Background/Summary
Carmel’s Historic Context Statement is Appendix I of the City’s General Plan and serves as the foundation for the City’s historic preservation program. Carmel-by-the-Sea has adopted comprehensive historic preservation policies, implemented through the Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC 17.32). The context statement is an important reference tool in preparing State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) records and evaluating which properties qualify for inclusion on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
Phase I Update (2022)
The City adopted the Historic Context Statement in 1994, and adopted subsequent updates in 1997, 2008, and most recently in 2022. The 2022 update (Attachment 2) was funded by the California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) as a Certified Local Government (CLG) $30k grant, authored by PAST Consultants and covered the years 1966-1986. This extension was an urgent undertaking, as properties older than 50 years old are required to be evaluated as potential historic resources and – prior to the 2022 update – the context statement did not cover the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
As the 2022 update got underway, it became clear to OHP staff, City staff, PAST Consultants, the Historic Resources Board, and the community that the entire context statement was in need of a comprehensive update. However, as a State grant-funded project, inflexible deadlines limited the effort to the 1966-1986 extension. Understood to be a “Phase I” update, the 1966-1986 extension was approved by OHP, adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2022 and approved by the California Coastal Commission on July 12, 2023.
Phase II Update (2024)
In 2023, the City applied for and received a second OHP CLG grant in the amount of $40k to pursue a “Phase II” update. The City released RFP #23-24-2023 on October 27, 2023, and on January 9, 2024, the City Council passed Resolution 2024-009 approving a professional services agreement with PAST Consultants, not to exceed $79,380. The Council additionally passed Resolution 2024-010 accepting the $40k CLG grant award from the State, with a $26,667 local match. On March 1, 2024, City staff conducted outreach to thirteen tribal representatives, inviting participation in this project; at this time no responses have been received. The intent of the comprehensive update is to achieve the following project goals, listed and described below.
1. Consistent formatting.
2. Chronological themes.
3. Streamlined content.
1. Consistent formatting. The 2022 update covered a twenty-year period (1966-1986) and described architectural styles commonly developed in Carmel in that mid-late midcentury era. Each identified architectural style was addressed individually, with an accompanying list of character-defining features, representative buildings, and a selection of photographs. Evaluative criteria for the National Register, California Register, and Carmel Inventory was added to aid in answering the question, “Is this building significant and does it retain integrity?”
While the 1966-1986 extension meets today’s professional standards for context statements, the remainder of the context statement does not. It was originally compiled in 1994 and has been updated in a piecemeal fashion over the last 30 years. The original document lacks dedicated architectural style summaries, photographs, and evaluative criteria for historically significant properties. It is imperative that the entire document is formatted consistently and pre-1966 years are appropriately contextualized and visually represented.
2. Chronological themes. The current context statement begins with a “Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement” chapter and is followed by thematic chapters: “Economic Development,” “Government, Civic and Social,” “Architectural Development” and “Development of Art and Culture.” While a thematic format is not without merit, a chronological format is preferred for flow when reading the document. A chronological format would also allow the reader to better understand a property in the context of its era of construction. Future context statement updates will also be improved; rather than re-visit discrete topical themes spread across 100+ pages, future update authors can simply pick up chronologically where the last update left off.
With a chronological approach in mind, PAST consultants proposed a new Table of Contents. The Historic Resources Board reviewed and approved the proposed Table of Contents at their March 18, 2024 meeting. Following Chapter 1 (Introduction) and Chapter 2 (Identifying and Evaluating Historic Resources), Chapter 3 will include the following chronological themes: Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement (1542-1848); Carmelo (1848-1901); Seacoast of Bohemia (1902-1921); Village in a Forest (1922-1945); Postwar Development (1946-1965); and Continuity in Change (1966-1986). PAST Consultants has since updated the name of the final chapter to: The Carmel Dynamic Continues (1966-1986). PAST Consultants is seeking feedback on the new proposed chapter title.
3. Streamlined content. The California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) provides guidance on the purpose of historic context statements and offers the following [emphasis added]:
“[Historic context statements] are not intended to be a chronological recitation of a community’s significant historical events or noteworthy citizens or a comprehensive community history. Nor are they intended to be academic exercises demonstrating prodigious research, the ability to cite myriad primary and secondary resources, and write complex and confusing prose comprehensible only to professionals in the field. Rather, historic context statements need to be direct, to the point, and easily understood by the general public.”
With this in mind, the current context statement will be thoroughly reviewed for relevancy. Information that does not directly relate to Carmel’s built environment will not be carried forward. The current context statement will be retired and made available as a reference document in the Henry Meade Williams local history department, currently located at the Park Branch Library.
Project Timeline
Please note this project is progressing at a pace necessary to meet OHP project milestones. Monthly status updates have been provided to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) throughout this process. In an effort to collect as much public feedback as possible, the project timeline has been pushed back one month. The updated timeline aligned with regularly scheduled Historic Resources Board, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings is provided below:
- March 18: HRB approved the draft outline. Staff report here, video link here, start at 16:10.
- May 20: HRB discussed and provided feedback on the 30% draft. Staff report here, video link here, start at 4:20.
- August 19: HRB discussed and provided feedback on the 50% draft. Staff report here, video link here, start at 4:30.
- September 16: HRB to discuss and provide feedback on the 70% draft. *HRB meeting cancelled day-of due to City Hall emergency closure. The 70% draft was circulated on September 9 for HRB and public review, with an opportunity to submit emailed comments.
- October 21: HRB to discuss the 100% working draft (published October 14), and provide feedback.
- November 18: HRB to consider a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of HCS.
- December 11: Planning Commission to review the HCS, and consider a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of HCS.
- January 7: City Council to consider a Resolution adopting the HCS.
- Early 2025: City to submit a Local Coastal Program Amendment to the Coastal Commission.
- January/February 2025: OHP final work product delivery and reimbursement documentation due.
Discussion Topics for 10/21/2024
1) Confirm chapter theme names, architectural styles, style date ranges, character-defining features, registration requirements, and integrity considerations (see Attachment 3).
a) When reviewing character-defining features, please consider if the features are specific enough to each individual style, such that all styles are appropriately differentiated.
b) Please give extra consideration to styles where end dates are listed as 1986, the last year the context statement covers (highlighted below) or whether the time period should reflect the heyday of the style.
c) Please also give extra consideration to the "Carmel Cottage Style" within the Village in a Forest theme. For example, is the style appropriately defined and character defining features specific enough?
o Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement (1542-1848)
o Carmelo (1849-1901)
- Early Carmel Vernacular Style (1849-1901)
- Queen Anne Style (1888-1901)
o Seacoast of Bohemia (1902-1921)
- Carmel Vernacular Style (1902-1921)
- Arts & Crafts (formerly, Craftsman) Style (1902-1986)
o Village in a Forest (1922-1945)
- Spanish Eclectic Style (1922-1986)
- Tudor Revival Style (1922-1986)
- Storybook Style (1922-1986)
- Monterey Colonial Style (1922-1986)
- Carmel Cottage Style (1922-1986)
- Minimal Traditional Style (1934-1950)
o Postwar Development (1946-1965)
- Postwar Modern Style (1946-1960)
- California Ranch Style (1946-1986)
- Post-Adobe Style (1948-1970)
- Wrightian Organic Style (1946-1986)
- Bay Region Modern Style (1946-1986)
- Regional Expressionist Style (1946-1986)
o The Carmel Dynamic Continues (1966-1986)*previously titled Continuity in Change
- Bay Region Modern Style (1946-1986)
2) Confirm caption formatting preference and level of detail. Examples below.
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), NEC Dolores & 6th
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), NE corner Dolores & 6th
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), northeast corner Dolores & 6th
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), northeast corner of Dolores and 6th
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), northeast corner of Dolores St. and 6th Ave.
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), northeast corner of Dolores Street and 6th Avenue
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), northeast corner of Dolores Street and Sixth Avenue
Village Corner Restaurant (1946), by Hugh Comstock, northeast corner of Dolores Street and Sixth Avenue
3) Provide feedback on photographs. Too few? Too many? Please note that PAST and City staff will update photographs prior to adoption of this document, as necessary, cropping images and making every effort to include well-lit photographs without cars/trash bins in the foreground.
4) Provide feedback re: photographs of buildings not currently listed on the Carmel Inventory. Example: California Ranch Style photographs of non-Inventory-listed Ranch buildings, due to lack of surveyed resources.
5) Discuss Chapter 5. Preservation Goals and Priorities.