EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a mixed-use building with subterranean garage on a portion of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site. This project has been considered multiple times before in other forms which have included the demolition or relocation of the Community Room. Those projects were not support by the Historic Resources Board nor City Council on appeal. The applicant is no longer proposing to move or alter the Community Room building but build around it.
While the Northern California Savings & Loan Bank Building and Community Room are proposed to be preserved, construction is proposed on the southern two lots of the complex site (lots 6 & 8) and therefore the Board is required to adopt a Determination of Consistency for the project.
The Historic Resources Board considered the project at their July 17, 2023 meeting and adopted Resolution 2023-009-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency. During the 10-day appeal period for the decision, the two members of the City Council enacted the City Council Right of Review (CMC 2.04.160) to call up and review the decision made by the Historic Resources Board.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palo Alto Savings and Loan Complex (“complex”), consisting of Lots 2, 4, 6, and, 8, of Block 91 is located at the southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Dolores Street. The complex was listed on the Carmel Inventory and Register on April 4, 2023 by the City Council, following the denial of an appeal (APP 23-031) by Esperanza Carmel Commercial appealing the HRB’s January 23, 2023 decision to list the property on the Carmel Inventory and Register.
The complex, designed by noted architects Walter Burde and William Shaw, is representative of the Bay Region Modern Style and maintains the following character defining features:
- Building integrated with surrounding landscape;
- Horizontal or Vertical massing with shed roofs;
- Existing spatial relationship between the bank building and Community Room;
- Detached Community Room building connected by a wood-clad upper walkway;
- Projecting shed or boxy volumes;
- Exposed structural elements;
- Wide expanses of glass set within wood frames;
- Wood siding as exterior cladding; and
- Copper sheet roof cladding.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 15,351-square-foot mixed-use building with a 9,805-square-foot subterranean garage on a portion of the complex site. The project is proposed to be constructed on lots 6 and 8, as well as lot 10 – lot 10 is not part of the complex site. While the community room is located on lot 6, the project is proposed to be built around the community room leaving the structure intact with no alteration proposed to the Bank Building or Community Room. However, the proposed project does require the ornamented concrete wall to the south of the Community Room to be removed. The potential for relocation of this wall to the Bank Building or some other site is discussed later in this report.
The application was considered by the Historic Resources Board at their July 17, 2023 meeting. The Board adopted Resolution 2023-009-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency for the project. During the 10-day appeal period for the decision, two members of the City Council, Council Member Ferlito and Council Member Dramov, enacted the City Council Right of Review (CMC 2.04.160) to review the decision made by the Historic Resources Board both specifically noting the relocation of the concrete wall as the primary concern in the written request for the review. Both Council Member will address their specific concerns during the hearing.
In accordance with CMC 2.04.160.B, when a project is called up by the Council, “the Council may uphold the decision of the board […], amend the decision and/or conditions attached to the decision, overturn the decision, or remand the matter to the board […], for further consideration.”
As a de novo hearing, the Council has full review authority of the entirety of the project (not just limited to the concerns surround the concrete wall). Effectively, Council is acting in the capacity of the Historic Resources Board in making a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards on the proposed project.
“Determination of consistency” shall mean a finding adopted by the City that the proposed new construction, addition, alteration, and/or relocation complies with all of the provisions of this chapter (CMC 17.32) and the Secretary’s Standards. (CMC 17.32.230.L)
STAFF ANALYSIS
Evaluation Process
Although the proposed project does not include any alterations to the Bank Building or Community Room , it still constitutes a “major alteration” to a historic resource as defined in CMC 17.32.160.A since the project is taking place on the overall Palo Alto Savings and Loan “Complex”. In accordance with CMC 17.32.160.B, “Determinations of consistency for major alterations shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall be supported by written documentation that (1) identifies which of the Secretary’s Standards are applicable to the project, (2) reviews the proposed project, and (3) explains the basis of the determination. If a proposed major alteration is found by the qualified professional to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, the project shall be presumed to be consistent for purposes of making a preliminary determination regarding any required environmental documentation and staff shall forward the application and evaluation to the Board for action.”
The City contracted with qualified professional historian Seth Bergstein from PAST Consultants to prepare the Determination of Consistency (Phase II Evaluation; refer to Attachment 3). The evaluation concluded the project is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards –evaluation provided below.
As prescribed in CMC 17.32.160.B.1, the Council, taking the place of the Historic Resources Board, may take one of two actions:
- If the Board [Council] concurs with the evaluation, the Board [Council] shall issue a determination of consistency and adopt any appropriate conditions of approval. Any finding of compliance by the Board [Council] shall be supported by substantial evidence.
- If the Board [Council] does not concur, the Board [Council] 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 [Council] shall be supported by substantial evidence.
As noted above, the Council may:
- uphold the decision of the board;
- amend the decision and/or conditions attached to the decision;
- overturn the decision; or,
- remand the matter back to the Historic Resources Board for further consideration.
In keeping with past practice relating to decisions of junior boards and commissions, staff supports the decision of the the Historic Resources Board decision recommends the Council uphold the decision, as found in Attachment 1.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: To render a decision about whether a project will have an impact on a historic resource, the Historic Resources Board (HRB), or in this case, the City Council, must consider and make findings of consistency related to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards).
The Standards provides the framework for evaluating the impacts of additions and alterations to historic buildings. The Standards describe four treatment approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. The Standards require that the treatment approach be determined first, as a different set of standards apply to each approach. For the proposed project, the treatment approach is rehabilitation.
In preparing for this determination to be made, the City’s practice is to have one of its professional contracted historians evaluate the proposed project for consistency prior to the hearing by the HRB.
Seth Bergstein, of PAST Consultants, evaluated the project for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Ten Standards for Rehabilitation (Attachment 3). Mr. Bergstein found that Standards #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are applicable to the project. The evaluation concluded that the project as proposed is consistent with all applicable standards.
Standard 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.
Phase II Response: “Although the subject property has changed from a commercial bank to a commercial restaurant use, the subject building’s current use has required minimal changes to its distinctive exterior materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships in keeping with this Standard.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response.
Standard 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 the property will be avoided.
Phase II Response: “The original spatial relationship between the bank building and the Community Room is a primary character-defining feature of the site. The proposed project allows the spatial relationship between the Bank Building and the Community Room to remain, as well as the elevated walkway connecting the two buildings.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response.
Standard 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.
Phase II Response: “The proposed project does not add conjectural features or elements from other historic properties that would confuse the remaining character-defining features of the subject property. The project is consistent with this Standard.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response.
Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Phase II Response: “With the exception of the ornamented concrete wall, the original landscape and paving features of the 1972 Burde/Shaw design have been removed or obscured. Maintaining the entirety of the Bank Complex, including the Bank Building, the Community Room and the elevated walkway connecting the buildings, is in conformance with this Standard. A recommendation for the removed section of the ornamented concrete wall is included at the end of this document.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response. An analysis in respect to the concrete wall is provided below as well as an associated Condition of Approval for the recommended preservation of said wall included in the resolution. Moving and retaining the wall is not required for consistency with the secretary’s standards -it is only a recommendation.
Standard 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.
Phase II Response: “It is recommended that any deteriorated exterior cladding and roof elements for the Community Room be repaired, rather than replaced, in conformance with this Standard.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response. Repairs or alterations have not been proposed to the exterior of the community room as part of this project. Should repairs be proposed in the future, staff has included Condition of Approval #1 stating the applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department an application outlining the details of any proposed repairs for review and approval prior to commencement of work.
Standard 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.
Phase II Response: “Physical treatments to repair exterior cladding for the Community Room shall use the safest methods for a given substrate, in conformance with this Standard.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response. As noted under Standard 6, repairs have not proposed to the exterior of the Community Room as part of this project. Should repairs be proposed in the future, staff has included Condition of Approval #1 stating the applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department an application outlining the details of any proposed repairs for review and approval prior to commencement of work.
Concrete Wall: While the Phase I evaluation (Attachment 4) notes the site landscaping as a character defining feature of the site, the Phase II report (Attachment 3) describes numerous alterations to the site and the original Burde/Shaw landscape design. The Phase II report concludes that the original landscape design south and east of the Community Room has lost substantial historic integrity with the exception of the south portion of the ornamented concrete wall remains intact enough to reveal the original stone pattern.
According to the Phase II report, the concrete wall was designed and built by Ornamented Concrete, Incorporated, [which] was founded by Brad Bowman of Carmel Valley. The company specialized in handmade site alterations rendered in concrete and stucco. Bowman pioneered a process for using exposed aggregate concrete in construction projects, developing a methodology for using various aggregate combinations to create artistic compositions that were used as building walls, concrete paving or landscape walls. Bowman used a simple technique: a V-shaped blade stamped patterns within the concrete, a term he labeled “Ornamented Concrete.” Exposed aggregate, rocks or pebbles were inserted into the wet concrete in various patterns. This revolutionary process labeled Bowman the “father of stamped concrete.”
At the subject site, a 1972 photograph of the wall’s installation appeared in local newspapers. While Brad Bowman designed these site features, his daughter, Tani Bowman assisted in design and application. Local newspapers indicate that the selection and placement of each rounded stone was meticulous, with each stone’s size and shape being important to the overall pattern (refer to Attachment 3, page 6).
In review of the property file, permit history, and online records for the Complex, staff notes the following regarding the timeline wall (the information below is not intended to be an all-encompassing timeline, but is intended to provide additional context to materials and information already provided in the past staff reports and attachments) - See Attachment 8 for information and records located in the property file, permit history, and online records.
As noted in the Phase II report, a remaining intact section of the Bowman-designed ornamented concrete wall is located on the south side of the community room. This section still reveals its original stone pattern and sand finish. The report prepared by PAST recommends that the original intact section of the wall proposed for removal be preserved and replaced at another location on the site. A potential location would be in the parking lot within proximity of the ornamented concrete wall on the east elevation of the Bank Building. This location would allow interpretation of the removed feature on the original site and provide a link to the original Burde/Shaw design. This recommendation has been included as Condition of Approval #2. Moving and retaining the wall is not required for consistency with the secretary’s standards -it is only a recommendation.
The applicant does not have control of the bank building site (lots 2 and 4), so the exact location of the wall cannot be conditioned or guaranteed. The locations identified below (refer to Figure 1-3, below) are just two of many options, and would be subject to the two property owners working together at a civil level. However, at the July 17, 2023 HRB hearing, the property owner noted that had begun conversation with the owner of the 7th and Dolores property and the proposed re-location of the wall seemed to be favorable.
Figure 1. Potential wall locations on the Bank Building site. Blue and red lines in figure above denote approximate possible location for the relocation of the concrete wall. The wall is not limited to these locations but would ideally be preserved and replaced on the site.
Figure 2. Approximate location of blue line shown in Figure 1, above. Location related to adjacent pebbled concrete wall on adjacent building. Blue wall in Figure 2 is not to scale –for illustrative purposes only.
Figure 3. Approximate location of red line shown in Figure 1, above. Red wall in Figure 3 is not to scale –for illustrative purposes only.
Historic Evaluation Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental review for alterations to historic resources that are not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The proposed alterations to the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex were reviewed by the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant and a Phase II Historic Assessment was prepared for the project (refer to Attachment 3). The Assessment includes an analysis of the proposed changes based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Assessment concludes that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation. The proposed alterations to the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex do not impact the character-defining features or overall historic integrity of the complex.