EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The property owner has requested a Preliminary Review by the Historic Resources Board associated with a Design Review Application (DR 22-157, JB Pastor Building) for the proposed relocation of the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Bank complex community room. In May 2021, the Historic Resources Board reviewed a proposal to demolish the community room, which was found to be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The applicant has returned with a new application that proposes the re-location of the community room, as opposed to demolition, and is seeking feedback on the proposal from the Historic Resources Board.
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palo Alto Savings and Loan Bank complex, consisting of a bank building (currently the 7th and Dolores Restaurant) and detached community room building, was constructed in 1972 and was designed by noted architects, Walter Burde and William Shaw, both of whom are listed in the City’s Historic Context Statement. While the Palo Alto Savings and Loan buildings are characteristic of the Second Bay Region Tradition of architecture, and designed by noted architects, the complex was deemed ineligible for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory as well as the National Register in 2019. This determination of Ineligibility for listing as a local resource was issued for the property following an appeal of the HRB decision at the time to add the property to the City’s Historic Inventory; the current Determination of Ineligibility for listing at the local level will expire on October 26, 2022. While the complex is not currently eligible for listing on the nation or local inventory, it was previously determined that the site is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and the complex, as a whole, is a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On January 8, 2021, an application for a Design Review Application, DR 20-395, was submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department that proposed the demolition of the community room to accommodate the construction of a new mixed use building. As part of the project review, a Phase II Report was prepared by historian Margaret Clovis, one of the City’s historic consultants, evaluating the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines based on the preliminary project plans. The Phase II Report concluded the project, consisting of the demolition of the community room, would not have a significant impact on the bank building (which would remain) provided the project meets the applicable Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the recommended conditions identified in the report are followed.
Staff recommended the HRB approve a determination of consistency based on the technical report prepared by Margaret Clovis. A Resolution was prepared for the issuance of a Determination of Consistency for the project which was considered at the April 19, 2021 HRB meeting (refer to Attachments 2a & 2b). In accordance with CMC 17.32.160.B.1, “If the Board concurs with the evaluation [prepared by the qualified professional], the Board shall issue a determination of consistency and adopt any appropriate conditions of approval. Any finding of compliance by the Board shall be supported by substantial evidence. If the Board does not concur, the Board may request additional information prior to issuance of a determination of consistency, or may issue a finding of noncompliance with the Secretary’s Standards. Any finding of noncompliance by the Board shall be supported by substantial evidence.”
After consideration of the materials provided and public testimony, the Board voted 2-1 (with 1 member absent, 1 vacant seat) to continue the application to the following hearing with direction to staff to return with a revised resolution for adoption with a Finding of Noncompliance. Staff returned at the following hearing with an amended resolution for adoption based on the findings made by the HRB. The Board voted 3-1 (1 vacant seat) to adopt a resolution with amended findings made at the hearing and issued a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Attachments 3 & 4).
On May 19, 2021, Christopher Mitchell, Appellant, submitted a timely appeal on behalf of Esperanza Commercial LLC of the HRB’s decision to the City Council. On August 3, 2021, the City Council considered the appeal of the Finding of Noncompliance and upheld the HRB’s decision to find the demolition of the Community Room inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (refer to Attachments 4 & 5).
CMC 17.52.170.D states, “No applications for substantially the same project or activity on the same property may be submitted for a period of one year following a denial unless the application contains changes to address the reason(s) for the denial of the first application, or the City’s plans or ordinances have been amended to remove the cause for the original denial.” As a year has passed since the HRB’s initial decision, the applicant has returned with an alternative proposal for consideration by the HRB.
On May 24, 2022, the applicant, Jason Diaz of International Design Group, submitted a new Design Review Application, DR 22-157, on behalf of Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC, for a scope of work similar to the project proposed under DR 20-395, however, as opposed to demolishing the Community Room, the applicant is proposing to re-locate the Community Room from the southern side of the of the existing bank building to the eastern side.
The property owner has requested a Preliminary Review by the Historic Resources Board to review the scope of work and provide direction on the proposal and give preliminary feedback as to whether the board would be supportive of the relocation of the structure on the same site. This Preliminary Review by the Historic Resources Board is intended to provide feedback to the applicant and property owner and does not constitute a guarantee of future approval. No action will be taken at this hearing and a formal hearing will be required prior to action being taken on the project by the Historic Resources Board.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Relocation Plan
The applicant is proposing to relocate the Community Room from the southern side of the bank building to the eastern side at the southeastern corner of lot 4. As illustrated on the initial relocation plan (Attachment 1), the building would be maintain the same orientation (i.e. north elevation would remain facing north) with the building shifted to the northwest of the current locations. While the plans show the building being relocated to the east side of the building, the initial plans do not provide typical details required to provide an analysis for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s, such as: elevations illustrating the spatial relationships between the bank building and relocated community room, or site improvements required to accommodate the relocated building.
The site plan provided does indicate the community room is proposed to be located 4’8” to the east of the bank building, 5’6” from the eastern proper line, and 51’9” from the property line along 7th Avenue. The building would be located effectively on the southern property line. While the plans show the proposed location of the building, it is unclear if this location or orientation would be a sufficient location for relocation. For example, the roof of the bank building has a large roof overhang that is not represented on the site plan. It is unclear how that feature would interact with the community room if the community room were to be relocated to the proposed location, or if the community room could physically be relocated to the space once one the additional architectural features are taken into consideration.
If the HRB is supportive of, or does not outright object to, the proposed relocation, the applicant would be directed to prepare a comprehensive plan set that illustrates the relocation of the community room for preparation of a Phase II Evaluation by a qualified professional and subsequent review by the HRB for adoption of either a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards, or adoption of a Finding of Non-Compliance.
Prior Hearing and Recommended Action
When the HRB considered the demolition of the Community Room and adopted a Finding a Non-Noncompliance in May 2021, the board adopted specific findings as to why the demolition failed to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (refer to Attachment 4). Those finding included statements regarding the spatial and contextual relationships between the bank building and community room, including:
4. Together, the bank building and community room creates a spatial relationships on the property which are in themselves character defining, uses the same character defining elements of construction and detail, are built at the same time, designed and built by the same master architects.
13. A new construction project on the site of a demolished Community Room would constitute an adverse effect on the Bank complex and destroy the original concept as designed by two of Monterey County’s most respected master architects.
14. The community room section of the building was designed right along with the rest of the building and contains all the character defining features of the main bank building: shed roof and copper roofing, angular forms and irregular massing, plate glass window walls, traditional materials used within a Modern architecture vocabulary, Integration of the building with its setting, Integration of the outdoors with interior spaces, Redwood siding and beams.
15. The community room was constructed at the same time by the same builder. It's materials, detailing, composition are all at the same level of quality as the main bank building.
16. The Community Room element of the building adds to the complexity and richness of the overall resource which, if taken away, would significantly negatively impact the quality of architecture of the bank building.
17. The structural connection in the design of this building was very intentional and strong, and is all part of one piece of significant architecture—one historic resource.
18. By removing the community room the south elevation the resource is completely changed and is not the intended design from the public right-of-way on the south side.
While the proposed scope of work under this application is for relocation and not demolition, many of the same findings may still be applicable to the proposed relocation despite the building being proposed to be maintained on the same site.
While demolition was not supported by the HRB, Staff is requesting the Historic Resources Board provide feedback to the applicant on whether the proposed relocation of the community room is an alternative that may be considered or if the community room shall be maintained in its current state and location, as previous found. Support for the proposed relocation does not constitute a guarantee of future approval, and preparation of a Phase II Evaluation by a qualified professional would be required to determine if the proposed relocation is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.