when there are surviving Replacing an entire wood feature, such as a cornice or balustrade, prototypes, such as brackets, molding, or sections of siding. when repair of the wood and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components is feasible.

Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deterio- Removing a wood feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it, rated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) or replacing it with a new feature that does not match. using physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey Examples of such wood features include a cornice, entablature, the same appearance of the surviving components of the wood or a balustrade. If using wood is not feasible, then a compatible feature. substitute material may be considered.

Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood siding on a primary or other highly-visible elevation with a new matching wood feature.

Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood siding on a primary or other highly-visible elevation with a composite substitute material.

The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed.

Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a replacement masonry feature, such as Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for a step or door pediment, when the historic feature is completely the missing masonry feature is based upon insufficient physical or missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentary historic documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the and physical evidence, but only when the historic feature to be feature to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, the building. it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Introducing a new wood feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material, or color.
92 WOOD

REHABILITATION
METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE,

COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Identifying, retaining, and preserving metal features that are Removing or substantially changing metal features which are imporimportant in defining the overall historic character of the building tant in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, (such as columns, capitals, pilasters, spandrel panels, or stair- as a result, the character is diminished. ways) and their paints, finishes, and colors. The type of metal should be identified prior to work because each metal has its own Removing a major portion of the historic metal from a façade properties and may require a different treatment. instead of repairing or replacing only the deteriorated metal, then reconstructing the façade with new material to achieve a uniform or “improved” appearance.

Protecting and maintaining metals from corrosion by providing proper drainage so that water does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate in curved decorative features.

Failing to identify and treat the causes of corrosion, such as moisture from leaking roofs or gutters.

Placing incompatible metals together without providing an appropriate separation material. Such incompatibility can result in galvanic corrosion of the less noble metal (e.g., copper will corrode cast iron, steel, tin, and aluminum).

Cleaning metals when necessary to remove corrosion prior to repainting or applying appropriate protective coatings.

Leaving metals that must be protected from corrosion uncoated after cleaning.
[11] The stainless steel
doors at the entrance to
this Art Deco apartment
building are important
in defining its historic
character and should be
retained in place.

METALS 93

REHABILITATION
METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE,

COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Identifying the particular type of metal prior to any cleaning procedure and then testing to ensure that the gentlest cleaning method possible is selected; or, alternatively, determining that cleaning is inappropriate for the particular metal.

Using cleaning methods which alter or damage the color, texture, or finish of the metal, or cleaning when it is inappropriate for the particular metal.

Removing the patina from historic metals. The patina may be a protective layer on some metals (such as bronze or copper) as well as a distinctive finish.

Using non-corrosive chemical methods to clean soft metals (such Cleaning soft metals (such as lead, tinplate, terneplate, copper, and as lead, tinplate, terneplate, copper, and zinc) whose finishes can zinc) with abrasive methods (including sandblasting, other abrasive be easily damaged by abrasive methods. media, or high-pressure water) which will damage the surface of the metal.

Using the least abrasive cleaning method for hard metals (such Using high-pressure abrasive techniques (including sandblasting, as cast iron, wrought iron, and steel) to remove paint buildup and other media blasting, or high-pressure water) without first trying corrosion. If hand scraping and wire brushing have proven inef­ gentler cleaning methods prior to cleaning cast iron, wrought iron, fective, low-pressure abrasive methods may be used as long as or steel. they do not abrade or damage the surface.

Applying appropriate paint or other coatings to historically-coated metals after cleaning to protect them from corrosion.

Applying paint or other coatings to metals (such as copper, bronze or stainless steel) if they were not coated historically, unless a coating is necessary for maintenance.

Repainting historically-painted metal features with colors that are appropriate to the building and district.

Using paint colors on historically-painted metal features that are not appropriate to the building or district.

Applying an appropriate protective coating (such as lacquer or wax) to a metal feature that was historically unpainted, such as a bronze door, which is subject to heavy use.
94 METALS

REHABILITATION
METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE,

COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Protecting adjacent materials when cleaning or removing paint from metal features.

Failing to protect adjacent materials when working on metal features.

Evaluating the overall condition of metals to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to metal features, will be necessary.

Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of metal features.
[12] This historic steel
window has been
cleaned, repaired, and
primed in preparation for
painting and reglazing.
[13] The gold-colored,
anodized aluminum geodesic
dome of the former Citizen’s
State Bank in Oklahoma
City, OK, built in 1958 and
designed by Robert Roloff,
makes this a distinctive mid20th century building.

METALS 95

REHABILITATION
METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE,

COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Repairing metal by reinforcing the metal using recognized preservation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as column capitals or bases, storefronts, railings and steps, or window hoods.

Removing metals that could be stabilized, repaired, and conserved, or using improper repair techniques, or unskilled personnel, potentially causing further damage to historic materials.

Replacing in kind an entire metal feature that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation.

Examples of such a feature could include cast-iron porch steps or steel-sash windows. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.

Replacing an entire metal feature, such as a column or balustrade, when repair of the metal and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible.

Removing a metal feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new metal feature that does not match.

Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving components of the metal feature or that is physically or chemically incompatible.

The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed.

Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a replacement metal feature, such as a Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the metal cornice or cast-iron column, when the historic feature is missing metal feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature documentary and physical evidence, but only when the historic to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on building. the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Introducing a new metal feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material, or color.

METALS 97

REHABILITATION
ROOFS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs and their functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The form of the roof (gable, hipped, gambrel, flat, or mansard) is significant, as are its decorative and functional features (such as cupolas, cresting, parapets, monitors, chimneys, weather vanes, dormers, ridge tiles, and snow guards), roofing material (such as slate, wood, clay tile, metal, roll roofing, or asphalt shingles), and size, color, and patterning.

Removing or substantially changing roofs which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.

Removing a major portion of the historic roof or roofing material that is repairable, then rebuilding it with new material to achieve a more uniform or “improved” appearance.

Changing the configuration or shape of a roof by adding highly visible new features (such as dormer windows, vents, skylights, or a penthouse).

Stripping the roof of sound historic material, such as slate, clay tile, wood, or metal.

Protecting and maintaining a roof by cleaning gutters and Failing to clean and maintain gutters and downspouts properly so downspouts and replacing deteriorated flashing. Roof sheathing that water and debris collect and cause damage to roof features, should also be checked for indications of moisture due to leaks or sheathing, and the underlying roof structure. condensation.

Providing adequate anchorage for roofing material to guard against wind damage and moisture penetration.

Allowing flashing, caps, and exposed fasteners to corrode, which accelerates deterioration of the roof.

Protecting a leaking roof with a temporary waterproof membrane with a synthetic underlayment, roll roofing, plywood, or a tarpaulin until it can be repaired.

Leaving a leaking roof unprotected so that accelerated deterioration of historic building materials (such as masonry, wood, plaster, paint, and structural members) occurs.

Repainting a roofing material that requires a protective coating and was painted historically (such as a terneplate metal roof or gutters) as part of regularly-scheduled maintenance.

Failing to repaint a roofing material that requires a protective coating and was painted historically as part of regularly-scheduled maintenance.

Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted roofing materials following proper surface preparation.

Applying paint or other coatings to roofing material if they were not coated historically.

Protecting a roof covering when working on other roof features. Failing to protect roof coverings when working on other roof features.

Evaluating the overall condition of the roof and roof features to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to roof features, will be necessary.

Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of roof features.
98 ROOFS

REHABILITATION
ROOFS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Repairing a roof by ensuring that the existing historic or compat- Replacing an entire roof feature when repair of the historic roofible non-historic roof covering is sound and waterproof. Repair ing materials and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible components are feasible. substitute material of missing materials (such as wood shingles, slates, or tiles) on a main roof, as well as those extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as ridge tiles, dormer roofing, or roof monitors.

Using corrosion-resistant roof fasteners (e.g., nails and clips) to repair a roof to help extend its longevity.
[16] The deteriorated asphalt shingles
of this porch roof are being replaced in
kind with matching shingles.

ROOFS 99

REHABILITATION
ROOFS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Replacing in kind an entire roof covering or feature that is too Removing a feature of the roof that is unrepairable and not replacdeteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still ing it, or replacing it with a new roof feature that does not match. evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not documentation. Examples of such a feature could include a large convey the same appearance of the roof covering or the surviving section of roofing, a dormer, or a chimney. If using the same kind components of the roof feature or that is physically or chemically of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material incompatible. may be considered.

Replacing only missing or damaged roofing tiles or slates rather than replacing the entire roof covering.

Failing to reuse intact slate or tile in good condition when only the roofing substrate or fasteners need replacement.

Replacing an incompatible roof covering or any deteriorated nonhistoric roof covering with historically-accurate roofing material, if known, or another material that is compatible with the historic character of the building.

The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed.

Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new roof covering for a missing roof or Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the a new feature, such as a dormer or a monitor, when the historic missing roof feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the the historic feature to be replaced coexisted with the features building. currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic Introducing a new roof feature that is incompatible in size, scale, building. material, or color.
100 ROOFS

REHABILITATION
ROOFS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Alterations and Additions for a New Use
Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof (such as heating and air-conditioning units, elevator housing, or solar panels) when required for a new use so that they are inconspicuous on the site and from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features.

Installing roof-top mechanical or service equipment so that it damages or obscures character-defining roof features or is conspicuous on the site or from the public right-of-way.

Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continuing use so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features.

Changing a character-defining roof form, or damaging or destroying character-defining roofing material as a result of an incompatible rooftop addition or improperly-installed or highly-visible mechanical equipment.

Installing a green roof or other roof landscaping, railings, or furnishings that are not visible on the site or from the public right-of-way and do not damage the roof structure.

Installing a green roof or other roof landscaping, railings, or furnishings that are visible on the site and from the public right-of-way. [17] New wood
elements have been
used selectively to
replace rotted wood
on the underside of
the roof in this historic
warehouse.

ROOFS 101

REHABILITATION

WINDOWS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their func- Removing or substantially changing windows or window features tional and decorative features that are important to the overall which are important in defining the overall historic character of the character of the building. The window material and how the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. window operates (e.g., double hung, casement, awning, or hopper) are significant, as are its components (including sash, Changing the appearance of windows that contribute to the historic muntins, ogee lugs, glazing, pane configuration, sills, mullions, character of the building by replacing materials, finishes, or colors casings, or brick molds) and related features, such as shutters. which noticeably change the sash, depth of the reveal, and muntin configurations; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or the appearance of the frame.

Obscuring historic wood window trim with metal or other material.

Replacing windows solely because of peeling paint, broken glass, stuck sash, or high air infiltration. These conditions, in themselves, do not indicate that windows are beyond repair.

Protecting and maintaining the wood or metal which comprises Failing to protect and maintain window materials on a cyclical basis the window jamb, sash, and trim through appropriate treatments, so that deterioration of the window results. such as cleaning, paint removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems.

Protecting windows against vandalism before work begins by covering them and by installing alarm systems that are keyed into local protection agencies.

Leaving windows unprotected and subject to vandalism before work begins, thereby also allowing the interior to be damaged if it can be accessed through unprotected windows.

Making windows weathertight by recaulking gaps in fixed joints and replacing or installing weatherstripping.

Protecting windows from chemical cleaners, paint, or abrasion during work on the exterior of the building.

Failing to protect historic windows from chemical cleaners, paint, or abrasion when work is being done on the exterior of the building.

Protecting and retaining historic glass when replacing putty or repairing other components of the window.

Failing to protect the historic glass when making window repairs. 102 WINDOWS

REHABILITATION

WINDOWS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Sustaining the historic operability of windows by lubricating friction points and replacing broken components of the operating system (such as hinges, latches, sash chains or cords) and replacing deteriorated gaskets or insulating units.

Failing to maintain windows and window components so that windows are inoperable, or sealing operable sash permanently.

Failing to repair and reuse window hardware such as sash lifts, latches, and locks.

Adding storm windows with a matching or a one-over-one pane configuration that will not obscure the characteristics of the historic windows. Storm windows improve energy efficiency and are especially beneficial when installed over wood windows because they also protect them from accelerated deterioration.

Adding interior storm windows as an alternative to exterior storm windows when appropriate.
[18] The historic metal
storm windows in this
1920s office building
were retained and
repaired during the
rehabilitation project.
[19] Installing a
mockup of a proposed
replacement window
can be helpful to
evaluate how well the
new windows will match
the historic windows
that are missing or too
deteriorated to repair.

WINDOWS 103

REHABILITATION

WINDOWS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Installing sash locks, window guards, removable storm windows, and other reversible treatments to meet safety, security, or energy conservation requirements.

Evaluating the overall condition of the windows to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to windows and window features, will be necessary.

Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of window features.

Repairing window frames and sash by patching, splicing, consoli- Removing window features that could be stabilized, repaired, or dating, or otherwise reinforcing them using recognized preserva­ conserved using untested consolidants, improper repair techniques, tion methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in or unskilled personnel, potentially causing further damage to the kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively historic materials. deteriorated, broken, or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as sash, sills, hardware, or Replacing an entire window when repair of the window and limited shutters. replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible.

Removing glazing putty that has failed and applying new putty; or, if glass is broken, carefully removing all putty, replacing the glass, and reputtying.

Installing new glass to replace broken glass which has the same visual characteristics as the historic glass.

Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to Removing a character-defining window that is unrepairable or is not repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using needed for the new use and blocking up the opening, or replacing it the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or with a new window that does not match. when the replacement can be based on historic documentation.

If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compat- Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey ible substitute material may be considered. the same appearance of the surviving components of the window or that is physically incompatible.

WINDOWS 105

REHABILITATION

WINDOWS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
[21] The windows on the
lower floor, which were
too deteriorated to repair,
were replaced with new
steel windows matching
the upper-floor historic
windows that were
retained.

Modifying a historic single-glazed sash to accommodate insulated glass when it will not jeopardize the soundness of the sash or significantly alter its appearance.

Modifying a historic single-glazed sash to accommodate insulated glass when it will jeopardize the soundness of the sash or significantly alter its appearance.

Using low-e glass with the least visible tint in new or replacement windows.

Using low-e glass with a dark tint in new or replacement windows, thereby negatively impacting the historic character of the building.

Using window grids rather than true divided lights on windows on Using window grids rather than true divided lights on windows in the upper floors of high-rise buildings if they will not be notice­ low-rise buildings or on lower floors of high-rise buildings where able. they will be noticeable, resulting in a change to the historic character of the building.

Ensuring that spacer bars in between double panes of glass are the same color as the window sash.

Using spacer bars in between double panes of glass that are not the same color as the window sash.

Replacing all of the components in a glazing system if they have failed because of faulty design or materials that have deteriorated with new material that will improve the window performance without noticeably changing the historic appearance.

Replacing all of the components in a glazing system with new material that will noticeably change the historic appearance.

Replacing incompatible, non-historic windows with new windows that are compatible with the historic character of the building; or reinstating windows in openings that have been filled in.

The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed.

Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new window or its components, such Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the as frames, sash, and glazing, when the historic feature is com- missing window is based upon insufficient physical or historic docupletely missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on mentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature to be documentary and physical evidence, but only when the historic replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the building. feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with Installing replacement windows made from other materials that are the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. not the same as the material of the original windows if they would have a noticeably different appearance from the remaining historic windows.
106 WINDOWS

REHABILITATION

WINDOWS

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Alterations and Additions for a New Use
Adding new window openings on rear or other secondary, lessvisible elevations, if required by a new use. The new openings and the windows in them should be compatible with the overall design of the building but, in most cases, not duplicate the historic fenestration.

Changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows on primary or highly-visible elevations which will alter the historic character of the building.

Cutting new openings on character-defining elevations or cutting new openings that damage or destroy significant features.

Adding balconies at existing window openings or new window openings on primary or other highly-visible elevations where balconies never existed and, therefore, would be incompatible with the historic character of the building.

Replacing windows that are too deteriorated to repair using the Replacing a window that contributes to the historic character of same sash and pane configuration, but with new windows that the building with a new window that is different in design (such as operate differently, if necessary, to accommodate a new use. glass divisions or muntin profiles), dimensions, materials (wood, Any change must have minimal visual impact. Examples could metal, or glass), finish or color, or location that will have a noticeinclude replacing hopper or awning windows with casement ably different appearance from the historic windows, which may windows, or adding a realigned and enlarged operable portion of negatively impact the character of the building. industrial steel windows to meet life-safety codes.

Installing impact-resistant glazing, when necessary for security, so that it is compatible with the historic windows and does not damage them or negatively impact their character.

Installing impact-resistant glazing, when necessary for security, that is incompatible with the historic windows and that damages them or negatively impacts their character.

Using compatible window treatments (such as frosted glass, Removing a character-defining window to conceal mechanical appropriate shades or blinds, or shutters) to retain the historic equipment or to provide privacy for a new use of the building by character of the building when it is necessary to conceal mechan­ blocking up the opening. ical equipment, for example, that the new use requires be placed in a location behind a window or windows on a primary or highlyvisible elevation.

WINDOWS 109

REHABILITATION

BUILDING SITE

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape.

Removing or relocating buildings or landscape features, thereby destroying the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape.

Removing or relocating buildings on a site or in a complex of related historic structures (such as a mill complex or farm), thereby diminishing the historic character of the site or complex.

Moving buildings onto the site, thereby creating an inaccurate historic appearance.

Changing the grade level of the site if it diminishes its historic character. For example, lowering the grade adjacent to a building to maximize use of a basement, which would change the historic appearance of the building and its relation to the site.

Protecting and maintaining buildings and site features by providing proper drainage to ensure that water does not erode foundation walls, drain toward the building, or damage or erode the landscape.

Failing to ensure that site drainage is adequate so that buildings and site features are damaged or destroyed; or, alternatively, changing the site grading so that water does not drain properly.

Correcting any existing irrigation that may be wetting the building excessively. Neglecting to correct any existing irrigation that may be wetting the building excessively.

Minimizing disturbance of the terrain around buildings or else- Using heavy machinery or equipment in areas where it may disturb where on the site, thereby reducing the possibility of destroy- or damage important landscape features, archeological resources, ing or damaging important landscape features, archeological other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds.

Surveying and documenting areas where the terrain will be Failing to survey the building site prior to beginning work, which altered to determine the potential impact to important landscape may result in damage or loss of important landscape features, features, archeological resources, other cultural or religious fea­ archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial tures, or burial grounds. grounds.
138 BUILDING SITE

REHABILITATION

BUILDING SITE

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Protecting (e.g., preserving in place) important site features, archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds.

Leaving known site features or archeological material unprotected so that it is damaged during rehabilitation work.

Planning and carrying out any necessary investigation before rehabilitation begins, using professional archeologists and methods, when preservation in place is not feasible.

Allowing unqualified personnel to perform data recovery on archeological resources, which can result in damage or loss of important archeological material
Preserving important landscape features through regularly-scheduled maintenance of historic plant material. Allowing important landscape features or archeological resources to be lost, damaged, or to deteriorate due to inadequate protection or lack of maintenance
Protecting the building site and landscape features against arson Leaving the property unprotected and subject to vandalism before and vandalism before rehabilitation work begins by erecting tem­ work begins so that the building site and landscape features, porary fencing and by installing alarm systems keyed into local archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial protection agencies. grounds can be damaged or destroyed.

Removing or destroying features from the site, such as fencing, paths or walkways, masonry balustrades, or plant material.

Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions on a build- Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions on a building ing site, when necessary for security, that are as unobtrusive as site, when necessary for security, without taking into consideration possible. their location and visibility so that they negatively impact the historic character of the site.

Providing continued protection and maintenance of buildings and landscape features on the site through appropriate grounds and landscape management.

Failing to protect and maintain materials and features from the restoration period on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of the site results.

Protecting buildings and landscape features when working on the site.

Failing to protect building and landscape features during work on the site or failing to repair damaged or deteriorated site features.

BUILDING SITE 139

REHABILITATION

BUILDING SITE

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Evaluating the overall condition of materials and features to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to site features, will be necessary.

Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of the site.

Repairing historic site features which have been damaged, are deteriorated, or have missing components order reestablish the whole feature and to ensure retention of the integrity of the historic materials. Repairs may include limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of site features when there are surviving prototypes, such as paving, railings, or individual plants within a group (e.g., a hedge). Repairs should be physically and visually compatible.

Removing materials and features that could be repaired or using improper repair techniques.

Replacing an entire feature of the site (such as a fence, walkway, or drive) when repair of materials and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible. [43] The industrial
character of the site
was retained when
this brewery complex
was rehabilitated for
residential use.
[44] Not Recommended: (a-b) The historic character of this plantation house (marked in blue on plan on opposite page) and its site was diminished and adversely impacted when multiple new buildings like this (#3 on plan) were constructed on the property (c).
140 BUILDING SITE

REHABILITATION

BUILDING SITE

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Replacing in kind an entire feature of the site that is too deterio- Removing a character-defining feature of the site that is unrepairrated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) able and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new feature that does using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. not match.

Examples could include a walkway or a fountain, a land form, or plant material. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey then a compatible substitute material may be considered. the same appearance of the surviving site feature or that is physically or ecologically incompatible.

Adding conjectural landscape features to the site (such as period reproduction light fixtures, fences, fountains, or vegetation) that are historically inappropriate, thereby creating an inaccurate appearance of the site.

BUILDING SITE 141

REHABILITATION

BUILDING SITE

RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
[45] Undertaking a
survey to document
archeological resources
may be considered in
some rehabilitation
projects when a new
exterior addition is
planned.

The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed.

Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new feature on a site when the his- Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for toric feature is completely missing. This could include missing the missing feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic outbuildings, terraces, drives, foundation plantings, specimen documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature trees, and gardens. The design may be an accurate restoration did not coexist with the features currently on the site. based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when the feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on Introducing a new feature, including plant material, that is visually the site. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the incompatible with the site or that alters or destroys the historic site historic character of the building and site. patterns or use.

Alterations and Additions for a New Use
Designing new onsite features (such as parking areas, access Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where ramps, or lighting), when required by a new use, so that they vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or are as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic relationship when they negatively impact the historic character of the building between the building or buildings and the landscape, and are site if landscape features and plant materials are removed. compatible with the historic character of the property.

Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent Introducing new construction on the building site which is visunew construction that are compatible with the historic character ally incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, material, or color, of the site and preserves the historic relationship between the which destroys historic relationships on the site, or which dambuilding or buildings and the landscape. ages or destroys important landscape features, such as replacing a lawn with paved parking areas or removing mature trees to widen a driveway.

Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or site features which detract from the historic character of the site.

Removing a historic building in a complex of buildings or removing a building feature or a landscape feature which is important in defining the historic character of the site.

Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will not cause damage to historic buildings.

Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will damage historic buildings.
142 BUILDING SITE
Appendix C
Resolution No. R-17-26 (A Resolution of San Marino
City Council Designating 708 Winston Avenue as a
Local Historical Landmark)

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCELLA MARLOWE, CITY MANAGER
BY: ALDO CERVANTES,

PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECTOR

EVA CHOI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2017
SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF LOCAL HISTORICAL LANDMARK
708 WINSTON AVENUE, (JONES)

BACKGROUND:

The property owners, Miriam and Nelson Jones, submitted a request to designate their property at 708 Winston Avenue as a local historical landmark pursuant to City Code Sections 2.12.01 and 2.12.02. The property is developed with a single-story Monterey Colonial Revival structure designed by master architect, Roland E. Coate, in 1929.

On April 12, 2017, the City Council considered the local historical landmark designation request and asked the property owners to submit a historic assessment report to evaluate the property’s historic significance at the local level.

The property owners commissioned Ms. Juliet M. Arroyo of Arroyo Resources to prepare a Historic Resources Nomination Report (“nomination report”) for the property. Ms. Arroyo is a state certified professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the area of Architectural History.

ANALYSIS:

City Code Section 2.12.01 authorizes the City Council to “designate a building, landmark or other property within the City as a local historical landmark in special recognition of the property's role during the formation and existence of the City.” Further, City Code Section 2.12.02 outlines the designation process; however, specific eligibility guidelines and standards are not established. Consequently, the Council requested a report from a subject matter state certified professional.

The nomination report provides support for local historical landmark designation based on the following:

City of San Marino

AGENDA REPORT
Richard Sun, DDS, Mayor
Richard Ward, Vice Mayor
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
Allan Yung, MD, Council Member
AGENDA ITEM NO. 18
 The style of the structure, along with the landscaped grounds, exemplifies the founding principles of community building with garden estates that contributed to the formation of the City.
 The single-story Monterey Colonial Revival home is a rare example of the style; the structure retains the integrity from its period of significance including its historic characters and the majority of the building’s original materials.

The nomination report provides evidence that the property merits special recognition. The structure was designed by architect, Mr. Roland E. Coate, who also designed a number of estate homes in the City between the mid-1920’s to late 1950’s. Mr. Coate was known for his unique ability to seamlessly blend Colonial with Spanish architectural elements. The subject property is one notable example of several Colonial Revival estate homes that Mr. Coate designed throughout the City.

Ms. Arroyo’s nomination report provides a comprehensive analysis of the property, the structure, the architect, Mr. Coate, and the historic significance of each in the formation and existence of the City.

Based on the assessment presented in the nomination report and included as part of the record, staff concludes that the property located at 708 Winston Avenue is an excellent example of the garden estate home that exemplifies the vision of the City’s founders.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the City.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends the Council adopt a resolution recommending the designation of the 708 Winston Avenue property as a Local Historical Landmark and to direct the City Clerk’s office to submit a certified copy of the resolution to the State Historical Society, the City Historical Society, and the property owners.

If Council concurs, an appropriate motion would be:
“A motion to approve the proposed Resolution designating 708 Winston Avenue property as a local historical landmark.

Attachments: Resolution No. R-17-26
Request by property owners, Miriam and Nelson Jones
Historic Resource Nomination Report by Arroyo Resources, dated August 2017 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18
RESOLUTION NO. R-17-26
A RESOLUTION OF SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING 708 WINSTON AVENUE AS A LOCAL HISTORICAL LANDMARK.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN MARINO DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. On December 27, 2016, Nelson D. and Miriam G. Jones (the “Petitioners”) submitted a petition (the “petition”) to designate 708 Winston Avenue (the “subject property”) as a local historical landmark pursuant to Section 2.12.02 of the San Marino City Code (the “Code”).

SECTION 2. Section 2.12.02.B of the San Marino City Code provides that the City Council may approve or deny a petition to designate a building, landmark or other property as a local historical landmark based on findings of the property’s role during the formation and existence of the City.

SECTION 3. Objective L.24 of the Land Use Element of the San Marino General Plan provides that “any designation of a property within the City as a local historical landmark should be subject to the property owner’s approval.”
SECTION 4. On April 12, 2017, the City Council considered the Petition at a duly noticed public meeting and after considering all evidence presented, continued its deliberations and requested that the Petitioners submit a historic resource assessment report for the subject property prepared by a qualified consultant.

SECTION 5. On October 3, 2017, the Petitioners submitted to the City a historic resources nomination report for the subject property (the “nomination report”) prepare by Juliet M. Arroyo of Arroyo Resources, who is a state certified professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the area of Architectural History. A copy of the nomination report is on file with the City Clerk.

SECTION 6. On November 8, 2017, the City Council again considered the Petition at a duly noticed public meeting, and after considering all evidence presented, found the following facts to be true:

A. The facts set forth in the preceding Sections of this Resolution are true and correct.

B. Petitioners are the owners of the subject property and have consented to its designation as a local historical landmark.

C. The subject property contains a one-story Monterey Colonial Revival Style home built in 1930 by the original owners, Cyril and Ruth Fitzgerald. The home was designed by Roland E. Coate Sr., who was a long time City resident and prolific and award-winning architect who designed nearly one hundred buildings and residences, of which almost half were constructed in San Marino. He is best remembered as a proponent of Colonial Revival styles in residential architecture.

D. The subject property is one of the best examples of the early revival estate homes that were central to the vision of the City’s founders. The home has been recognized as a rare example of a single-story Monterey Colonial Revival home. Its design was influenced by architectural design prevalent during the Rancho Period and evokes the feeling of California’s early history. It exhibits high quality workmanship and remains in its original location with its original design largely intact with very few alterations.

SECTION 7. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to all evidence and testimony presented to the Council and the facts found to be true and correct in the preceding Section of this Resolution, the City Council hereby designates the subject property a local historical landmark in special recognition of its role during the formation and existence of the City.

SECTION 8. The time within which judicial review, if available, of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall mail by first class mail, postage prepaid, a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing to the Petitioners, the State Historical Society, the City Historical Society, and any other persons or entities requesting notice of the decision.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marino this 8th day of November, 2017.
_______________________________________
DR. RICHARD SUN
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________

CAROL COWLEY, CMC
ACTING CITY CLERK0
2 October 3, 2017
Mr. Eva Choi, Associate Planner
Planning and Building Department
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Subject: Request to the City Council to formally list the home at 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino as a “Local Historical Landmark” (Petition for Designation)
Dear Ms. Choi:

On behalf of our client, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, the owners of the home at 708 Winston Avenue in the City of San Marino, we would like to have the San Marino City Council consider the historic listing of the subject home as a “Local Historical Landmark” under Section 02.12.02 of the City’s Municipal Code. The owners wish to help preserve the home and possibly apply for the Mills Act incentive, if such a program becomes available in the future. The attached nomination report finds that the home not only qualifies as a local historic resource, but is also a special and unique home in the community.

Please forward this request to the City Clerk for Council calendar scheduling. We will be available to provide a brief presentation on this nomination and to explain why it qualifies. Feel free to call us or the owners if you need any additional information and let us know when this request is scheduled for the City Council action.

Sincerely,

Juliet M Arroyo
Ms. Juliet M. Arroyo
Principal and Architectural Historian

453 S. Spring Street, No. 801
Los Angeles, California 90013
323.819.0044 CELL
213-265-7123 OFFICE
[email protected]
www.historicplanning.com
cc: Nelson and Mimi Jones (owners)
708 Winston Ave, San Marino Ca
626-862-1916
attachment: Historic Resource Nomination Report, 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino, Ca Historic Resource Nomination
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino, California
Prepared in Compliance with the City of San Marino’s
Requirements for Local Historical Landmark Designation.

PREPARED BY:

August 2017
Historic Resource Nomination
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino, California
Prepared for:

Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Jones
Owners of 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino, California
Prepared by:

ARROYO RESOURCES
Preservation Planning and Historic Resource Consulting
453 S. Spring Street, Suite No. 801
Los Angeles, California 900014
213.265.7123 office
email: [email protected]
August 2017
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………............01

2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION …………………………………………………………………………….............02

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION ……………………………………….……..........05

3.1 City of San Marino

3.2 Evaluation, Eligibility, Survey and Methodology

4.0 RECORDS AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ..………………………………………………………..............09

4.1 Prior Historic Resource Surveys and Inventories

4.2 City Directory Listings

4.3 City Building Permits

4.4 Subdivision History

4.5 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps

4.6 Los Angeles County Assessor Historic Tax Roll

4.7 Library Research

4.8 C.G. Fitzgerald

4.9 Roland E. Coate

5.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT…………………………………………………………………………….…20

5.1 Neighborhood

5.2 San Marino Architects, Builders, and Craftsmen

5.3 Monterey Colonial Revival

6.0 ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION…………………………..…………………………………………………….29

6.1 Style, Plan, Setting, and Massing

6.2 Architectural Features

6.3 Alterations

7.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ELIGIBILITY…………………………………………………………………………………35

7.1 Significance Statement

7.2 Integrity Analysis

7.3 San Marino Local Historical Landmark Designation
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino
ii

8.0 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41 FIGURES (within report)
Figure 1. Subject Property Location Map
Figure 2. Photo of Front Porch
Figure 3. Surrounding Neighborhood Setting
Figure 4. Aerial View of Property Plan and Roof Lines
Figure 5. Roland E. Coate’s Blueprint Image for the Property Figure 6. Photo of Cyril Grattan Fitzgerald (1890-1953) Figure 7. Roland Eli Coate, Cornell University, 1914
Figure 8. Home of David O. Selznick in Beverly Hills designed by Roland E. Coate, built in 1933 Figure 9. Looking north along Santa Anita Avenue in San Marino, no date Figure 10. San Marino home of Edward H Heath
Figure 11. The Larkin House, Monterey CA, circa 1900
Figure 12. Monterey Colonial Revival Home Designed by Roland Coate Figure 13. The Francis Baer Residence Designed by Roland Coate Figure 14. Street Views of home
Figure 15. Front Facade View along Winston Avenue

TABLES (within report)
Table 1. Subject Property, Directory Searches
Table 2. City Building Permits for 708 Winston Avenue
Table 3. Tract Chronology
Table 4. Property Ownership History: 708 Winston Avenue Table 5. San Marino Residences Designed by Roland Coate Sr.

EXHIBITS (end of report)
Exhibit 1. Accessor Parcel Map
Exhibit 2. City Building Permits
Exhibit 3. Tract Map
Exhibit 4. Cyril Grattan Fitzgerald Obituary, Los Angeles Times Exhibit 5. San Marino Citywide Historic Context Statement Exhibit 6. Photos of Property
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The property owners at 708 Winston Avenue have asked Arroyo Resources to prepare a Historic Resource Nomination Report (“report”) on the subject property (“property”) to submit to the City of San Marino (“City”). The report is intended to accompany the application for consideration and designation as a Local Historical Landmark in the City of San Marino. This report constitutes the complete Historic Resource Nomination Report. This report has been prepared by Arroyo Resources, an independent historic resource consulting firm located in Los Angeles, California. Research, analysis, field inspections, and findings were made by Juliet M. Arroyo, Rebecca Ramirez, and Jaqueline Padilla-Perez of Arroyo Resources. Juliet M.

Arroyo and Jacqueline Padilla-Perez meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications in the area of Architectural History.

This Historic Resource Nomination is intended to determine if the property qualifies as a local historic resource under the criteria of the City of San Marino for individual properties. This report has been prepared under State and Federal methodologies and guidelines for determining historic significance. The report follows common professional practices for identifying historic resources and determining integrity.

This report may also be used to support an application for the City’s “Mills Act” program. Figure 1 below shows the location of the property within the City.

Figure 1. Subject Property Location within the City of San Marino source: Google Maps
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property contains a one-story Monterey Colonial Revival Style home built in 1930 (see Figure 2). The home sits back on a corner site which also contains a detached garage along Lombardy Road. The home was built by the original owners, Mr. Cyril and Mrs. Ruth Fitzgerald who in 1929 commissioned local architect Roland E. Coate Senior to design the home. Roland E. Coate was a prolific architect in Los Angeles during the early part of the twentieth century.

Figure 2. Photo of Front Porch
source: Arroyo Resources
The home sits secluded, a low-rise, horizontally expansive, building hidden by dense vegetation including ivy ground covering and mature magnolia trees. The parcel is a rectangular-shaped lot, 29,620 square feet in size, with a primary frontage on Winston Avenue and a secondary frontage along Lombardy Road. The property is approximately one-mile northeast of City Hall, and is near the north and eastern section of the City. The home sits between East California Boulevard to the north and Huntington Drive to the south.

Sierra Madre Boulevard is to the west of the subject property and San Gabriel Boulevard is to the east.

The neighborhood contains many single-family residences on individual lots. Figure 3 below shows the subject property within its surrounding neighborhood.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Figure 3. Surrounding Neighborhood Setting
Source: Google Maps
The corner lot has a tapered shape and a gentle slope towards the street level. The residence is positioned closest to the west boundary of the lot and is listed as being 5,143 square feet in size. The home is u-sped with a Winston Avenue facing front elevation and two side wings. Figure 4 below is an aerial image showing the roof line of the home. In this image the multiple hipped roof form as well as the u-shape plan of the home are both visible. The u-shape plan creates an outdoor courtyard and the interior of the footprint wraps around the courtyard creating an intimate interface between the interiors and the exterior.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Figure 4. Aerial View of Property Plan and Roof Lines
source: Los Angeles County Assessor
The home is part of assessor parcel number 5331-008-020 (see Exhibit 1). The parcel is 29,620 square feet in size and contains a large area that fronts Winston Avenue constituting the frontage yard. Information about the parcel from the Los Angeles County Assessor website shows just one residential building of 5,143 square feet (with five bedrooms and five bathrooms) built in 1930, with an effective year built of 1930. Any differences between the “year built” and “effective year built” often indicates alterations made over time. In this case, having the same year indicates that there were no extensive alterations to the home.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION
The subject property is being evaluated to determine historic significance and eligibility in accordance with local definitions for landmark designation. The property was not evaluated against the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, or other national programs; however, guidelines for evaluating properties against the National Register are being employed because no such guidelines are available for evaluating properties for local designation in San Marino.

3.1 City of San Marino
The subject property is being evaluated to determine historic significance and eligibility in accordance with the City of San Marino Municipal Code and general guidance from the City’s General Plan.

SAN MARINO MUNICIPAL CODE
The City of San Marino under Code Section 2.12 provides for the designation of a “Local Historical Landmark” the definition of which is “… a property that has played a role in the formation and existence of the City.” This definition is being used to evaluate the significance of the subject property. The “role and formation of the City” is translated as a property that is important within the context of the City’s development history. As a part of this assessment, a context statement has been developed to justify that the property holds historic significance against its applicable historic context. Historic criteria typically examine associations with important events, associations with persons of significance, architectural quality and design, and/or archeology, and are being used as a general guide to determine eligibility. The following is the applicable San Marino Code section for evaluating the property.

02.12.01: PURPOSE:

The City Council may designate a building, landmark or other property within the City as a local historical landmark in special recognition of the property's role during the formation and existence of the City. (Ord. 951, 3-8-89)

02.12.02: METHOD OF DESIGNATION:

Local historical landmark may be designated as follows:

A. Petition: An individual or organization may petition the Council stating the name and location of the building, landmark or other property proposed for designation as a local historical landmark and the basis for such designation.

B. Council Review: Upon review of the facts presented, the Council may approve or deny the designation of the proposed building, landmark or other property as a "Local Historical Landmark”. Approval of such designation shall be by resolution of the Council based on findings of the property's role during the formation and existence of the City. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

C. Certification: When a building, landmark or other property is designated as a "Local Historical Landmark", the City Clerk shall submit a certified copy of the resolution indicating such designation to the State Historical Society, the City Historical Society and the individual or organization originally submitting the petition for designation. (Ord. 951, 3-8-89) This code section was adopted by ordinance in 1989. The ordinance did not establish working criteria, a method for evaluation, or describe the effects of designation. Owner consent is not required for designation but a process is outlined which includes consideration by the City Council as listed above.

SAN MARINO GENERAL PLAN
The San Marino General Plan was adopted in 2003. The Land Use Chapter of the General Plan includes three sections, 1) Land Use Designations, 2) Economic Development, and 3) Preservation. The Land Use Designation section includes a listing of the City’s cultural treasures including the El Molino Viejo and the Huntington Library and Botanical Gardens. The Preservation section of the General Plan provides policies and objectives to recognize historic resources in the City. Preservation of significant historic structures is desirable to ensure the City’s unique sense of place, and to protect the historical and culturally significant resources that contribute to community identity and a sense of history. General Plan objectives center around the identification of significant architectural, cultural, and historic resources.

Implementation of a historic preservation program in the City under the General Plan could include ordinance development, protection measures for designated properties, adoption of State Historic Building Code, and incentives.

SAN MARINO DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Currently the City has the following properties designated as historic properties at the local, State, or National level.
*El Molino Viejo, California Landmark No. 302, placed in 1939. *Governor Stoneman Adobe, California Landmark No. 669
*Edwin Hubble House, placed on the National Register of Historic Places *Michael White Adobe, placed on the National Register of Historic Places *Emery Estate, placed on the National Register of Historic Places *Thurnher House, designated a San Marino Local Historical Landmark by the City Council in 2002 The former estate of Henry E. Huntington, today the Huntington Library and Botanical Gardens, is not included on any local, State, or National register but is a commonly known historic property of significance.

Other properties not designated, but known to have historic importance include San Marino City Hall (1920) and Lacy Park (1925).
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

The City currently does not have a historic resource survey program to systematically survey and identify potentially significant historic resources for portions of the City or Citywide, but the City is currently developing an ordinance to protect cultural resources.

3.2 Evaluation, Eligibility, Survey, and Methodology
The property was not fully evaluated in this report for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or other National or State program; and was not evaluated as a “historical resource” under the definitions of the California Environmental Quality Act. However, guidelines for evaluating properties against the National Register and the eligibility criteria are being employed. Additionally, the methodology for surveying and identifying historic properties under the California Office of Historic Preservation are being employed. The following is a summary of the framework for determining if the subject property has historic significance and would qualify as a “Local Historical Landmark” in accordance with San Marino City Code.

EVALUATION AND SURVEY WORK
To be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (or other register program), a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register (or other register program criteria), but it also must have integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. Based on professional practice, an integrity determination is also needed for local level designations. The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not.

Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity and include: Location; Design; Setting; Materials; Workmanship; Feeling; and Association.

To determine the significance and eligibility of the subject property against established criteria at the National, State and local level, this report uses National Register Bulletin No. 15 (How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation) which provides guidance on how to evaluate the significance of historic properties, specifically how to evaluate significance against historic context and how to evaluate the integrity of the property. Although National Register Bulleting No. 15 is focused on evaluating properties for the National Register, the document states its applicability for the State and local level. No such document or guidelines for evaluating properties at the State and local levels exist; therefore, National Register Bulletin No. 15 is being employed. The National Register considers properties older than 50 for evaluation and provides guidance on how to evaluate significance for properties less than 50 years old.

The State Office of Historic Preservation has established a methodology and recording instrument and instruction on conducting a historic resource survey. The State of California uses the 45 years old or older threshold for considering properties for historic significance. This survey methodology is being used to evaluate the subject property.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources is an authoritative guide to California’s significant historical and archeological resources to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state, and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. Although this report is not evaluating the property against the California Register, similar methodology is being used here.

The rights and responsibilities of owners of historic properties are the same as those of owners of nonhistoric properties. Listing does not prevent the use, sale, or transfer of the property. Because land use authority in California generally belongs to the local government, listing does not give either the state or the federal government any additional authority over the property. Consent from the property owner is not required, but a resource cannot be listed over an owner’s objections. The State Historic Resources Commission can, however, formally determine a property eligible for the California Register if the resource owner objects.

Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historic integrity and are historically significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) It has yield or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to having significance, resources must have integrity for the period of significance. The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, significant individuals made their important contributions, or important associations occurred. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

4.0 RECORDS AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
This report includes collection, research, and analysis of archival documents, previous studies, reports and citations to aid in making a finding of historic significance and local eligibility. Assessor parcel data and maps for the subject property are included from what is available within the County Assessor website.

Original Sanborn maps were reviewed for San Marino. Library and archival research was conducted on the property and the family and architect associated with the property. A review of historic maps and aerial photos was conducted to determine the existence of site features that pre-date the construction of the home. Research was conducted at the San Marino public library and the San Marino historical society.

4.1 Prior Historic Resource Surveys and Inventories
There are no prior historic surveys that have been completed for this San Marino neighborhood. However, the subject property has been included in non-city affiliated pieces written on San Marino, and has its own file in the UC Santa Barbara archives on architect Roland E. Coates.

The San Marino Historical Society has on file multiple informal inventory lists of properties of historical interest. The subject property was included in an inventory of the San Marino Historical Society under “San Marino Architects”. This inventory was created in the early 1990s.

The home is also listed as No. 22 of 31 San Marino property of architectural noteworthiness in the seminal local history volume: “An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles” by David Gebhard and Robert Winter published in 2003. In there the home at 708 Winston Avenue is identified as the “Fitzgerald House” with the description “Coate was, of course, always at home with the Monterey style”.

4.2 City Directory Listings
To determine the occupants and owners of the property over time, a review of old City of San Marino directories obtained via Ancestry.com was completed. The review covered the subject property up to the late 1950s. Arroyo Resources was not able to obtain information in directories from the periods of 1929- 1930 as well as 1944-1948. The following Table 1 lists all occupants living at the property per available directories at the time this report was prepared.

Table 1. Subject Property, Directory Searches
source: Ancestry.com
Address Years Occupants
708 Winston Avenue 1929-1930 Information not available
708 Winston Avenue 1931-1943 C. Grattan and Ruth K. Fitzgerald 708 Winston Avenue 1944-1948 Information not available
708 Winston Avenue 1949-1959 Charles H. and Jane P. Hermann 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Directories from 1931-1943 show that C. Grattan and Ruth K. Fitzgerald lived at 708 Winston Avenue. A biography of the Fitzgeralds is proved in Section 4.8 below. Between the years of 1949 and 1959, directories indicate that Charles H. and Jane P. Hermann resided in the home. Based on research, Charles was a representative for the Repcal Brass Manufacturing company and was an advisor for the Five Acres Junior Auxiliary. Jane was a homemaker and member of the San Marino Child Aid Society.

4.3 City Building Permits
City of San Marino building permit records on the property as filed with the City’s Building and Safety Department were obtained. The original building permit was obtained by C.G. Fitzgerald in 1929 and states that he was the owner of the subject property. The building contractor is F. H. Ruppel, and the architect is Roland E. Coate. Table 2 below lists the original permit and modifications to the home. Exhibit 2 contains copies of all the City building permits on file.

Table 2. City Building Permits for 708 Winston Avenue
source: San Marino Building Department

CITY PERMIT RECORDS ASSESSMENT OF MODIFICATIONS
Date: December 3, 1929 (Permit No: 1005)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Build residence
Building Size: 107’ x 73’ approx
Stories: 1
Material: Concrete, Wood, 8-inch Adoblar Brick,
Composition & Shakes
Valuation/Cost: $27,000
Contractor and Architect: F.H. Ruppel, Roland E.

Coate
Owner: C.G. Fitzgerald
This is the original building permit for the residence. It is described as a one story, 12-room structure built for owner C.G. Fitzgerald and designed by architect Roland
E. Coate. The home is to sit at the front of the lot and will have a concrete foundation. The walls are built of brick veneer, while wood is used for most other portions of home (beams, floors, stairways). The home will have
composition & shakes roofing and two chimneys. The
original permit shows measured setbacks, and early
required condition in San Marino.

Date: January 14, 1944 (Permit No: 4355)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Garage
Building Size: N/A
Stories: 1
Material: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $200
Contractor and Architect: Illegible
Owner: Mary K. Beschorman
This permit appears to be for a very small
garage/storage structure near the location of the
current detached garage as appears on permit no.
11863 showing a detached garage added to the lot. This
structure no longer exists but was replaced by a carport and full-size garage documents in more recent permits
below. The small cost indicates that the structure was
small.

Date: February 2, 1948 (Permit No: 6034)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Repairs – Non-structural
Building Size: N/A
Stories: N/A
Material: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $600
Contractor and Architect: Austin G. Buffam
Owner: J. Hermann
An undetailed permit whose purpose is described as
“Repairs: Non-structural”.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Date: July 1, 1953 (Permit No: 8903)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Re-roof building
Building Size: N/A
Stories: 1
Material: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $2,815
Contractor and Architect: Royal Roofing Co.

Owner: Charles Hermann, Jr
This permit is for re-roofing the home. The material
used is not specified.

Date: May 22, 1959 (Permit No: 11863)
708 Winston Ave
Work: “Add to dwelling”
(Increase bath; convert garage to bedroom; add
carport)”
Building Size: N/A
Stories: 1
Material: Composition & Shakes
Valuation/Cost: $5,000
Contractor and Architect: D.M. McDonald
Owner: E.O. Thomas
This permit is for conversion of the original attached
garage into a living room/den area. A bathroom was
increased in size. A carport was added to the rear of the home is the general location of the current detached
garage added in 1985 as indicated below. .

Date: Jul 19, 1967 (Permit No: 4247)
708 Winston Ave
Work: “Private gunite Swimming Pool per plan -
Include deck”
Building Size: N/A
Stories: N/A
Material: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $4,500
Contractor and Architect: R.P Perry & Associates
Owner: William Bassett
This permit describes an addition of a private swimming pool and an alteration of what was then the carport. At the time of this permit, there were two buildings on the property. An accompanying inspection record for this
work was included, and notes are as follows:
“Remove stump from wall of pool.”
“Remove brick out of garage or carport area, so that it will be maintained as a garage or carport”
The current owner did discuss an oak tree in the
courtyard falling over at some point, and perhaps this is what the note about the stump refers to.

Date: May 22, 1978 (Permit No: 31880)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Retaining wall
Building Size: N/A
Stories: 1
Material:

Valuation/Cost: $700
Contractor and Architect: Mercurio Mason
Owner: Mrs. Marilyn M. Bassett
This permit is for a retaining wall added to the property.

It is listed as a repair.

Date: February 2, 1983 (Permit No: 39820)
708 Winston Ave
Work: New fireplace in existing room
Stories: N/A
Material: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $4,400
Contractor and Architect: ACME Patio Center
Owner: John Evans
This permit is for the addition of a fireplace to an
existing room in the home.

Date: January 7, 1985 (Permit No: 42360)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Add new garage, bath; remodel existing
kitchen
This permit is for a garage and bathroom addition, as
well as a remodeling of the kitchen.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Original Building Size: 5,400 square feet
Proposed Addition Size: 1,027 sq. ft
Stories: 1
Material: Tile
Valuation/Cost: $20,000
Contractor and Architect: Robert Savage
Owner: Robert C. Lashbrook
Date: October 11, 1989 (Permit No: 58849)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Remove existing pool; add new, 400 sq ft
pool w spa
Building Size: 400 square feet
Stories: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $22,000
Contractor and Architect: R.B. Perry & Associates
Owner: Nelson Jones
This permit is for the alteration of the pool in the rear of the home; the old pool is replaced with a new pool
and spa.

Date: March 29, 1993 (Permit No: 70383)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Unspecified-Mechanical Permit
Heating?
Building Size:

Stories: N/A
Valuation/Cost:

Contractor and Architect: Benedict & Benedict
Owner: Nelson Jones
Its unclear what this 1993 permit is for—some sort of
mechanical heating installation or repair.

Date: October 13, 1998 (Permit No: 77219)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Tear off wood shakes – replace with Class
‘C’ treated wood shakes to match existing – 700
sq feet
Building Size: 700 sq feet
Stories: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $2,200
Contractor and Architect: M. Sheahan
Owner: Nelson Jones
Presumably, the garage was re-roofed with this
permit.

Date: August 30, 1999 (Permit No: 78454)
708 Winston Ave
Work: Tear off re-reroof, replace with Class ‘C’
wood shakes – 5,500 sq feet
Building Size:

Stories: N/A
Valuation/Cost: $8,500
Contractor and Architect: M. Sheahan
Owner: Nelson Jones
Presumably, the 1953 re-roof was torn off here and
the residence was re-roofed to match the previous
permit entry (see above).

The permits show that the home was originally built between 1929 and 1930. Original blueprints dated 1929 as obtained by the current owners (see Figure 5. below) show the home was designed by Roland E.

Coate as a one-story residence with twelve rooms for CG Fitzgerald. The original work included an attached garage, a part of the u-shape of the home. In 1944, a subsequent owner added a small garage 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

in the general location of the current detached garage. In 1959, the original attached garage was converted into a room and an existing bathroom was expanded. The work in this year also included construction of a carport in the location of the current detached garage.

Other minor modifications include unspecified non-structural repairs were done to the home in 1948.

The residence was re-roofed in 1953 and in more recent times. A swimming pool was added in 1967.

Figure 5. Roland E. Coate, Blueprint Image for the Property source: Current Property Owners

4.4 Subdivision History
Arroyo Resources reviewed the Subdivision maps filed with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to trace land divisions changes over time. The subject property is Lots 55 of Tract 9884 subdivided in 1928. Based on City permit records, the home was built a year afterward. Table 3 provides a chronological listing of tract subdivisions covering the subject property. Tract maps for No. 9884 are included as a part of Exhibit 3.

Table 3. Tract Cronology
Source: Los Angeles County Public Works Land Records

SURVEYED RECORDED TRACT (PORTION OF) TRACT AND PUBLIC

LAND RECORD

INFORMATION
SHEETS
October 1928 November 21,
1928
Tract No. 9884 (Henry E.

Huntington, Dubros
Realty Corporation)
TR0155-049 #1 and #2
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

1907 March 6, 1907 San Marino Park
(Huntington Land &
Improvement Company)
TR0085-070 #5, #6 and #7
March 1904 May 3, 1904 Huntington Drive Tract
No 2 (Los Angeles Land
Company)
TR0005-095a #7
The property was a part of a tract of land owned by the Huntington Estate and developed by the Dubros Realty Corporation in 1928. The tract was surveyed by William Chalmers who was the city engineer for the City of San Marino in 1928. This tract was created on a portion of Lot 4 of the San Marino Park Tract, owned by Huntington Land & Improvement Company in 1907, and a portion of Block O of the Huntington Drive Tract No. 2 which was owned by the Los Angeles Land Company in 1904.

4.5 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn fire insurance maps are large-scale maps that depict the commercial, industrial, and residential sections of approximately 12,000 cities and towns in the United States. These specialized maps were prepared for the exclusive use of fire insurance companies and underwriters to provide accurate, current, and detailed information about the buildings they were insuring and today provide valuable information for research purposes. A review of Sanborn maps for San Marino was conducted for the subject property.

There is only one known Sanborn Maps for the City of San Marino prepared in 1929 as obtained from the Los Angeles Public Library. The only territory in the City mapped was the commercial district around Mission Street. There are no Sanborn maps showing the property or its vicinity.

4.6 Los Angeles County Assessor Historic Tax Roll
Assessor tax record research was conducted at the archival room of the Los Angeles County Assessor in downtown Los Angeles. Research was conducted to determine ownership over time with the objective of determining the original owner of the home from when the property first came on the tax rolls. The property at 708 Winston Avenue is located on Lots 55 and 56 of Tract 9884. Records indicate that the tract was transferred to the Dubros Realty Corporation in 1928 and subsequently subdivided. Lots 55 and 56 of the tract were transferred to Ruth K. Fitzgerald in 1931. In 1933, Lots 55 and 56 were transferred to C.G. Fitzgerald. In 1938 the lots were transferred back to Ruth K. Fitzgerald. The property was transferred from Ruth K. Fitzgerald to Mary K. Beschorman in 1943. In 1948, the subject property was transferred to Charles H. and Jane P. Hermann and remained in their possession until 1959 when the property was transferred to Evan O. and Mary M. Thomas. In 1964, the property was transferred from Evan O. and Mary M. Thomas to William E. and Marilyn M. Bassett. Table 4 below shows the ownership history of the subject property.

Table 4. Property Ownership History: 708 Winston Avenue source: Los Angeles County Assessor
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Year Book Page Number Lot Number Name Transfer
Date
1964 240 11 55 and 56 Evan O. and Mary M.

Thomas transfer to
William E. and Marilyn
M. Bassett
7/28/1964
1959-1963 706 313 55 and 56 Charles H. and Jane P.

Hermann transfer to
Evan O. and Mary M.

Thomas
4/24/1959
1954-1958 706-2 313 55 and 56 Charles H. and Jane P.

Hermann
None
1949-1953 706-2 313 55 and 56 Charles H. and Jane P.

Hermann
None
1941-1948 706 32 55 and 56 Mary K. Beschorman
transfer to Charles H.
and Jane P. Hermann
Ruth K. Fitzgerald
transfer to Mary K.

Beschorman
1/13/1948
10/14/1943
1934-1941 706 32 55 and 56 C Grattan Fitzgerald
transfer to Ruth K.

Fitzgerald
1938
1927-1934 706 32 55 and 56 Ruth K. Fitzgerald
transfer to C Grattan
Fitzgerald
Dubos Realty
Corporation transfer
to Ruth K. Fitzgerald
1933
1931
1921-1927 147 21 4 Huntington Land and
Improvement
Company transfer to
the Dubros Realty
Corporation
1928
1913-1921 147 21 4 Huntington Land &
Improvement
Company
No date
shown
The original owner of the home, Ruth K. Fitzgerald was the wife of CG Fitzgerald who was the president of the Fitzgerald Engineering and Construction Company based in Los Angeles, CA. Further information about CG Fitzgerald is provided in section 4.8 below.

Other owners of the home include May K. Beschorman who was the second owner of the home. A housewife, she was married to William C. Beschorman, a retired president of Furniture Mart Incorporated 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

in Scarsdale, NY. The next owner, Charles H. Hermann, was a sales representative for the Repcal Brass Manufacturing Company in Los Angeles, CA and his wife Jane was a housewife. Following owners William E. and Marilyn M. Bassett owned a sales firm that represented manufacturers of electronics. The firm is now known as the Bassett Sales Corporation and is run by their children. After moving to San Marino in 1964, Marilyn became involved in the San Marino PTA and the San Marino Unified School District. Her involvement led to her being elected to the school board of the Sa Marino Unified School District and eventually as the president of the school board. In the late 1970s, Marilyn ran the office of Senator S.I.

Hayakawa. In 1983, she went to work for the Los Angeles law firm McCutcheon, Black, Verleger & Shea.

Marilyn was also a Deacon at the San Marino Community Church and volunteer for various activities.

4.7 Library Research
Research was conducted at the Los Angeles Public Library including the California Index, the historical US Census, a review of the historical Los Angeles Times articles on persons associated with the property and the neighborhood, and historic photographs. Additional research was conducted at the San Marino public library, the Pasadena History Museum, and the San Marino Historical Society.

4.8 C.G. Fitzgerald
The first owner of the home, who commissioned Roland E. Coate for its design, was Cyril Grattan Fitzgerald. He was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on June 10, 1890 and was one of six children of James G. FitzGerald, an Irish immigrant to the United States and Carrie Chapman Fitzgerald of Canada. The family lived in Canada until they immigrated to the United States in 1896 and lived in Alabama. Between 1896 and 1910, the family moved to Los Angeles. The first mention of the family in the United States Census is in 1910 in which it is stated that James Fitzgerald was a commission agent for a land and lumber company and Cyril Fitzgerald was listed a civil engineer. At the time Fitzgerald was working for the South Coast Land Company. He was drafted into the army in 1918 during World War I and served as a captain in Company A of the 601st Corps of Engineers.

Records indicate that Fitzgerald’s mother Carrie died in 1920. In 1922, he married Ruth Mary Adelaine Keller, born on March 26, 1895 in Santa Monica, CA. The couple had a daughter, Mary Ann, in 1930.

In 1923, Fitzgerald and two of his brothers created the Fitzgerald Engineering and Construction Company, of which he was the president. In 1929, Fitzgerald joined with Los Angeles businessman, Harry Johansing, and others to create the Twenty-Nine Palms Corporation in order to buy land in the oasis of Twenty-Nine Palms, CA. The corporation bought the Twenty-Nine Palms Inn and 480 acres of land surrounding the area to subdivide it and sell the lots. However, the stock market crash in October of that year put an end to those plans. Instead, the corporation retained ownership of the Twenty-Nine Palms Inn and made profits from it. The corporation eventually sold the inn in 1938. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Figure 6. Photo of Cyril Grattan Fitzgerald (1890-1953) source: Geni.com
Meanwhile, the Fitzgerald Engineering and Construction Company was very successful and had two offices, one on Spring Street and another on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles. The company was very active in community development and designed and constructed many streets in Los Angeles, CA. The company also constructed the Rowan Building on Spring Street that still stands today.

Fitzgerald was engaged in other activities including the Hamilton Sales Corporation of which he was president. He was a member of the Los Angeles Rotary Club, Associated Contractors, American Legion, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Fitzgerald died on February 29, 1953 at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, CA and is buried at Calvary Cemetery in Los Angeles, CA. His wife, Ruth, died on June 4, 1986 in San Luis Obispo, CA and is also buried at Calvary Cemetery in Los Angeles, CA. Exhibit 4 includes his obituary as published in the Los Angeles Times.

4.9 Roland E. Coate
Roland Eli Coate Sr. was a prolific architect in southern California and is best known for being a great proponent of the Colonial Revival styles in residential architecture, especial Monterey Colonial Revival.

He was born in Richmond, Indiana in 1890 and completed the first two years of his formal education in his hometown at Earlham College. Coate went on to receive professional training in Architecture at Cornell University from which he was awarded a bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1914. After graduation Coate received a Tau Beta Phi Engineering Honors Society scholarship to travel to Europe and study architecture.

Upon his return from Europe, he was immediately able to gain employment as a draftsman with the prestigious firm of Trowbridge and Livingston in New York. Coate was employed by the firm from 1915 to 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

1917 until he entered into the American Expeditionary Forces to serve in World War I. When Coate completed his service in 1919, he moved to Los Angeles, California and was sponsored by Reginald Johnson to receive his certification to practice architecture in the golden state. Once he received his certification Coate entered into a partnership with Reginald Johnson and Gordon Kaufmann, forming Johnson, Kaufmann and Coate Architects. While working as a junior architect with the firm, he helped to design St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral in downtown Los Angeles which stood until March of 1980 when it was demolished to clear land for the construction of an office high rise. Johnson, Kaufmann and Coate amicably dissolved in 1925, at which time Coate began his sole practice as an architect.

Figure 7. Roland Eli Coate, Cornell University 1914
source: Cornell University
Given Coate’s success with St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral, the first solo commission he received was in designing the All Saints Episcopal Church in Beverly Hills which still stands today. One of Coate’s most celebrated works is his essay, “The Early California House, Blending Colonial and California Forms”, published in California Arts & Architecture magazine in March of 1929. In it he shares his design philosophy and provides valuable insight into why he felt Monterey Colonial Revival architecture was perfect for California living. By the time he wrote the essay, Coate had designed dozens of residences in West Los Angeles, Downey, Pasadena, Santa Anita, and San Marino and was highly regarded as a gifted architect by both his colleagues and high society clients. During Coate’s time, a large body of his work was published in a multitude of architecture, design and local periodicals, celebrating the beautiful designs and masterfully executed details in his Colonial Revival homes. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

On July 20th, 1952, the Pasadena Star News published a column titled, “Architecture 1900-1952, Outstanding Examples Built Within 50 Years” in which the residence located at 708 Winston Avenue was noted as “one of the first examples of a one-story Monterey type.” Coate designed nearly one hundred buildings and residences during the wide span of his career, of which almost fifty percent were constructed in San Marino, the city he called home for many years.

Coate was the recipient of numerous awards from the American Institute of Architects (A.I.A), nationally and from the local southern California and Pasadena chapters, as well as the Architectural League of New York. He is a master architect, who is credited with designing the finest examples of Colonial Revival architecture in southern California. Figure 8 below is a 1939 photograph of the home he designed for noted filmmaker, David O. Selznick. Coate was a practicing architect until his death in 1958, creating an impressive portfolio of influential work throughout the wide span of his career.

Figure 8. Home of David O. Selznick in Beverly Hills
designed by Roland E. Coate, built in 1933
source: Los Angeles Public Library
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

5.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
The following discussion of historic context has been developed to help evaluate the significance of the subject property. Historic contexts are defined as “those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) is made clear.” A context may be organized by theme, geographic area, or chronology; regardless of the frame of reference, a historic context is associated with a defined area and an identified period of significance.

Historic contexts are linked to physical artifacts through the concept of property types and is crucial to the evaluation of historic significance. A property’s historic significance must be explained against its associated context.

This historic context period important for evaluating the significance of the subject property is the period in San Marino’s development history that established the pattern of estate home building. The product of the early City founders’ planning was a set of rules and regulations put in place to create a planned community of stately residential homes on large lots, providing an on-site garden setting and park-like environment for the City overall. Context statements have also been provided to understand the importance of persons associated with the property and the appropriate architectural context to understand the significance of the home’s style and features.

The City does not have an established Citywide Historic Context Statement. Exhibit 5 is a Citywide Context Statement developed for evaluating properties and features in the City of San Marino. The following context statements have been developed specifically for evaluating the subject property’s historic significance.

5.1 The Neighborhood
The property is within the “Winston Avenue” neighborhood as identified in the City’s 2003 General Plan.

This neighborhood is north of Huntington Drive to the south, Sierra Madre Boulevard to the east, San Marino High School and Santa Anita Avenue to the east and the City boundary to the north. The character of the neighborhood is defined by the revival architectural styles, curved streets, mature and lush landscaping, and planned setbacks. Most homes are two-stories. The one-story plan of the subject home with deep setbacks on a corner lot gives the home a “landmark” feel within the neighborhood. Lot sizes in this neighborhood are in the range of 12,000 square feet. The home is more than twice this size.

Surrounding homes include several two-story American Colonial Revival style homes.

The neighborhood was once a part of the San Marino Park tract created in 1907 by the Huntington Land and Improvement Company, but was not developed until after this territory was subdivided to create typical residential parcels for single family home building. The home is comprised of what is the entirety of Lots 55 of Tract 9884 subdivided in 1928 transferring ownership between the Huntington Estate company to individuals. The home was one of the first developed in this tract. The Pacific Electric Monrovia Branch ran along Huntington Drive with a route up Sierra Madre Boulevard, one block to the west of the home. Figure 9 below shows a territory in San Marino near the home advertising the 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

“Huntington Drive Tract”. A tract of land slightly north of the subject property. This photo may have been taken some time between 1904 and 1909.

Figure 9. Looking north along Santa Anita Avenue in San Marino, no date source: Los Angeles Public Library

5.2 San Marino Architects, Builders, and Craftsmen
The rules and regulations set by the early founders of the City were influential when it came to the residential development patterns and architecture of the City. Strict building regulations and standards combined with the fact that the City was the locale of Henry E. Huntington’s estate drew primarily uppermiddle and upper-class homeowners throughout the 1920s and the 1930s. As a result, many of San Marino’s homes were designed to be stately residences at the least, and were sometimes designed by well-known architects of the era commissioned by local residents often active in their fields. Historian David Gebhard claims that often, the best examples of good architecture in San Marino sit near the City’s border shared Pasadena, for many “excellent” architects working in Pasadena were ready and willing to cross the border into San Marino.

In the early 1990s, the City of San Marino worked with the San Marino Historical Society to develop a file on “San Marino Architects”; this included a document titled “Street Listing”, which includes the address and street listings of homes built by what the City and the Historical Society consider to be “architects”, as opposed to “builders” or “craftsmen”. Though the following list is by no means all-inclusive, it does 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

include the names of both firms and individuals that were considered important enough to have residences listed by the City as documented by the San Marino Historical Society.

FIRMS & PARTNERSHIPS
*Adams & Rainer
*Buff, Straub, & Hensman
*Hudson & Munsell
*Marston, Van Pelt & Maybury
*Marston & Maybury
*Norwood & Delonge
*Smith & Williams
*Weston & Weston

INDIVIDUALS
*Allen Tierney
*David Gilvie
*Everett Babcock
*Frank D. Hudson
*Garrett Van Pelt
*Herbert Brewster
*Jack Delonge
*Jock Peters
*Miller Fong
*Myron Hunt
*Offenhauser
*Ray Kieffer
*RM Schindler
*Roland Coate
*Roy Kelley
*Theodore Pletch
*Wallace Neff
Roland E. Coate, can be considered a master architect due to his blending of Colonial with Spanish architectural elements and features that contributed to a specific style. There is an extensive collection of archives related his architectural practice located at the University of Santa Barbara, California. The University has published an index to their archives, which includes all of the addresses for which they have original and/or important material, including blueprints, correspondences, newspaper and magazine clippings, et al. What follows is a table of all the residences included in the Roland E. Coate archives that were listed as being located in the City of San Marino, California. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Table 5. Selected San Marino Residences designed by Roland E. Coate 1925-1956
source: University of California, Santa Barbara
Name Address Year
Bailey, Wilbur 1500 Park Place 1925-1956
Barnhill, F.D. 1725 Oak Grove 1926
Bryant, Ernest A. 1200 Virginia Road 1948
Bush, Roy R. 2060 Lombardy Road 1951-1952
Charnley, Vernon 1288 Oak Grove Avenue 1931
Clary, William L 1102 Arden Road 1951-1952
Coates, Roland E 1255 Shenandoah 1938-1941
Day, Clarence “Gainsborough Heath” -
Dragge, Allen 1201 Virginia Rd (alterations) 1952-1953
Edwards, WD South Oak Knoll Avenue 1925
Erdman, C Pardee 1050 Rosalind Road 1937-1940
Fitzgerald, CG 708 Winston Avenue 1929
Freutel Jr., Edward C. 1950
Gaylord, G.S. 1466 Charlton Road 1937
Geis, W.H. 1550 Circle Drive 1937
Hall, Shirley 1300 Woodstock Road
(addition)
1935-1950
Heath, Edward 2080 Lombardy Road 1929-1932
Hoover Jr., Herbert 915 Orlando Road 1950
Hotchkiss, Preston 1415 Circle Drive 1928
Mayo, Geoffrey G. 945 Orlando Road 1928-1936
McCone, John A. 1100 Oak Grove Ave. 1952-1950
Meaglia, Dominic 905 Chester 1944-1950
Menefee, Percy L 642 Chaucer Street 1927-1928
O’Melveny, Stuart 1465 Orlando Road 1941
Pike, Thomas P. 1475 Circle Drive 1938
Ruppel, Frederick 2225 Robles Avenue 1937-1938
Smith, Clement C 1260 Shenandoah Road
(alteration)
1933
Smith, Gladys Milligan 1850 Lombardy Road 1928
Stasand, George W 674 Canterbury Road 1937
Stream, Harold 870 Chester Avenue 1952
Taylor, Reese H. 1708 Oak Grove Avenue 1926
Taylor, Reese H. 1255 Shenandoah Avenue 1952-1953
Twaits, Ford 804 Oxford Road 1946-1947
Valentine, Edward 2035 El Molino Avenue
(alterations)
1948
Ward, Chandler 1355 Circle Drive 1930
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Ward, Monroe Rosalind Road 1939
Whittier, LeLand Shenandoah Road 1955-1956
Wilson, Annie 1260 Shenandoah Road 1930
Figure 10. San Marino home of Edward H Heath (2080 Lombardy Road) built in 1930 and designed by Roland E. Coate, photo 1939 source: Los Angeles Public Library

5.3 Monterey Colonial Revival
The Montery Colonial Revival style is one of several stylistic variations within the “Period Revival” styles, which refers to a wide range of historically based styles favored by the American public for nearly half of a century. The trend towards revivalist architecture gained momentum from the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, the Columbian Exposition, where historical interpretations of European styles were encouraged. This marked a new era for American architecture: historical correctness also became more important as young architects attended universities for their craft instead of office apprenticeships. By the second decade of 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

the century, clients were also more knowledgeable and concerned with historical “correctness” while simultaneously desiring more opulence and display. The emerging revival styles looked to the past for inspiration, and quickly gained precedence during the first half of the 20th century. Mission, Spanish Colonial, English Tudor, French Norman—these styles were based on traditional, historic building traditions of North America and Europe. This was one of the most diverse and colorful periods for architecture and urban design across America.

The Monterey Colonial Revival style (also named “Monterey”, “Monterey Colonial”, or “Monterey Revival”) encompasses the building traditions of the Native Americans, Spanish colonies, and early settlers from Mexico in California with the formality, symmetry, and grandeur of New England Colonial architectural details such as windows, doors, casings and trim. During the era of Spanish colonization in California the missions, dwellings, and presidios were constructed to withstand earthquakes and enemy invasions. The Spanish adopted the adobe construction method used by the Native Americans, not only because the natives would provide the labor, but also because the adobe Pueblos were well adapted to the climate of the region and provided a solid structural barrier against invasion and seismic activity. Adobe bricks were made rather easily by filling a rectangular wooden mold with a combination of soil, water, straw or grass, and turning it out on the ground to sun bake for eight days. Once the bricks were thoroughly baked they were turned on end to air cure before being used for construction. The mixture used to make adobe bricks doubled as mortar and provided for structural walls that were thick, strong, and far more weather and earthquake resistant than the traditional brick and mortar building methods used in New England. The Monterey Colonial Revival style adopted the adobe brick feature and often used “Adoblar” bricks, a brick made of modern materials meant to be an updated interrelation of the adobe brick.

The first Monterey Colonial Revival style building was designed and constructed by Thomas O.

Larkin. Larkin was not formally trained as a builder or architect, but he was a successful entrepreneur who used inspiration from his home region and local resources when it came time to construct his residence in the west. Larkin was originally from Lynn, Massachusetts, a city within proximity to Boston which he frequently visited. When Larkin was a young man he established himself as a merchant before moving to North Carolina where he became a successful business man. He spent five years living in the south and often visited Charleston. During his visits, Larkin kept a diary of his travels which included entries about his appreciation of the city’s high architecture. His writings provide testimony that the colonial architecture of both New England and the South would inspire the design of the home he built in Monterey, California in 1835.

Traditional adobe houses were low and long, and the use of timber was limited to lintels that spanned doorways and beams for roof support. When Larkin arrived in California, he brought with him experience in the lumber industry and took advantage of the plentiful forest resources that the west had available.

He opened a saw mill in Santa Cruz and took orders for his lumber products from his flagship store in Monterey. The introduction of lumber materials and traditional English timber framing construction methods made it possible to build two story houses out of adobe bricks. The wood frame provided the structural support necessary to build a second story. Horizontal wood members were pierced into the 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

walls to hold the frame and adobe exterior together. Larkin’s sawmill was also able to produce wood shake roof tiles made as a byproduct of large building lumber. The lightweight roofing material made it possible to construct roofs with wide overhanging eaves that provided shade for verandas. Roof forms could be more complex and span large living areas of a house without being too heavy or costly.

The vertical posts and strong projecting second story floor joists allowed for the double verandas that are so characteristic of Monterey Colonial Revival style homes. Traditional adobe houses had floors that were made from tamped earth, but Larkin introduced the wood plank flooring that was common in New England Colonial houses to the California market, where it became widely adopted into residential construction. All the construction methods using timber and wood building materials were employed in the design of the Larkin House which stood as a showcase of the products that he sold in his store. Larkin’s hybrid use of timber elements from New England combined with the vernacular California adobe exteriors typified the Monterey Colonial Revival style.

Figure 11. The Larkin House, Monterey California, circa 1900 source: National Park Service
In Roland Coate’s 1929 essay, The Early California House, he describes the Colonial Revival types, saying “It is new and yet it is old, old traditions and old forms blended with new forms and treated in a new way.” Beginning with the vernacular architecture and forms of adobe houses that were so well suited for the California climate, early settlers from New England adapted the houses to their lifestyle by adding fine colonial architectural details. Coate goes on to explain that this early California type was as easy to develop for suburban living in the middle of the twentieth century as it was for early western settlers one hundred years earlier. Thus, Coate advocates for the Monterey Colonial Revival style stating that there is no limit to the ways its materiality, floor plan, level of formality, and interior design can be adapted for its occupants.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

The design of Monterey Colonial Revival homes can be comprised of multiple materials, including stucco, board and batten siding, and white washed brick or cement masonry units. On traditional adobe homes, wall coating was often applied to give buildings a more pleasant visual appearance and to help maintain the integrity of the walls, as wind-driven rain could expedite the erosion. Though Larkin was said to not initially favor the adobe material, in an 1843 letter he wrote that “the houses when plastered and white washed make a very good appearance.”
It is not uncommon to see second story materials differing from that of the first story; with one story types having different façade and rear elevation materials. Balconies can be of the most intricate iron detailing or made of simple iron or wood bars and rails. Roof forms tend to be hipped or side gabled with a large principle roof being indicative of the main living space. Additionally, wide over hanging eaves of the principle roof are incorporated to provide a covering for second floor verandas. Door and window openings can be simple if Spanish Colonial architecture is the influence, with adornments being served by window grilles, be they simple or intricate.

Formal types of Monterey Colonial Revival style homes incorporate New England colonial details such as double hung windows, sidelights, fan lights, Georgian trims and moldings, wooden shutters, and decorative corbels. Symmetry is also incorporated in New England types such as a centered main entrance door with equal amounts of window openings on each side, and a continuous linear veranda overhead.

Although Monterey Colonial Revival residences can feature red Spanish tile roofs, and artful Spanish tile details, the principle use of wood in the construction of framing, roofs, floor joists, verandas, support posts, and interior floors are common throughout all Monterey Revival types, be them one or two-story homes.

Figure 12. A Monterey Colonial Revival Home designed by Roland E. Coate, Pasadena CA 1927 source: Sothebys Home
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Figure 13. A Monterey Colonial Revival home designed by Coate for Francis Baer, Pasadena, CA Arts & Architecture Magazine, March 1929 source: Pasadena Museum of History
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

6.0 ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION

6.1 Style, Plan, Setting, and Massing
The subject property located at 708 Winston Avenue in San Marino, California is located in the northern and eastern section of the City. The site’s landscape is a manicured lawn with ivy ground cover, oak trees, olive trees, flowering plants, and shrubbery placed across the grounds. The home is situated deep inside the property away from the two surrounding streets and sits low to the ground. The home is surrounded by a highly landscaped setting, characterized by ivy, grass, ferns, green shrubs, and three heritage oak trees. Paved brick paths surround the home, leading from verandas to partitioned courtyard and a back courtyard (see Figure 14 below).

Figure 14. Street Views of home, showing long setback with heritage trees (above) along Winston Ave and secondary face along Lombardy Road (below)
source: Google Maps
The home was designed in the Monterey Colonial Revival style by master architect, Roland E. Coate. The residence stands as a fine and rare example of a one-story Monterey Revival style home. The property 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

has a ‘U’ shape plan which is comprised of a north service wing, a central living area, and the south bedroom wing, all of which surround the courtyard. Each wing has rectangular massing with the central wing being perpendicular to the north and south wings.

Exhibit 6 at the end of this Report includes a series of photographs of the property divided into its components, elevations, and features showing and describing the essential architectural character of the property.

Figure 15. Front Façade View along Winston Avenue
source: Arroyo Resources

6.2 Architectural Features
The following discussion breaks down the essential components of the architecture and those features that give the home its Monterey Colonial Revival style.

ROOF
The low-pitched hipped roof of the main living structure is covered in “class C” wood shakes fabricated to match the original wood shakes used in the 1929 construction and have replaced the original roof in its entirety. The underside of the roof overhangs and veranda are clad with redwood. The redwood rafter tails are visible all along the roof overhangs and have a half bullnose profile. The heavy use of redwood timbers and wood shakes is indicative of the Monterey Style. Some of the ends of the rafter tails along the east elevation of the original garage, have been replaced with like kind wood, most likely due to dry rot damage from intense sun and rain exposure over the years. The gutter system and downspouts also appear to be original. They have been well maintained and are in good condition. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

There are four chimneys protruding from the roof line, all of which are constructed of adoblar brick but have not retained full white-wash coating. The chimneys over the living room and master bedroom are original to the 1929 construction of the home. A permit for the addition of “a new fireplace in existing room” was issued in February of 1983, most likely in the converted garage space, although it is unclear whether the fireplace was installed in the converted garage space or the dining room. Although the original blue prints of the home do not show a fireplace in the dining room, it is likely that the design feature could have been part of the original construction and decided upon after the blue prints were printed. It would have been entirely appropriate for a home of this size to feature a fireplace in the dining room as it was a common design feature in many New England colonial residences and was adopted by the Monterey Colonial Revival style.

FOUNDATION
The residence has a basement foundation constructed of poured concrete. Several vents with metal debris screens were noted around the perimeter of the foundation. The veranda along the west facing primary façade has a brick paver patio laid in a double basket weave pattern. Two paver pathways radiate from it; one of which leads to the north sidewalk and the other leading to the gate providing access to the south path which leads to the garden, also laid in a double basket weave pattern. The garage court on the east side of the property is accessed through large gates from the north sidewalk and is decked with poured concrete. The garage court connects with an enclosed yard on the north side of the house, a pathway leading to the garden along the west side of the detached garage, and the main courtyard on the east side of the property with each area accessible by gate. The original brick paver patio remains in the small yard on the north side. The deck of the main courtyard is comprised of contemporary brick pavers laid in a scallop pattern with radial borders, which were installed in 1967 along with the first swimming pool by R.P. Perry & Associates. The brick borders of the planter beds in the main courtyard also appear to be contemporary. The main courtyard has a gate on the south end that opens to the garden area with original brick paver pathways that run the perimeter of the garden and lead back to the path along the west side of the detached garage which was added in 1944.

STRUCTURAL AND RETAINING WALLS
The exterior walls of the residence are comprised of adoblar bricks, which are modern bricks that were made to resemble the historic adobe bricks used to construct Spanish colonial buildings in early California history. The bricks are laid in a running bond pattern and are painted with white wash to protect them from moisture intrusion. This method of wall construction is a key element of the Monterey Colonial Revival style. The original east and south exterior walls of the courtyard were enclosed to create an indoor sun room and corridor, however the original board and batten siding on the walls remains, another key architectural feature of the Monterey Revival style. An adoblar retaining wall projects from the north elevation of the home, enclosing the small patio and yard along the north elevation, which was originally designed as the service entry for C.G. Fitzgerald’s maid, and other service providers. A bathroom is accessible from the outside patio and a door leads from this area to the service porch, which is connected to the kitchen. The retaining wall continues beyond the north elevation to enclose the outdoor spaces on 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

the east side of the residence. At the southeast corner of the property the retaining wall meets with an iron fence that runs along the south elevation and adjoins with an exterior wall on the west elevation where an access gate is located.

WINDOWS AND DOORS
All the wooden windows on the primary façade are original and remain in very good condition. Each window on the façade is double hung with a six over six composition and many feature brick headers with flat arches, slanted brick sills that direct water away from the windows, and wooden shutters with iron hardware, including decorative closures in a colonial scroll pattern. The design of these windows is derived from New England Colonial architecture, while the iron box grilles on the two west facing bedroom windows are reminiscent of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, although less ornate than traditional Spanish rejas (decorative ironwork). The main entry door has four panels and is flanked by two decorative pilasters and two over two sidelights. The thick moldings on the door surround, brass hardware, and high gloss white paint is indicative of the Georgian style, a design element of the home that was distinctly borrowed from New England Colonial architecture. Directly north of the main entry door is a set of intricately designed Colonial style doors. The opening houses four layers; exterior wooden shutters, a set of pocket doors, and a pair of French doors with three divided lights in each. The interior wooden shutters which are the fourth layer, do not appear to be original.

The windows on the west half of north elevation are almost all double hung with wooden shutters, two of which are two over two lights and one being six over six lights. There is one single hung window with an awning shutter for the bathroom allowing for privacy. The east half of the north elevation, which begins on the enclosed side of the retaining wall, features three six light casement windows on the kitchen wall, separated by decorative pilasters. There are two six light casement windows that flank the service porch entry door while the garage wall has a double hung two over two window with wooden shutters.

The windows and door on the east elevation of the converted garage are not original. The original opening was infilled with exposed adoblar brick, redwood timbers, and wooden casement windows with six lights that complement the original windows. The wooden, ten panel door exhibits a mid-century design which was appropriate for the time when the conversion was constructed in 1959.

The French doors on the south, north, and east facing elevations of the courtyard are original from the 1929 design, however the south and east facing exterior doors were relocated. The doors were moved from their original positions to become flush with the roof eave support columns, creating an indoor sun room off the living room and an enclosed corridor along the north wing, both of which retain the original terra cotta tile patio. The window infills on the south and east elevations are not original and were most likely added when the original garage was converted to a bedroom in 1959. The two dressing room windows on the north elevation of the courtyard are original and feature box window grilles with a decorative diamond pattern. Each of the casement windows has wooden interior shutters.

The windows that face the garden on the east elevation are three original casement windows, with the center window on the bathroom wall having a louvered wood shutter. The fixed picture window on the 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

far north end of the elevation is not original. This is made apparent by the remaining flat arch header above the window that is the width of the original casement window. The picture window features an etched nature scene of an oak tree, a body of water, and the mountains in the distance. The installation period for the picture window is unknown.

The two windows on the master bedroom wall of the south elevation and the two windows of the adjoining bedroom are each double hung, six over six lights with wooden shutters. The two windows on the south elevation located on the far west end are wooden casement windows, which are the same as those located on the street facing north elevation.

DETAILS
The primary façade and the courtyard feature fine architectural details that are exceptional and aide in characterizing the home as Monterey Colonial Revival style. A post with a cast iron lamp is located at the beginning of the main entry path that leads to the veranda and displays the house numbers. The original cast iron mailbox designed with the words “U.S. Mail” and a relief of an American eagle holding two American flags is mounted to the exterior wall on the left side of the front door entrance. Copper wall lanterns are located on the façade. Each fixture holds three electrified candlesticks and a reflective plate.

There are also feet on the bottom of each lantern, giving evidence that they were probably traditional table top lanterns converted into light fixtures for the home, a charming and unique feature. One of the windows on the façade has a knob located on its stool which may have served as a shutter hold.

The courtyard features iron Spanish style light sconces that hold an electrified candlestick. There is one unique window on the east courtyard elevation which is made with openings in the brick, a style of window that is prevalent in early Mexican dwellings, showing the influence of vernacular architectural elements on the Monterey Colonial style. An outdoor gardening sink made of brick and Spanish tiles with a floral motif sits just below the window perforation on the north elevation of the courtyard. A wooden sink apron features a quatrefoil pattern, reminiscent of the gothic architecture motifs commonly used in Spain. An original outdoor fountain is located on the courtyard’s curved retaining wall and is constructed of brick and Spanish tiles in blue, floral motifs, and mandalas in various colors and patterns. The main feature of the fountain are the yellow tiles painted with two peacocks surrounded by red flowers.

6.3 Alterations
Three major alterations have taken place since the residence was constructed in 1929 that have changed its exterior appearance. Modifications to the home include an original, attached garage, subsequently converted to a living area in 1959. Other changes include construction of a detached garage in 1985 and enclosure of the rear courtyard veranda with a series of French doors. Other modifications are minor and include changes to the landscape and hardscape of the rear courtyard. None of these modifications have compromised the integrity of the original design.

In 1944, a small detached garage was constructed near the location of the current detached garage. This garage no longer exists. In 1959, the original attached garage was converted into a living space for a 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

bedroom, living room, or den. This change also included expansion of an existing bathroom. In 1959 a carport was constructed a the location of the current detached garage. This construction was likely due to the loss of the original covered attached garage when the space was converted to a living space. In 1985, the carport was removed and replaced with a garage which currently exists at the rear of the home.

The third alteration was to the original exterior doors that opened directly onto the rear covered courtyard patio. It is presumed that the original French doors were relocated to be flush with the exterior brick support columns during the 1959 garage conversion. This alteration created an indoor sun room off the living room and an interior corridor along the north wing. Only one minor alteration has affected the exterior appearance, which was the addition of the picture window to the bathroom wall of the garden facing east elevation. This alteration maintains the look, design and feel of the original outdoor wraparound patio,is reversible, and has not compromised the integrity of the original design.

The landscape underwent a major alteration in 1967 when a swimming pool was added where a heritage live oak tree once stood. The alteration took place after the live oak fell over and was removed. The historic brick decking was removed and replaced with the contemporary brick decking that exists today.

The landscape was minorly altered in 1989 when a new swimming pool and spa were installed. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

7.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ELIGIBILITY
To determine the significance and eligibility of the subject property against established criteria at the national, state, and local level, this report uses National Register Bulletin No. 15 (How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation) which provides guidance on how to evaluate the significance of historic properties, specifically how to evaluate significance against historic context and how to evaluate the integrity of the property. Although National Register Bulleting No. 15 is focused on evaluating properties for the National Register, the document states its applicability for the state and local level. No such document or guidelines for evaluating properties at the state and local levels exist in the city of San Marino; therefore, National Register Bulletin No. 15 is being employed.

To be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (or other register program), a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register (or other register program criteria), but it also must have integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. Although the San Marino Register does not require an integrity evaluation, based on professional practice, an integrity determination is also needed for local level designations.

The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity and include: Location; Design; Setting; Materials; Workmanship; Feeling; and Association.

7.1 Significance Statement
The property at 708 Winston Avenue has been found to be historically significant. The house remains in its original location as an estate property in San Marino with its original Monterey Colonial design remaining largely intact with very few alterations. Its well-planned estate setting is notable for being the work of a master architect. The residence exhibits high quality workmanship, evoking the feeling of California’s early history in its revival design, being influenced by architectural design prevalent during the Rancho Period. The architectural style combined with planning that was suitable for the lifestyles of the affluent class gives the property an association with a booming development era in San Marino during the early to middle part of the twentieth century.

7.2 Integrity Analysis
To be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (or other register program), a property must not only be shown to be significant (or meeting other register program criteria), but it also must have integrity.

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. Although the Glendale Register does not require an integrity evaluation, based on professional practice, an integrity determination is also needed for local level listings.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity and include:

1. Location

2. Design

3. Setting

4. Materials

5. Workmanship

6. Feeling

7. Association
Based on the evaluations and assessment in this report, the property was found to possess rare and distinctive characteristics of the Monterey Colonial Revival style and to have retained its integrity as a property designed by a master architect. The home remains in its original location, and has been largely unaltered. The home was designed alongside its grounds, which remain lush with dense root systems and heritage oak trees. The materials are original, save for roofing material, which was chosen to resemble the original roof. Alterations are minimal and pay heed to the original design of the home.

The home has an understated and elegant feeling that lends it a unique atmosphere in keeping with the original architect’s design as evaluated against the original blueprints provided by the current owners.

7.3 San Marino Local Historical Landmark Designation

CURRENT MUNCIPAL CODE
This Historic Resource Assessment Report has been prepared to help determine the historic significance and eligibility for “Local Historical Landmark” status of the single-family property at 708 Winston Avenue.

Under Article 12 of the San Marino Municipal Code, “Designation of Historical Landmarks”, the “City Council may designate a building, landmark or other property within the City as a local historical landmark in special recognition of the property’s role during the formation and existence of the City”. Local Historical Landmarks may be designated by the following methods:

A. Petition by an individual or organization with the basis for such designation; B. Council Review of the facts presented and approval or denial of the designation or the proposed building, landmark, or other property as a “Local Historical Landmark”, such approval shall be by resolution based on the findings of the property’s role during the formation and existence of the City;
C. Certification, after Council designation of a “Local Historical Landmark”, the City Clerk shall submit a certified copy of the designation resolution to the State Historical Society, the City Historical Society, and the original petitioner.
708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

The Report defines a “Local Historical Landmark” in accordance with Article 12 of the Municipal Code as a property deserving special public recognition because it well represents one or more of the important development periods and themes in the City’s history, and is an excellent example of a type of property important in San Marino.

The Property was found to be historically significant when evaluated against its period and theme during San Marino’s important developmental history, “ Estate Home Building” and was found to be eligible as a “Local Historical Landmark” as an excellent example of one of the City’s revival styles. The Property at 708 Winston Avenue well represents a period in local history when it was important to subdivide large lots in a way that would both accommodate single family estates and to provide for landscaped grounds in the fashion of Henry E. Huntington’s home and gardens, as well as other landowners in the preincorporation (1913) period of the City’s development history. Both unique architectural designs and a park-like environment along residential streets were crucial characteristics to the founders of the City and have established the City as a residential estate community.

The home and the grounds were designed together; Coate included the three heritage oak trees in his plans, likely planning around their projected growth and size. Significant structural aspects of the home have been designed around the grounds. The slender pathways which surround the home allow for the root systems, ivy, and greenery to spread and multiply naturally. The single story allows for the oak trees to grow unencumbered, and the permanent gardening sink in the rear courtyard indicates that the maintenance of the landscape setting was important to both the architect and the original owners for whom the home was designed.

The Property is significant for the following two reasons:
1) Formation of the City. The property is one of the best examples of the early revival homes estate homes that defined the formation of the City of San Marino based on the founding principles of community building during City incorporation as set forth by George Patton, Sr, Henry E.

Huntington, and other local land owners. According to the historic blueprints for the home, the property was designed with landscaped grounds, which work in unison with the architectural shape and design of the property.
2) The Existence of the City. As a part of the City’s pre-WWII history, the home exhibits the grand architectural style of the Monterey Colonial Revival and is important in defining the existence of the City of San Marino as a community of estate homes. The home displays the careful attentional to architectural details important to the revival architectural period between the two world wars.

Its low profile with a low pitched hipped roof, and low-to the ground plan set behind lush landscaping, give the home a “landmark” quality in this part of the City.

The combination of the following two determining factors, listed in order of importance, together makes the property deserving of special recognition as playing an important role in the formation of early San Marino’s development history in the period prior to WWII. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

I. The home is an excellent example of Monterey Revival Style Architecture in San Marino.

The home is quoted as being "one of the first examples of a one-story Monterey type.

Despite the corner lot location, the garden is completely private and well integrates with the main rooms of the house." -Pasadena Star News, July 20th, 1952 Notable features include:
a. Shake roof and hand-hewn redwood timbers;
b. Adoblar white washed bricks;
c. Grand courtyard with artful Spanish tile garden sink and fountain; d. Perforated window influenced by "early Mexican dwellings"; e. Georgian style front entry door and sidelights; and
f. Finely crafted colonial style windows, shutters, and hardware; II. The home was designed by distinguished San Marino architect, Roland E. Coate. In the 1920s and 1930s, distinguished architects were often hired to exercise talents in specific residential styles across San Marino. Roland Coate was a prolific architect and is well known for championing the use of Colonial Revival styles for designing estate homes. Coate has many notable examples of Colonial Revival style homes throughout the City of San Marino such as the Heath House located at 2080 Lombardy Road (Regency Style), May’s House at 945 Orlando Road (Mixed style Revival), and the R.H. Ainsworth House at 1910 Lombardy Road (Federal Revival). Coate chose to make not only his livelihood in San Marino, but also his home where he lived for many years before moving to San Diego in his later life.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE
In 2014 the San Marino City Council and staff began discussing a draft for a new Historic Preservation Ordinance that would cater to the citizens of San Marino while implementing Historic Preservation practices that are consistent with The United States Secretary of Interior Standards. As of July 26th, 2017, the Historic Preservation Working Group of San Marino has developed a draft for the new ordinance. One of the most important elements of the new ordinance are the expanded criteria for Historical Landmark eligibility which fall under three categories; Architectural Significance, Contribution to History, and Historic Setting. The proposed criteria and the evaluation of the subject property in relation to each are as follows:

I. Architectural Significance
It represents the work of a master builder, engineer designer, artist or architect whose individual genius influenced his or her era; or it exemplifies a particular architectural style; or it exemplifies the best remaining architectural type of a neighborhood; or it embodies the elements of outstanding attention to architectural or engineering design, material or craftsmanship. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

The property located at 708 Winston Avenue in San Marino meets all areas of the proposed criteria related to Architectural Significance. The home was designed by Roland E. Coate who is a master architect and was responsible for influencing the popularity of Colonial Revival residential architecture in estate and suburban neighborhoods. The property is also one of the earliest examples of the rare one-story Monterey Colonial Revival type. Additionally, the property exhibits excellent design, craftsmanship and use of materials as well as the inclusion of fine architectural details.

II. Contribution to History
It is associated with the lives of persons renowned or important to local, state, or national history; or it is connected with a use that was once common but is now rare; or it is the site of an important historic event or is associated with the events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or City.

The property meets the criteria of being associated with the life of a person who is renowned in the state’s architectural history and bears significance as a prolific local architect. Roland Coate’s work spans the United States, with his largest body of work being carried out in Southern California, particularly San Marino and the greater Los Angeles area. Coate is considered to be responsible for sparking the surge of architectural Revival style residences that constitute many of the finest neighborhoods in California.

III. Historic Setting
It has distinct and identifiable characteristics representative of a particular historical period, type, style, region, or way of life; or it has a unique location, singular characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The property meets this criteria for having distinct and identifiable characteristics representative of a particular historical period (the era of estate development), type (Colonial Revival architecture), style (Monterey Colonial Revival), region (unique to Southern California and influenced by its vernacular architecture), or way of life (for the affluent class).

The criteria listed above is intended to provide the base line for designating Historical Landmarks in the City and constitutes the first part of San Marino’s proposed two-part ordinance. The second part of the proposed San Marino Historic Preservation Ordinance is preventing the loss of significant historic fabric within the City as well as the maintenance of historic resources that have been identified and/or designated. The Mills Act has been incorporated into the second part of the drafted ordinance. The Mills Act is a tax incentive program offered to the owners of qualified historic properties. The property owner and their local government enter in a contract that provides the homeowner with a tax abatement, allowing the homeowner to invest the savings into the restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of their historic property. Given the high level of historic integrity that the home at 708 Winston Avenue possesses and its eligibility to be designated as a Local Historical Landmark in the City of San Marino, it would most certainly qualify for the Mills Act Incentive Program. 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

Research on the original owners, Mrs. Ruth and Mr. C.G. Fitzgerald, has been included in this report.

Though the home was designed for the Fitzgeralds, and though C.G. Fitzgerald appears to have been a successful engineer working in Los Angeles during the first part of the 20th century, the original owners were not found to be persons of significance in relation to the themes developed to the subject property, nor were they found to be significant to development of San Marino as a City. Though C.G. Fitzgerald appears to have invested heavily in the “oasis” town of Twenty-Nine Palms, his business venture was largely minor and he is not considered to be a founder of the town.

708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

8.0 CONCLUSION
Based on research and evaluation performed by Arroyo Resources, this report concludes that the property located at 708 Winston Avenue in San Marino, California is eligible for designation as a Local Historical Landmark in the City of San Marino. The property represents the work of master architect, Roland E.

Coate, whose individual genius influenced the era of Monterey Colonial Revival residential architecture in Southern California, especially San Marino. Colonial Revival styles became ubiquitous amongst the elite during this era of development, and both the written and designed works of Coate proved to be prolific in forming the grand historic neighborhoods of Los Angeles as we know them today.

The incorporation of the City of San Marino was based on the desire to have a city free of industrial, retail, and office buildings; and instead filled with beautiful garden estates. The Property is an excellent example of the Monterey Colonial Revival style in San Marino associated with the period and theme in San Marino’s development history under, “Estate Home Building” from 1917 to 1940, one of the most important development periods in the City’s history. According to blueprints for the property, the home was designed to be surrounded by a large heritage tree. The Property well represents the period and theme when it was important to subdivide large lots to not only accommodate grand architectural designs for single family estates, but to provide for landscaped grounds that would create a park-like environment to the City in the fashion of Henry Huntington’s home and gardens as well as other land owners in the preincorporation (1913) period of the City’s development history.

The residence was designed by Coate in 1929 and constructed between 1929 and 1930. The design is influenced by vernacular style and construction methods that were prevalent during the Spanish and Mexican occupation of California, as well as the period of early settlement by New Englanders and immigrants who came to California for venture capital, such as Thomas O. Larkin. Although the design of the home was influenced by California’s vernacular architecture, its stately form and elegant appearance are accomplished by the use of symmetry, New England Colonial details in the windows and doors, and high-quality materials such as redwood, imported Spanish tile, copper, and iron.

According to the original blueprints for the home, the property was designed to sit amongst a landscaped setting. Coate included the three heritage oak trees in his plans, and likely projected their growth and size.

The single story allows for the oak trees to grow unencumbered, and the permanent gardening sink in the rear courtyard indicates that the maintenance of the landscape setting was important to both the architect and the original owners for whom the home was designed. The sink was built as a permanent extension of the structure, and serves as a reminder of the important connection between the landscape and the home.

Monterey Colonial Revival homes are most commonly built as two-story residences, while one-story versions are few and rare. The property remains today as an early and rare example of a single-story Monterey Colonial Revival home. The home is being classified as Monterey Colonial Revival for its use of wood timbers, shake and cladding, adoblar bricks, New England colonial architectural details as well as the integration of Spanish and early California vernacular forms. The blending of early California vernacular construction, New England Colonial details, and heavy use of wood materials are quintessential 708 Winston Avenue, San Marino

elements of the Monterey Colonial style. The home has retained its historic integrity, almost in its entirety for more than eighty-five years and stands today as a fine and unique example of the Monterey Colonial Revival style of architecture and is therefore an important historical resource worthy of designation as a Local Historical Landmark in the City of San Marino.
[1]

SOURCES
Ancestry.com.

Baker, John Milnes A.I.A. (1994). “American House Styles: A Concise Guide.” Bigger, Richard, Kitchen, James D. (1952) “How the Cities Grew: A Century of Municipal Independence and Expansionism in Metropolitan Los Angeles.” Stanford University Press.

Blumenson, John J.-G. (1945). “Identifying American Architecture: A Pictorial Guide to Styles and Terms, 1600-1945.” W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

California Arts & Architecture Magazine, 1929.

California State Office of Historic Preservation. (1995). “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” City of San Marino, Building and Safety Department (building permit records) City of San Marino, Municipal Code
City of San Marino. “General Plan”, 2003
Curry, Nicholas A. (February, 2014). “Casa de Parley Johnson and The Parley Johnson Family.” Dardick, Karen, Levick, Melba (2002). “Estate Gardens of California.” Rizzoli International Publications, Inc, New York, New York.

Harvey, C. (August, 2004). "Chapter III The Monterey Colonial Style" Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor
Los Angeles Public Library, California Index
Los Angeles Public Library, Historical Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Public Library, Historic Photo Collection
Los Angeles Times (1953). “Last Rites Planned for C Grattan Fitzgerald.” McAlester, Virginia (2015). "A Field Guide to American Houses" Michelson, A. (2015). Pacific Coast Architecture Database: "Roland Eli Coate Sr." National Register of Historic Places form.

Online Archive of California.

Pasadena Star News (July 20, 1952). “Outstanding Examples Built Within 50 Years.” Rockett, Helen. “Brief History of San Marino.”
San Marino Building Department.
[2]
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.

U.S. Census
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Revised 2002. National Register Bulletin No. 15 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

Weston, Eugene (May 1935). “Permanent Value of Home Influenced by Architectural Design.” 708 Winston, San Marino
EXHIBIT 1
County Assessor Parcel Map