EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC has appealed the Historic Resources Board’s (HRB) decisions to list the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and Carmel Register of Historic Resources, as well as the Board’s decision to issue a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for a project which proposed to relocate the Northern California Savings and Loan Community Room on the site. The Board made both decisions at their January 23, 2023 meeting and adopted Resolutions 2023-01-HRB and 2023-02-HRB unanimously.
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Northern California Savings and Loan Complex, (the complex has also been referred to as 7th & Dolores, and Palo Alto Savings and Loan Complex –all the same site) consisting of a bank building and detached Community Room building (currently the 7th and Dolores Restaurant), 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 Northern California Savings and Loan Complex is characteristic of the Bay Region style of architecture, which is described in the Historic Context Statement, 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 by the City Council following an appeal of the HRB decision at the time to add the property to the City’s Historic Inventory. This Determination of Ineligibility for listing expired on October 26, 2022 pursuant to City code, because the building turned 50 years old (refer to Attachment 8).
On October 4, 2022, an application, Design Review DR 22-310 (D&K Dolores), was submitted for the proposed relocation of the Community Room from the south side of the original bank building, to the east side. On November 4, 2022, a Completeness Review letter was provided to the applicant which stated the application was incomplete, and listed additional application items required. Included in the Completeness Review letter was direction to the applicant to submit for a Historic Evaluation consistent with CMC 17.32.050.B which states, “No application for property development shall be deemed complete unless it includes a determination that the property is either eligible or ineligible for the Carmel Inventory.”
While a previous determination of ineligibility for the Carmel Inventory had been made by City Council, (refer to Attachment 8), pursuant to City code, “Determinations of ineligibility shall be valid for a period of five years from the date of issuance except for properties developed less than 50 years prior to the determination, but more than 45 years prior to the determination, and which are ineligible for the Carmel Inventory primarily due to insufficient age. All such determinations of ineligibility shall be valid only until the building, structure or object reaches the age of 50 years” (CMC 17.32.060.D.4).
As the previous Determination of Ineligibility was issued when the building was less than 50 years old, but greater than 45 (issued at 48 years old), the previous Determination of Ineligibility is no longer valid and the building is required to be re-evaluated for the Carmel Inventory as the property has now reached sufficient age for listing on the inventory.
Notwithstanding the prior decision to not list the building on the local inventory, it was previously determined by three separate qualified professionals (architectural historians) 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). Whether or not the Complex is listed on the local inventory, the complex is considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA and subject to the requirements of the city’s historic preservation ordinance (CMC 17.32) since the Complex has been determined to be eligible for listing on CRHR.
As part of the review of the project, Phase I and Phase II Historic Evaluations were prepared for the site and project. The Phase I evaluation evaluated whether the site is eligible for listing on the local inventory as a historic resource, and the Phase II evaluation evaluated whether the proposed project was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Both evaluations were required pursuant to the city’s historic preservation ordinance, CMC 17.32. Both the Phase I and Phase II evaluations were prepared by PAST Consultants, LLC, one of the city’s retained qualified professionals who provides historic preservation services.
The Phase I Evaluation concluded that the site is eligible for listing on the local inventory and register as a primary historic resource, and is also eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (refer to Attachment 4). The Phase II Evaluation concluded that the alterations to the site proposed by the applicant would not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and therefore would have an adverse impact to the resource (refer to Attachment 5).
The staff report from the January 23, 2023 Historic Resources Board meeting provides a more detailed analysis for both evaluations (click here for the January 23, 2023 Staff Report). The video of the hearing is also available online (click here for YouTube link, or click here for NovusAgenda video link).
The Historic Resources Board considered both evaluations at their January 23, 2023 meeting and adopted two resolutions (refer to Attachment 6) unanimously:
-
Resolution 2023-01-HRB: A Resolution of the Historic Resources Board of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea adding a property known as the “Northern California Savings and Loan Complex” located at the southeast corner of Dolores Street and 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and Carmel Register of Historic Resources; APNs: 010-145-002, 010-145-023, 010-145-024
-
Resolution 2023-02-HRB: A Resolution of the Historic Resources Board of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea issuing a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the relocation of the Northern California Savings And Loan Complex Community Room from APN 010-145-023 to APN 010-145-002
Following the HRB hearing, Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC, (“Appellant”) submitted a timely appeal of the two subject HRB decisions. While a De Novo hearing, this staff report discusses the appeal documents submitted by the appellant as the basis for the appeal (refer to Attachment 3); a detailed analysis of the Phase I and Phase II evaluations can be found in the January 23, 2023 HRB Staff Report.
STAFF ANALYSIS
At the subject hearing, the HRB took two actions:
-
Listing the complex on the Carmel Inventory and Carmel Register of Historic Resources; and,
-
Adopting a finding of Non-Compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the proposed relocation of the Community Room.
The appeal filed by the Appellant (Attachment 3) is without merit as it fails to address why either of the actions listed above are incorrect or should be overturned based on factual evidence that was applicable to the decisions made by the HRB at the subject hearing. The appellant’s primary appeal contention focuses on the city’s development process, which is outlined in the municipal code, and not the actual decision made by the HRB. Additionally, neither the appellant, nor a representative of the appellant spoke at or provided written statements for the HRB hearing objecting to the staff recommendation, or the conclusions of the two evaluations.
As the grounds for appeal are without merit and there is no supporting evidence, documentation, of findings to overturn the decisions made by the HRB, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal. Notwithstanding this recommendation, staff has provided a response to the appeal documents (refer to Attachment 3).
Appeal Attachment A
- From Appeal Letter: “The subject property was purchased, on June 25, 2020, on the premise the Northern California Savings and Loan Community Room Annex Building would not be treated as historic. Prior to purchasing the property, this was supported by the June 17th, 2020 addendum to the phase one evaluation prepared by Meg Clovis” (one of the consultants that provides historic preservation consulting services to the City).
Response: Prior to the purchase of the property, it was communicated to the architect retained by the owner, as well as Esperanza Carmel, via email on May 30, 2020, that the subject property was eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and is therefore subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and would require analysis by one of the City’s contract historians, Meg Clovis.
On June 18, 2020, an email was sent to the applicant transmitting the final historic report prepared by Meg Clovis (dated June 17, 2020 – Attachment D to the Appeal) . The conclusion of the report stated: “The community room has been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register based on its merits alone and it does not meet the criteria for listing as an individual resource, and the proposed demolition will not have a significant impact on the historic bank building.”
However, in the email transmission from the City, it was made clear that this was only the conclusion of the City’s consultant, and was not an official determination until considered by the Historic Resources Board pursuant to CMC 17.32.160.B, which gives the Historic Resources Board the authority to agree or disagree with the conclusions of a Determination of Consistency (refer to Attachment 9).
Ultimately, the Historic Resources Board did not agree with the conclusions of the evaluation, and chose to adopt a finding of noncompliance (Resolution 2021-03-HRB, refer to Attachment 7) that included findings disagreeing with the conclusions of the evaluation and found the proposal to demolish the Community Room inconsistent with the secretary’s standards.
Conclusion: In summary, it was never represented by the city that the subject site would not be treated as historic. Prior to the purchase of the property, it was conveyed that the site is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources, and that the property is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and that any reports would need to be evaluated by the Historic Resources Board. Furthermore, the previous decision by the HRB to disagree with the conclusion of the June 17, 2020 historic report addendum is not applicable to this current appeal. That decision has already been appealed to the city council who upheld the HRB’s decision and adopted Resolution 2021-043, denying the appeal, and upholding the HRB’s decision.
- From Appeal Letter: “We were encouraged both on the day of the city council meeting on August 3 2021 then after the meeting to pursue the option of relocating the community room annex building when the option to demolish it was appealed to the City Council and denied.”
Response: In review of the video of the August 3rd hearing, staff found no discussion from the city council nor staff regarding relocating the community room. Staff has not encouraged the applicant/owner to relocate the building, but has processed the application consistent with standard city practices when the proposal was submitted.
- From Appeal Letter: “For the historic assessment the city opted to retain a new historic preservation consultant in-lieu of contracting Meg Clovis who had prepared the previous assessments. Seth Bergstein with PAST Consultants, LLC was hired by the City to prepare the new phase one and two assessments. Seth Bergstein is the same consultant hired by the City to prepare the update Historic Context Statement, .... We do not believe hiring the same historic preservation consultant that drafted the updated Historic Context Statement for Carmel qualifies as an independent professional opinion on the historical significance of the Community Room Annex Building or whether the proposed relocation is compliant with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. In fact, this seems to be a conflict of interest.”
Response: CMC 17.32.080.C.2, Conflicts of Interests, states, 1) “The qualified professional shall not have performed work under contract to the applicant for a period of one year prior to authorization to proceed with the work effort by the City,” and 2) “Any additional work performed by the qualified professional related to the subject application shall be performed under contract to the City.” Mr. Bergstein has not performed work under contract to the applicant, and all work performed has been under contract to the City, as outlined in the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Additionally, staff informed the applicant in November 2022 (prior to the review of the project by Mr. Bergstein) that the city intended to utilize PAST Consultants for their services. There were no objections to the report or concerns about conflict of interest raised by the applicant at any time prior to the initiation of the contract, after the report was provided to the applicant, or at the hearing.
-
From Appeal Letter: “As you know, we have been unable to progress the JB Pastor Project through the planning process until this issue is addressed and have made no meaningful progress on the project due to the numerous City-imposed delays. Conveniently these, in our opinion inexcusable, delays have now resulted in the Northern California Savings and Loan Bank Building reaching the 5O year milestone of October 26, 2022 and being added to the City’s Historic Context Statement, both of which had previously impeded the Historic Resources Board’s resolve to list this property on the Carmel Inventory and Register.”
Response: The city has not imposed any delays on the project. The applications have been processed consistent with standard city practices as outlined in the municipal code as a result of the development applications submitted by the applicant and the projects the applicant has proposed.
Further, listing the site on the inventory is supported by the municipal code and actionable regardless of the age of the building due to its eligibility for the California Register. As the previous Determination of Ineligibility expired, the building was required to be re-evaluated. This is supported by General Plan Policy P1-93 which states, in part, “….Failure to include a property on the Carmel Inventory shall not preclude a future determination that it qualifies as an historic resource based on new evidence. (LUP)” In the time since the previous Determination of Ineligibility has expired, the complex has turned 50-years old, and the city’s Historic Context Statement has been updated through 1986. The age of the building and the end year of the context statement were the basis for the previous determination of ineligibility being issued. Additionally since the prior determination had expired, the site is required to be re-evaluated prior to the application being deemed complete. To-date, the subject application still has not been deemed complete.
Appeal Letter Attachment B & C
Attachment B and C of the appellant’s appeal documents are the staff report (Attachment B) and Resolution (Attachment C) prepared for the April 19, 2021 Historic Resources Board Meeting. The findings and conclusions of this hearing are not applicable to this appeal as they were not part of the action made by the Historic Resources Board subject to the appeal.
Appeal Letter Attachment D & E
Attachment D is the Phase I Addendum described in “Appeal Attachment A, Section 1,” above. This addendum was prepared prior to the purchase of the subject property by the current property owner. Attachment E is the Phase II Evaluation that was prepared for the proposed demolition of the community room. Both evaluations were included as an attachment to the staff report referenced in the “Appeal Attachment B & C section”, above. As noted in the above section as well in Section 1, these evaluations are not applicable to the subject appeal as this evaluation was not part of the action by the Historic Resources Board that is subject to the appeal.
Alternatives
Should the council be inclined to grant the appeal for either or both actions, the following should be considered:
-
Listing on the Local Inventory and Register: Should the Council determine the site is ineligible for listing on the local inventory and register, the council would be required to adopt specific findings identifying why the site is ineligible for listing. The findings should also identify the specific basis for the determination to be included in the Determination of Ineligibility. Notwithstanding this determination the site would still be subject to the city’s historic preservation ordinance as the complex is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources, as noted above.
-
Determination of Consistency: CMC 17.32.160.C states that If an evaluation concludes that a proposed alteration is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, the report shall list aspects of the project that are not consistent along with guidance for modifying the project to comply with the Secretary’s Standards.
The Phase II report concludes:
"The project under consideration proposes the relocation of a primary character-defining feature of the building complex’s original design: the spatial relationship between the bank building and the Community Room. To maintain the integrity of the subject historic site and its environment, this report respectfully recommends a new design approach that allows the original Burde/Shaw design and the building complex’s corresponding character-defining features to remain in place."
If the Council disagrees with the conclusions of this evaluation, the Council should direct staff to obtain a second opinion and have a second Phase II Evaluation prepared. Once prepared, staff would then return to the Council for review of the second Phase II Evaluation.
The municipal code does not give the authority for staff, the Historic Resources Board, nor the City Council to make a Determination of Consistency for major alterations on their own. All Determinations of Consistencies for major alterations are required to be prepared by a qualified professional under contract to the city. The Historic Resources Board, or Council on appeal, may disagree with a Determination of Consistency prepared by a qualified professional for a project that was found to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards (CMC 17.32.160.B.1.b) as was the case when the community room was proposed for demolition (refer to Attachment 7), however, the zoning code states that any Determination of Consistency must be made by a qualified professional then adopted by the Historic Resources Board, or City Council on appeal (CMC 17.32.160.B).