Accept the following donations, with a total value of is $7,795 plus 2,364 volunteer hours, from Carmel Cares:
• Pick Up Posse supplies for Carmel Beach, Scenic Pathway, and Downtown - $500 and 1,500 hours
• A-frame beach fire signs - $640 and 32 hours
• Tag Team supplies - $1,000 and 200 hours
• Professional sidewalk cleaning downtown - $5,655 and 32 hours • Status meetings with Public Works - 600 hours
Approve a budget amendment to the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Adopted Budget, as shown in the attached Exhibit A, to recognize the donations of equipment and other goods.
Recognize and extend our sincere gratitude to all volunteer groups who have stepped up to help the City in so many ways.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Dave Potter Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
Resolution 2022-105
EXHIBIT A
General
Ledger
Account
Account
Name Purpose
FY 2022/23
Adopted/
Amended
Budget
Adjustment
Amount
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
101-000-
00-36621
General
Fund
Revenue
DonationsPublic Works
To recognize
donations from
Carmel Cares –
Forest, Parks &
Beach
$0 $88,546 $88,546
101-119-
45-42001
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Forest &
Beach
Contract
Services
Donated: Landscape
Services -Scenic
Pathway, Devendorf
Park, Forest Theater,
Median Islands, and
Downtown
Beautification
$521,500 $88,546 $610,046
101-000-
00-36621
General
Fund
Revenue
DonationsPublic Works
To recognize
donations from
Carmel Cares –
Facilities
Maintenance
$88,546 $53,975 $142,521
101-119-
42-42001
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Maintenance
Contract
Services
Donated Items -
Safety Improvements
on the Scenic
Pathway
$394,270 $4,000 $398,270
101-119-
42-42001
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Maintenance
Contract
Services
Donated Items -
Forest Theater ADA
handrails
$398,270 $4,140 $402,410
101-119-
42-42001
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Maintenance
Contract
Services
Donated Items -
Forest Theater
restroom sidewalk
support
$402,410 $2,800 $405,210
Attachment 1
Resolution 2022-105
101-119-
42-42001
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Maintenance
Contract
Services
Donated Items -
Stone curb
reconstruction at
Forest Theater
$405,210 $2,447 $407,657
101-119-
42-42001
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Maintenance
Contract
Services
Donated Items -
Trash enclosure
improvement on the
Scenic Pathway
$407,657 $2,117 $409,774
101-119-
42-43006
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Maintenance
Other Assets
Donated Items -
Mahogany map
dislplay cases, show
bill at Sunset Center,
mahogany marquees
at Scenic Pathways,
and two custom
blackflow housings
$0 $17,291 $17,291
101-119-
42-43006
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Other Assets
Donated ItemsGranite Wall
Improvements on
beach stairways
$17,291 $11,500 $28,791
101-119-
42-42105
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Materials &
Supplies
Donated Item -
Wooden Shrine at
the Harrison
Memorial Library
$65,000 $800 $65,800
101-119-
42-42201
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Facilities
Building
Maintenance
Donated Items -
House lighting at
Forest Theater
$4,500 $8,880 $13,380
101-000-
00-36621
General
Fund
Revenue
DonationsPublic Works
To recognize
donations from
Carmel Cares –
Street Maintenance
$142,521 $7,795 $150,316
Attachment 1
Resolution 2022-105
101-119-
41-42105
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Streets
Materials &
Supplies
Donated items - Pick
Up Posse supplies $50,000 $500 $50,500
101-119-
41-42105
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Streets
Materials &
Supplies
Donated items -Aframe beach fire
signs
$50,500 $640 $51,140
101-119-
41-42105
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Streets
Materials &
Supplies
Donated items -Tag
Team Supplies $51,140 $1,000 $52,140
101-119-
41-42001
General
Fund
Expenditures
PW Streets
Contract
Services
Donated: Downtown
sidewalk cleaning $8,500 $5,655 $14,155
Attachment 1
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
December 6, 2022
ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Agnes Martelet, Manager, Environmental Compliance APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Resolution 2022-106, Authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, for preparation of a Functional Program Report and Schematic Design for the expanded scope of the Police Building Renovation Project
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2022-106, authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, for preparation of a Functional Program Report and Schematic Design for the expanded scope of the Police Building Renovation Project.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
The PD Renovation Project has experienced several major iterations over the past several years. In June 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Council rejected bids for the prior project and unfunded the project for two years. In March 2022, Council re-appropriated $2.0M to fund the base project, and in June 2022, Council approved an additional $1.3M for the project to address additional functional scope, including a new Emergency Operation Center (EOC), locker room modernization, interview room, and EV charging capability. The City also recently adopted its Climate Action and Adaptation Plans. Because of the high priority of the Public Safety/Public Works/IT operations during extended power outages, the functional scoping of the project will also evaluate resilience strategies needed to meet the operational Public Safety requirements of the City. The additional scope will also require an evaluation of the impact of newly adopted code upgrades. It is anticipated this analysis will identify minimum code upgrade requirements such as building-wide fire suppression, electrical, seismic, and/or ADA compliance upgrades, that must be evaluated and incorporated into the project to meet current code requirements.
The project will also involve developing “swing” space to maintain the Police Department’s operations during the construction process. The scoping document will quantify and develop an estimate for this cost to ensure all costs are accounted for.
Because of the significant unknowns regarding full scope, ongoing supply chain shortages and materials cost inflation, it is important to step back at this point and do a complete analysis of the required scope and cost estimate of the project.
Kasavan Architects, LLC previously provided architectural design services for this project; however, the firm has withdrawn from the project. As a result, after review of the Statements of Qualifications submitted to the City for architectural services in 2022, Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects (WRD) was selected by a committee consisting of the Public Works Director, the 4Leaf Project Manager, and the Police Chief to submit a proposal to conduct this analysis. WRD will salvage as much of the earlier design as possible and will amend it to meet new codes. Kasavan Architects, LLC, will provide the City-owned digital files to WRD to transfer the project as seamlessly as possible. The project will be designed to provide quality workspace for the officers and staff of the Department as well as quality public spaces. The Professional Services Agreement for WRD to conduct this project is included in Attachment 2.
It is estimated this scoping project will be completed in approximately 8 weeks after Notice to Proceed.
A more detailed description of the proposed scope of work and deliverables is provided below:
· Review existing conditions (ongoing and as needed during preparation of program):
o Review previously prepared as-built drawings and the 2020 design project. o Site analysis visit(s) to document existing conditions · Conduct up to 5 meetings with Owner including city staff, police officials/staff and other stakeholders in order to determine the Functional Program requirements:
o Coordinate and conduct meetings.
o Prepare meeting agendas, graphic presentations, questionnaires and other programmatic tools.
o Prepare meeting minutes recording ongoing discussions, scope determinations, decisions made and ongoing open items of discussion.
· Provide a Functional Program written report for City review and comment. Report will be based on user discussions that have determined a Scope of Work and preliminary schedule that potentially includes but is not limited to the following:
o Documentation of existing conditions
o Preliminary site demolition and modernization:
§ Site demolition.
§ Site work related to building modernization work.
§ Public and Police staff pedestrian flow.
§ Public and police vehicle flow.
§ Accessible and regular vehicle parking.
§ Structural seismic upgrade evaluation for existing main structure. § Electrical vehicle charging stations.
§ On or offsite improvements for interim housing of police operations during construction.
o Listing of required interior spaces:
§ Listing of existing spaces to remain.
§ Listing of new spaces to be constructed within existing floor areas. § Listing of new spaces, if any, required outside of existing floor area to be constructed in building addition or additions.
§ On or offsite spaces for interim housing of police operations during construction. o Program requirements for the site and all building spaces whether for modernization of existing spaces to remain or the requirements for the newly created spaces:
§ Architectural spatial requirements, finishes, specialties, security features and FF&E. § Accessibility requirements.
§ Structural strengthening scope
§ Plumbing, HVAC and fire protection sprinkler system.
§ Electrical power, lighting, low voltage and alarm systems. § Emergency power generation.
§ Solar power generation and battery storage systems.
o Establish Program requirements for onsite and/or offsite interim housing of Police operations during construction.
o Determine a proposed preliminary full Project Schedule:
§ WRD A&E design work for preparation of Construction Documents. § Approvals.
§ Bidding.
§ Construction through occupancy or phased occupancy.
o Provide Seismic Report
o Provide Resilience / Microgrid Report
· Provide Drawings for City review and comment:
o Schematic Police Station Site Plan with 2022 T-24 CCR and NFPA 13/17 Code Analysis. o Schematic Police Station Upper Level, Intermediate Level and Lower-Level Floor Plans. o Schematic Exterior Elevations including colored views from the street. o Interior Finish, Door and Window Schedules.
o On and/or offsite interim housing operations Site / Floor Phasing Plan(s). · Provide Cost Estimate
· Provide Project Schedule
FISCAL IMPACT:
The negotiated fee with WRD of $89,115 is within industry standards to perform the multi-disciplinary (architectural, electrical, fire systems, structural/seismic, mechanical/plumbing, resilience evaluation, and cost estimating) services.
Approximately $2.0 million was re-allocated as an Amendment into the FY 2021/22 CIP Budget in the Spring of 2022 to restart the prior scope of the Renovation Project after construction bids were rejected, the Covid-19 Pandemic went into effect, and the Project was unfunded in early 2020. An additional $1.3 million was added to the Project Budget for the FY 2022/23 CIP Budget to reflect additional scoping into the Project, such as the EOC facility, renovated locker rooms, EV charging stations, etc., as well as the code-required re-analysis for seismic, fire sprinkler, ADA accessibility, electrical upgrades, and other considerations required to comply with the 2022 Building Codes.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
As described above, this Project has gone through several revisions over the years. In January 2022, the City Council provided direction to staff to bring back the Project as an amendment to the FY2021/22 Capital Improvement Plan with a $2-million-dollar budget. The City Council approved a $1.3 million addition to the Project budget in the FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement Plan to reflect additional scoping into the Project, as well as the re-analysis of regulatory requirements to comply with the 2022 Building Codes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1) Resolution 2022-106
Attachment 2) Professional Services Agreement for the Police Building Renovation Project - With Expanded Scope
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS FOR A FEE NOT TO EXCEED $89,115 TO PREPARE A FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM REPORT AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR
THE EXPANDED SCOPE OF THE POLICE BUILDING RENOVATION AND RESILIENCE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the police building was constructed in 1967; and
WHEREAS, this facility requires modernization to accommodate current technology and improvements to maintain police functionality; and
WHEREAS, in June 2019, the City Council adopted the FY2019/20 Budget and Capital Improvement Plan, which included the Police Building Renovation Project in the amount of $1,000,000; and
WHEREAS, in June 2020, the City Council postponed the Project due to the economic uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department Renovation Project continues to be a high priority of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in January 2022, the City Council provided direction to bring back the Project as an amendment to the FY2021/22 Capital Improvement Plan with a $2.0-million dollar budget due to inflation in the construction industry; and
WHEREAS, $1.3 million was added to the Project budget in the FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement Plan Budget to reflect additional scoping into the Project, as well as the re-analysis of regulatory requirements to comply with the 2022 Building Codes; and WHEREAS, as a result of the additional desired project elements and new Building Code requirements, the project’s current functional scope and cost estimate require update and revalidation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:
Authorize the City Administrator to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects for a fee not-to-exceed $89,115 to prepare a Functional Program Report and Schematic Design for the expanded scope of the Police Building Renovation and Resilience Improvements Project.
Attachment 1
Resolution 2022-106
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
for the
Police Building Renovation Project – With Expanded Scope Agreement # PWD–WRD-22-23
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this ____ day of December, 2022, by and between the City of CarmelBy-The-Sea, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter "City"), and Wald, Runke Dost Architects (hereinafter "Consultant"), collectively referred to herein as the “parties”.
WHEREAS, the City wishes to engage Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it is trained, experienced and competent and holds all necessary licenses and certifications to perform the services required by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions herein contained, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. SERVICES
A. Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to provide to the City, as the scope of services (“Scope of Services”) under this Agreement, the following: Architectural Services, related the code analysis and updates, schematic design, cost estimating for the renovation of the Carmel Police department Building. The Scope of Services is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The Scope of Services under this Agreement includes, but is not limited to, a project description, project phases, task descriptions, identification of key personnel, identification of subconsultants, their key personnel and general description of services that will be performed, as further set forth in this Agreement and attachments hereto. Consultant agrees to all of the following:
i. Consultant will furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all tests, testing and analyses, calculations, and all other means whatsoever, except as otherwise expressly specified in this Agreement, necessary to perform the services required of Consultant under this Agreement. ii. Consultant’s designated representative(s) who are authorized to act on its behalf and to make all decisions in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement are listed in Exhibit “B,“ Key Personnel, Compensation, and Fee Schedule which is made a part of this Agreement.
iii. Consultant must make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s key personnel and subcontractors, if any, listed in Exhibit B to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant must notify City and obtain City’s written approval with respect of any changes in key personnel prior to the performance of any services by replacement personnel.
Attachment 2
2 iv. Consultant must obtain City’s prior written approval before utilizing any subcontractors to perform any services under this Agreement. This written approval must include the identity of the subcontractor and the terms of compensation. v. Consultant represents that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent and professional manner. Consultant will at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described in this Agreement.
In meeting its obligations under this Agreement, Consultant must employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing services similar to those required of Consultant under this Agreement. vi. City may inspect and accept or reject any of Consultant’s work under this Agreement, either during performance or when completed. Acceptance of any of Consultant’s work by City will not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. vii. The Consultant must maintain any work site in the City in a safe condition, free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations.
B. Change Orders.
i. The City may order changes to the Scope of Services, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the compensation to be paid Consultant will be adjusted accordingly.
All such changes must be authorized in writing, and executed by Consultant and City. The cost or credit to City resulting from changes in the services will be determined by the written agreement between the parties. However, any increase in compensation beyond the compensation limit amount approved by the City Council must be authorized in advance by the City Council and any service provided by Consultant in the absence of such approval are at Consultant’s sole risk.
ii. Consultant will not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to or outside of those set forth in the Scope of Services or otherwise required by this Agreement, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by City. iii. If Consultant believes that additional services are needed to complete the Scope of Services, Consultant will provide the City Administrator with written notification describing the proposed additional services, the reasons for such services, and a detailed proposal regarding cost.
C. Familiarity with Services and Site.
i. By executing this Agreement, Consultant represents that Consultant:
a. has thoroughly investigated and considered the Scope of Services to be performed; b. has carefully considered how the services should be performed; c. understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement; and
Attachment 2
3 d. possesses all licenses required under local, state or federal law to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement, and will maintain all required licenses during the performance of this Agreement.
ii. If services involve work upon any site, Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, before commencing its services.
Should Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions that may materially affect the performance of services, Consultant will immediately inform City of such fact and will not proceed except at Consultant’s own risk until written instructions are received from City.
2. COMPENSATION
A. Total Fee. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, the City agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, hourly fees as set forth in Consultant’s Key Personnel, Compensation, and Fee Schedule (Exhibit “B”), in a total amount not-to-exceed Seventy-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($79,325.00). A Supplemental Services budget of Nine Thousand seven hundred and ninety Dollars ($9,790) is included and may only be expended upon prior written authorization by the City. The combined total of Eighty-Nine Thousand One Hundred fifteen Dollars ($89,115.00) is the “Maximum Authorized Expenditure” under this Agreement. The Fee Schedule includes, but is not limited to, fees for each phase and task, not-to-exceed total fee, hourly rates, reimbursable rates and subconsultant mark-up rates. The use of subconsultants will not be considered a reimbursable expense, and such costs must be applied towards the approved budgeted amount. Payment of any compensation to Consultant is contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City. If the City determines that the Services set forth in the written invoice have not performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the City is not responsible for payment until the Services have been satisfactorily performed.
B. Invoicing. Consultant must submit to the City monthly written invoices to the City’s Project Representative, identified in Section 5 below. Invoices must be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City, describing the services rendered and associated costs for the period covered by the invoice. The City will provide invoicing format upon request. Consultant may not bill the City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s invoices must include, but are not limited to, the following information:
i. Project Title, the City’s Purchase Order number and City’s Project Code(s) for each project; ii. Invoice number and date;
iii. A brief description of services performed for each project phase and/or task; iv. The budgeted amount for each phase, task and item, including the total amount, with the same for approved Change Orders, if any;
v. Amount invoiced to date divided by the agreed total compensation, expressed as a percentage, with the same for approved Change Orders, if any; Attachment 2
4 vi. The amount earned and invoiced to date for each phase, task and/or item, including the total amount, with the same for approved Change Orders, if any; vii. The amount previously invoiced for each phase, task and/or item, including the total amount, with the same for approved Change Orders, if any; viii. The amount due for the period covered by this invoice for each phase, task, and/or item, including the total amount, with the same for approved Change Orders, if any; ix. For time and materials authorizations, the number of hours spent, by whom and their hourly rate for each phase, task and/or item, including the total amount; x. The costs incurred, including reimbursables, for each phase, task, and/or item for the agreed total compensation and approved Change Orders, if any, along with a brief description of those costs;
xi. The total amount due for the period covered by this invoice, including subconsultants and vendors of services or goods;
xii. Copies of subconsultant, vendor, and reimbursable invoices including hourly breakdowns when requested by City.
xiii. Copies of subconsultant and vendor lien releases.
Any such invoices must be in full accord with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement.
Consultant must submit invoices to the City on or before the sixteenth (16th) day of each month for services performed in the preceding month.
The City will review each invoice submitted by Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with this Agreement. In the event that no charges or expenses are disputed, the invoice will be approved and paid.
Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant that are disputed by City, the City will pay on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, that Consultant submits an invoice which is not incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement. If any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the invoice will be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission, and the City will not be obligated to process any payment to Consultant until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Consultant. Payment to Consultant for services performed under this Agreement may not be deemed to waive any defects in the services performed by Consultant, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. City reserves the right to withhold future payment to Consultant if any aspect of the Consultant’s work is found to be non-conforming to the terms of this Agreement.
The City is not obligated to pay Consultant a greater percentage of the Maximum Authorized Expenditure than the actual percentage of services completed as of the invoice date.
Attachment 2
5 Consultant agrees to remit and is responsible for all withholding taxes, income taxes, unemployment insurance deductions, and any other deductions required by applicable federal, state or local laws and regulations for Consultant, its employees, subconsultants and vendors of services or goods.
C. Adjustment of Maximum Authorized Expenditure. The City may increase or decrease the Maximum Authorized Expenditure by issuing a Change Order to the Agreement in accordance with Section 1.B “Change Orders” above. Should Consultant consider that any request or instruction from the City’s Project Representative constitutes a change in the scope of services, Consultant will advise the City’s Project Representative, in writing, within fourteen (14) calendar days of such request or instruction. Without said written advice within the time period specified, the City is not obligated to make any payment of additional compensation to Consultant.
D. Hourly Rates. Payment for all authorized services, including payment for authorized on-call, asneeded services, will be made by the City to Consultant in accordance with the various hourly rates as set forth in the Consultant’s Key Personnel, Compensation & Fee Schedule (Exhibit “B”).
E. Subconsultants and Vendors. Invoices for subconsultants and vendors of services or goods will be paid by the City to Consultant in accordance with the various rates as set forth in the Consultant’s Compensation & Fee Schedule (Exhibit “C”). All reimbursable expenses will be considered as included within the Maximum Authorized Expenditure. Consultant is solely responsible for payment to subconsultants and vendors of services or goods, and the City is not responsible or liable for any payments to subconsultants and vendors, either directly or indirectly.
F. Audit and Examination of Accounts:
i. Consultant must keep and will cause any assignee or subconsultant under this Agreement to keep accurate books of records and accounts, in accordance with sound accounting principles, which pertain to services to be performed under this Agreement. ii. Any audit conducted of books of records and accounts must be kept in accordance with generally accepted professional standards and guidelines for auditing. iii. Consultant must disclose and make available any and all information, reports, books of records or accounts pertaining to this Agreement to the City and any city of the County of Monterey, or other federal, state, regional or governmental agency which provides funding for these Services.
iv. Consultant must include the requirements of Section 2F, “Audit and Examination of Accounts,” in all contracts with assignees or subconsultants under this Agreement. v. All records provided for in this Section are to be maintained and made available throughout the performance of this Agreement and for a period of not less than four (4) years after full completion of the Services. All records, which pertain to actual disputes, litigation, appeals Attachment 2
6 or claims, must be maintained and made available for a period of not less than four (4) years after final resolution of such disputes, litigation, appeals or claims.
3. AGREEMENT TERM
A. Term. The work under this Agreement will commence by December 7, 2022 and must be completed by June 30, 2025 unless sooner terminated or the City grants an extension of time in writing pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, except for provisions in this Agreement that will survive the termination or completion of this Agreement. Consultant will perform Change Order services as set out in Section 1.B, “Amendment of Services (Change Orders),” in a timely manner or in accordance with the agreed upon Change Order Project Schedule.
B. Timely Work. Consultant will perform all Services in a timely fashion, as set forth more specifically in Section 3.A, “Term,” and Section 3.C, “Project Schedule,” of this Agreement.
Failure to perform is deemed a material breach of this Agreement, and the City may terminate this Agreement with no further liability hereunder, or may authorize, in writing, an extension of time to the Agreement.
C. Project Schedule. Services must be completed by Consultant in accordance with the Project Schedule set forth in Exhibit “C.” The parties may, from time to time, by Change Order, alter the Project Schedule. Consultant will provide the Services pursuant to the Project Schedule or any applicable Project Schedule Change Order. If at any time Consultant discovers that the Project Schedule cannot be met, Consultant must promptly notify the City in writing and provide a revised Project Schedule for review and consideration by City.
D. Notice to Proceed. Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties and the receipt of all documentation required by this Agreement to be provided by Consultant to the City, including proof of insurance and tax identification numbers, the City will issue a written Notice to Proceed to the Consultant. The City may, in its sole discretion, issue subsequent notices from time to time regarding further portions or phases of the work. Upon receipt of such notices, Consultant will diligently proceed with the Services authorized and complete those Services within the agreed time specified in said notice. Consultant will not proceed with any of the Services unless they have received a Notice to Proceed from the City.
4. CONSULTANT’S EMPLOYEES AND SUBCONSULTANTS
A. Listed Employees and Subconsultants. Consultant will perform the Services using the individuals listed in the Key Employees and Subconsultants List attached hereto in Exhibit “B.” B. Substitution of Employees or Subconsultants:
i. Consultant may not substitute any key employee or subconsultant listed in Exhibit “B” without the prior written approval of the City, and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The City will not approve removal or substitution of employees or subconsultants for the reason that Consultant or its affiliates has called on such individuals to perform services for another client of the Consultant.
Attachment 2
7 ii. If, at any time, the City reasonably objects to the performance, experience, qualifications or suitability of any of Consultant’s employees or subconsultants, then Consultant may, upon written request from the City, replace such employee or subconsultant. Consultant must, subject to scheduling and staffing considerations, make reasonable efforts to replace the individual with an individual of similar competency and experience. iii. Whether or not the City consents to, or requests a substitution of any employee or subconsultant of Consultant, the City will not be liable to pay additional compensation to Consultant for any replacement or substitution.
C. Sub-agreements with Subconsultants. Consultant will incorporate the terms and conditions of this Agreement into all sub-agreements with subconsultants in respect of the Services necessary to preserve all rights of the City under this Agreement. Consultant is fully responsible to the City of all acts and omissions of subconsultants and of persons employed by any subconsultant.
D. Not an Agent of the City. Nothing in this Agreement will be interpreted to render the City the agent, employer, or partner of Consultant, or the employer of anyone working for or subcontracted by Consultant, and Consultant must not do anything that would result in anyone working for or subcontracted by Consultant being considered an employee of the City.
Consultant is not, and must not claim to be, an agent of the City.
E. Independent Contractor:
i. Consultant is an independent contractor. This Agreement does not create the relationship of employer and employee, a partnership, or a joint venture. The City may not control or direct the details, means, methods or processes by which Consultant performs the Services.
Consultant is responsible for performance of the Services and may not delegate or assign any Services to any other person except as provided for in this Agreement. Consultant is solely liable for the work quality and conditions of any partners, employees and subconsultants.
ii. No offer or obligation of permanent employment with the City or particular City department or agency is intended in any manner, and Consultant may not become entitled by virtue of this Agreement to receive from the City any form of employee benefits including but not limited to sick leave, vacation, retirement benefits, workers’ compensation coverage, insurance or disability benefits. Consultant will be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, including federal and state income taxes and social security, arising out of Consultant’s performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant will defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all liability, which the City may incur because of Consultant’s failure to pay such taxes.
Attachment 2
8 5. REPRESENTATIVES AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. City’s Project Representative. The City appoints the individual named below as the City’s Project Representative for the purposes of this Agreement (“City’s Project Representative”). The City may unilaterally change its project representative upon notice to Consultant.
Name: Robert M. Harary, P.E.
Title: Director of Public Works
Address: P.O. Box CC, Carmel, CA 93921
Telephone: (831) 620-20210
Email: [email protected]
B. Consultant’s Project Manager. Consultant appoints the person named below as its Project Manager for the purposes of this Agreement (“Consultant’s Project Manager”).
Name: Lou Bartlett, AIA
Title: Project Architect
Company: WRD Architects
Address: 2340 Garden Road, Monterey, CA 93940
Telephone: 831-649-4642
Email: [email protected]
C. Meet and Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with the City’s Project Representative, its agents or employees with regard to Services as may be required by the City to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.
D. Communications and Notices. All communications between the City and Consultant regarding this Agreement, including performance of Services, will be between the City’s Project Representative and Consultant’s Project Manager. Any notice, report, or other document that either party may be required or may wish to give to the other must be in writing and will be validly given to and received by the addressee, if delivered personally, on the date of such personal delivery, if delivered by email, on the date of transmission, or if by mail, seven (7) calendar days after posting.
6. INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant hereby agrees to the following indemnification clause:
To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.6), Consultant will defend (with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, designated agents, departments, officials, representatives and employees (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against claims, loss, cost, damage, injury expense and liability (including incidental and consequential damages, Court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the Court, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, any subconsultant or subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control (collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and Attachment 2
9 indemnify any Indemnitee will not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the active negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the above paragraph, Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against all claims, demands, defense costs, liability, expense, or damages arising out of or in connection with damage to or loss of any property belonging to Consultant or Consultant's employees, subconsultants, representatives, patrons, guests or invitees.
In no event will the obligation of the Consultant exceed the limitations on the duty to defend and indemnify as set forth in Civil Code Sections 2782, 2782.6, and 2782.8.
7. INSURANCE
Consultant must submit and maintain in full force all insurance as described herein. Without altering or limiting Consultant's duty to indemnify, Consultant must maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the following minimum limits of liability:
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance including but not limited to premises, personal injuries, bodily injuries, property damage, products, and completed operations, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate.
B. Professional Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Consultant will have a policy for professional liability coverage that provides coverage on an occurrence basis or obtain extended reporting (tail) coverage (with the same liability limits) for at least three years following the City's acceptance of the work.
C. Automobile Liability Insurance covering all automobiles, including owned, leased, non-owned, and hired automobiles, used in providing Services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
D. Workers' Compensation Insurance. If Consultant employs others in the performance of this Agreement, Consultant must maintain Workers' Compensation insurance in accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence.
E. Other Insurance Requirements:
i. All insurance required under this Agreement must be written by an insurance company either:
a. admitted to do business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VI; or
b. an insurance company with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII.
Exception may be made for the State Compensation Insurance Fund when not specifically rated.
ii. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement may not be canceled, except with prior written notice to the City.
Attachment 2
10 iii. All liability and auto policies must:
a. Provide an endorsement naming the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 23 37 forms if later revisions used).
b. Provide that such Consultant’s insurance is primary as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City is excess to the Consultant’s insurance and will not contribute with it.
c. Contain a “Separation of Insureds” provision substantially equivalent to that used in the ISO form CG 00 01 10 01 or their equivalent.
d. Provide for a waiver of any subrogation rights against the City via an ISO CG 24 01 10 93 or its equivalent.
iv. Prior to the start of work under this Agreement, Consultant will file certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required by this Agreement with the City. Consultant will file a new or amended certificate of insurance promptly after any change is made in any insurance policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file.
v. Neither the insurance requirements hereunder, nor acceptance or approval of Consultant’s insurance, nor whether any claims are covered under any insurance, may in any way modify or change Consultant’s obligations under the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which will continue in full force and effect. All coverage available to the Consultant as named insured will also be available and applicable to the additional insured. Notwithstanding these insurance requirements, Consultant is financially liable for its indemnity obligations under this Agreement.
vi. All policies must be written on a first dollar coverage basis or contain a deductible provision. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insured will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or SIR as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Consultant will provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. In no event will any SIR or insurance policy contain language, whether added by endorsement or contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits satisfaction of any self-insured provision or requirement by anyone other than the named insured, or by any means including other insurance, or which is intended to defeat the intent or protection of an additional insured.
vii. City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
Attachment 2
11 viii. Consultant must require and verify that all subconsultants and subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements in this Agreement. ix. If Consultant, for any reason, fails to have in place at all times during the term of this Agreement all of the required insurance coverage, the City may, but is not obligated to, obtain such coverage at Consultant’s expense and deduct the cost from the sums due Consultant. Alternatively, City may terminate the Agreement. x. The existence of the required insurance coverage under this Agreement will not be deemed to satisfy or limit Consultant’s indemnity obligations under this Agreement.
Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this Agreement constitute the minimum coverage and policy limits required. Should any coverage carried by the Consultant or any subcontractor of any tier have limits of liability that exceed the limits or have broader coverage than required in this Agreement, those higher limits and that broader coverage are deemed to apply for the benefit of any person or organization included as an additional insured and those limits and broader coverage will become the required minimum limits and insurance coverage in all sections of this Agreement. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and coverages required by this Agreement, and which is applicable to a given loss, must be made available to City to compensate it for such losses.
xi. Consultant must give City prompt notice of claims made of lawsuits initiated that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability insurance policies. xii. The Consultant hereby waives any right of subrogation that any of its insurers may have or that they may accrue out of the payment of any claim related to the Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, regardless of whether any endorsements required by this section are obtained.
8. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Consultant warrants that Consultant and Consultant’s agents, employees, and subconsultants performing Services under this Agreement are specially trained, experienced, and competent and have the degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code Section 37103, and further, are appropriately licensed to perform the work and deliver the Services required under this Agreement.
B. Consultant, its agents, employees, and subconsultants must perform all Services in a safe and skillful manner consistent with the usual and customary standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields in accordance with sound professional practices. All work product of Consultant must comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and codes. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and will advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant’s performance of this Agreement. All Services performed under this Agreement that are required by law to be performed or supervised by licensed personnel must be performed in accordance with such licensing requirements.
Attachment 2
12 C. Consultant must furnish, at its own expense, all materials, equipment and personnel necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. Consultant may not use the City premises, property (including equipment, instruments, or supplies) or personnel for any purpose other than in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
D. Consultant agrees to perform all work under this Agreement to the satisfaction of City and as specified herein. The City’s Project Representative or his or her designee will evaluate the work.
If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion may meet with Consultant to review the quality of work and resolve the matters of concern, and may require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory.
9. CITY INFORMATION AND RESOURCES
A. Available Information. The City will make available to Consultant all relevant information, plans, maps, reports, specifications, standards and pertinent data which is in the hands of the City and is required by Consultant to perform the Services. Consultant may rely upon the accuracy and completeness of such information and data furnished by the City, except where it is stated otherwise or unreasonable.
B. City Resources. The City acknowledges that Consultant’s ability to provide the Services in accordance with this Agreement may be dependent on the City providing available information and resources in a prompt and timely manner as reasonably required by Consultant. To the extent that the City fails to provide City resources, Consultant will not be liable for any resulting delay in the Services or failure to meet the Project Schedule, but in no event will such delay or failure to provide City resources constitute a breach of this Agreement by the City, nor will Consultant be entitled to extra compensation for same. Consultant’s sole remedy shall be an extension of time to complete the Scope of Services.
C. Obligations of Consultant. No reviews, approvals, or inspections carried out or supplied by the City will derogate from the duties and obligations of Consultant, and all responsibility related to performance of the Services will be and remain with Consultant.
10. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF MATERIALS
A. Ownership of the Materials. All data, studies, reports, calculations, field notes, sketches, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, cost estimates, manuals, correspondence, agendas, minutes, notes, audio-visual materials, photographs, models, software data, computer software (if purchased on the City’s behalf) and other documents or products produced by Consultant under this Agreement (collectively, “the Materials”) are and will remain the property of the City even though Consultant or another party may have physical possession of them or a portion thereof. Consultant hereby waives, in favor of the City, any moral rights Consultant, its employees, subconsultants, vendors, successors or assignees may have in the Materials.
B. No Patent or Copyright Infringement. Consultant guarantees that in its creation of the Materials produced under this Agreement, no federal or state patent or copyright laws were violated.
Consultant agrees that all copyrights, which arise from creation of the work or Services pursuant to this Agreement, will be vested in the City and waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or intellectual property rights in favor of the City. Consultant covenants that it will defend, Attachment 2
13 indemnify and hold City harmless from any claim or legal action brought against the City for alleged infringement of any patent or copyright related to City’s use of Materials produced by Consultant and its employees, agents and subconsultants under this Agreement.
C. Delivery and Use of the Materials. All Materials will be transferred and delivered by Consultant to the City without further compensation following the expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement, provided that the City may, at any time prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, give written notice to Consultant requesting delivery by Consultant to the City of all or any part of the Materials in which event Consultant must forthwith comply with such request. The Materials created electronically must be submitted in a format and medium acceptable to the City. The Materials may be used by the City in any manner for the intended purpose or as part of its operations associated with the Materials.
D. Survival of Ownership and Use Provisions. The provisions contained in Section 10, Ownership and Use of Materials survives the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, and that this Section is severable for such purpose.
E. Additional Copies. If the City requires additional copies of reports, or any other material that Consultant is required to furnish as part of the Services under this Agreement, Consultant must provide such additional copies, and the City will compensate Consultant for the actual costs related to the production of such copies by Consultant.
11. CONFIDENTIALITY
A. No Disclosure. Consultant must keep confidential and may not disclose, publish or release any information, data, or confidential information of the City to any person other than representatives of the City duly designated for that purpose in writing by the City. Consultant may not use for Consultant’s own purposes, or for any purpose other than those of the City, any information, data, or confidential information Consultant may acquire as a result of the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant must promptly transmit to the City any and all requests for disclosure of any such confidential information or records. The obligations under this Section will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
B. California Public Records Act. Consultant acknowledges that the City is subject to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), known as the “PRA,” and agrees to any disclosure of information by the City as required by law. Consultant further acknowledges that it may have access to personal information as defined under the PRA, and Consultant will not use any such personal information for any purposes other than for the performance of Services under this Agreement without the advance written approval of the City.
All Scopes of Services and related documents received will be public records, with the exception of those elements, identified by the Consultant as business trade secrets and are plainly marked “Trade Secret,” “Confidential,” or “Proprietary.” If disclosure is required under the PRA or otherwise by law, the City will not be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such records and the Consultant will indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless for any such disclosure.
Attachment 2
14 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Consultant covenants that neither Consultant, nor any officer, principal or employee of its firm, has or will acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, that would conflict in any manner with the interests of City relating to this Agreement or that would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant’s attention is directed to the conflict of interest rules applicable to governmental decision-making contained in the Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 87100 and following) and its implementing regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18700 et seq.), and California Government Code section 1090.
Consultant is required to file a Form 700 in compliance with the City’s Conflict of Interest Code unless a written determination by the City Administrator is made modifying or eliminating said requirement, or unless otherwise exempted by law.
In addition, Consultant, Consultant’s employees, and subconsultants agree as follows:
A. That they will conduct their duties related to this Agreement with impartiality, and must, if they exercise discretionary authority over others in the course of those duties, disqualify themselves from dealing with anyone with whom a relationship between them could bring the impartiality of Consultant or its employees into question;
B. May not influence, seek to influence, or otherwise take part in a decision of the City knowing that the decision may further their private interests;
C. May not accept any commission, discount, allowance, payment, gift, or other benefit connected, directly or indirectly, with the performance of Services related to this Agreement, that causes, or would appear to cause, a conflict of interest;
D. May have no financial interest in the business of a third party that causes, or would appear to cause, a conflict of interest in connection with the performance of the Services related to this Agreement, and if such financial interest is acquired during the term of this Agreement, Consultant must promptly declare it to the City, and;
E. May not, during the term of this Agreement, perform a service for, or provide advice to, any person, firm, or corporation, which gives rise to a conflict of interest between the obligations of Consultant under this Agreement and the obligations of Consultant to such other person, firm or corporation.
13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. Dispute Resolution Procedures. The parties will make reasonable efforts to promptly resolve any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or related to this Agreement (“Dispute”) using the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in this Section.
B. Negotiations. First, the City’s Project Representative and Consultant’s Project Manager will make reasonable efforts to resolve any Dispute by amicable negotiations and will provide frank, candid, and timely disclosure of all relevant facts, information, and documents to facilitate negotiations. Should these negotiations be unsuccessful in resolving the Dispute, the matter will Attachment 2
15 be promptly referred to the City Administrator or designee, and the Consultant’s Principal, who will meet and confer, in good faith, to resolve the Dispute to mutual satisfaction of the parties.
C. Mediation. If all or any portion of a Dispute cannot be resolved by good faith negotiations as set forth above within thirty (30) days of the date that the matter was referred to the City Administrator pursuant to subsection B above, either party may, by notice to the other party, submit the Dispute for formal mediation to a mediator selected mutually by the parties from the Monterey Superior Court’s Court-Directed Mediator Panel list. The duration of any such mediation may not exceed 2 hours unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. The cost of the mediation (including fees of mediators) will be borne equally by the parties, and each party will bear its own costs of participating in mediation. The mediation will take place within or in close proximity to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
In any mediation conducted pursuant to this section, the provisions of California Evidence Code section 1152 will be applicable to limit the admissibility of evidence disclosed by the parties in the course of the mediation. In the event the parties are unsuccessful in resolving the dispute through the mediation process, then the parties agree that the dispute will be submitted to Binding Arbitration to a single Arbitrator in accordance with the existing Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) within thirty (30) days of the close of mediation as declared by the mediator.
D. Arbitration. The submission to Mediation and Arbitration in accordance with the requirements of this section of any and all agreements, differences, or controversies that may arise hereunder is made a condition precedent to the institution of any action or appeal at law or in equity with respect to the controversy involved. The award by the arbitrator will have the same force and effect and may be filed and entered, as a judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California and is subject to appellate review upon the same terms and conditions as the law permits for judgments of Superior Courts. A “Prevailing Party” will be determined in the Arbitration, and the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred, and accrued interest on any unpaid balance that may be due. Costs will include the cost of any expert employed in the preparation or presentation of any evidence. All costs incurred and reasonable attorney fees will be considered costs recoverable in that proceeding, and be included in any award.
14. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Termination for Cause or Default. The City reserves the right to immediately terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, if Consultant or any subconsultant defaults or fails to deliver the Services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Such termination must be in writing, setting forth the effective date of termination, and will not result in any penalty or other charges to the City, and may be issued without any prior notice. Without limitation, Consultant is in default of its obligations contained in this Agreement if Consultant, or any subconsultant:
i. Fails to perform the required Services within the term and/or in the manner provided under this Agreement;
Attachment 2
16 ii. Fails to supply sufficient, properly skilled workers or proper workmanship, products, material, tools and equipment to perform the Services;
iii. Fails to observe or comply with all laws, ordinances, including all requirements of governmental or quasi-governmental authorities, including federal, state, and local government enactments, bylaws, and other regulations now or, following the date of this Agreement, in force that pertain to;
iv. Fails to observe or comply with the City’s reasonable instructions; v. Breaches the Conflict of Interest provisions of this Agreement; or vi. Otherwise violates any provision of this Agreement.
B. Termination for Convenience. The City may, at its option and sole discretion, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, with or without cause, at any time during the Agreement Term for the convenience of the City, upon ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant.
C. Steps after Termination:
i. Upon termination of this Agreement by the City for any reason, the City will pay Consultant for satisfactorily performed Services and disbursements incurred by Consultant to the date of termination pursuant to this Agreement, less any amounts necessary to compensate the City for damages or costs incurred by the City arising from Consultant’s default. Termination will be without prejudice to any other rights or remedies the City may have.
ii. Upon receipt of written notice of termination of this Agreement by the City for any reason, Consultant must:
a. Promptly cease all Services, including Services provided by any subconsultant, unless otherwise directed by the City; and
b. Deliver to the City all the Materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Such Materials are to be delivered to the City in completed form; however, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10, Ownership and Use of Materials, herein, the City may condition payment for services rendered to the date of termination upon Consultant’s delivery to the City of such Materials.
iii. If this Agreement is terminated by the City for any reason, the City is hereby expressly permitted to assume the projects and Services, and to complete them by any means including, but not limited to, an agreement with another party.
Attachment 2
17 15. LEGAL ACTION / VENUE
A. Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other, the validity, interpretation and performance of this Agreement will be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California, excluding California’s choice of law rules.
B. Venue for any such action relating to this Agreement will be in Monterey County.
C. If any legal action or proceeding, including action for declaratory relief, is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees as may be determined by the Arbitrator, experts’ fees, and other costs, in addition to any other relief to which the party may be entitled.
16. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Non-discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant, and its subconsultants, may not unlawfully discriminate against any person because of race, religious creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, or sexual orientation, either in Consultant’s employment practices or in the furnishing of services to recipients. Consultant further acknowledges that harassment in the workplace is not permitted in any form, and will take all necessary actions to prevent such conduct.
B. Acceptance of Services Not a Release. Acceptance by the City of the Services to be performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Consultant from professional responsibility for the Services performed.
C. Force Majeure. Either party is absolved from its obligation under this Agreement when and to the extent that performance is delayed or prevented, and in the City’s case, when and to the extent that its need for vehicles, materials, or Services to be supplied hereunder are reduced or eliminated by any course, except financial, for reasons beyond its control. Such reasons include, but are not limited to: earthquake, flood, epidemic, fire, explosion, war, civil disorder, act of God or of the public enemy, act of federal, state or local government, or delay in transportation to the extent that they are not caused by the party’s willful or negligent acts or omissions, and to the extent that they are beyond the party’s reasonable control.
D. Headings. The headings do not govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this Agreement. The headings are for convenience only.
E. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the terms, conditions, and Services and supersedes any and all prior proposals, understandings, communications, representations and agreements, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter thereof pursuant to Section 1B, “Change Order of Services.” Any Change Order to this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties hereto and will prevail over any other provision of this Agreement in the event of inconsistency between them.
Attachment 2
18 F. Conflict between Agreement and Exhibits. In the event of a conflict between a provision in this Agreement and a provision in an Exhibit attached to this Agreement, the provisions in this Agreement will take precedence.
G. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, and may be signed in counterparts, but all of which together will constitute one and the same Agreement.
H. Multiple Copies of Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed, but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City’s City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that governs should any difference exist among counterparts of this Agreement.
I. Authority. Any individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City or Consultant represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of such party and bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
J. Severability. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions will not be impaired thereby.
Limitations of liability and indemnities will survive termination of the Agreement for any cause.
If a part of the Agreement is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Agreement is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.
K. Non-exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both the City and Consultant expressly reserve the right to enter into agreements with other Consultants for the same or similar services, or may have its own employees perform the same or similar services.
L. Assignment of Interest. The duties under this Agreement are not assignable, delegable, or transferable without the prior written consent of the City. Any such purported assignment, delegation, or transfer constitutes a material breach of this Agreement upon which the City may terminate this Agreement and be entitled to damages.
M. City Business License. Prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed from the City, Consultant will obtain and maintain a valid City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Business License for the duration of the Agreement. Costs associated with the license are the responsibility of Consultant.
N. Laws. Consultant agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the City of Carmel-by-theSea.
Attachment 2
19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties enter into this Agreement hereto on the day and year first above written in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CONSULTANT
City Administrator Consultant Signature
Chip Rerig
Printed Name Date Printed Name Date
Title
Consultant Legal Company Name
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________ Date: ______________________ Brian Pierik, Esq., City Attorney
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________ Date: ______________________ Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
Exhibit “A” Scope of Services
Exhibit “B” Key Personnel, Compensation, and Fee Schedule Exhibit “C” Project Schedule
Attachment 2
2340 Garden Road
Suite 100
Monterey, CA
93940-5347
T: (831) 649-4642
F: (831) 649-3530
www.wrdarch.com
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
DESIGN PROJECT DESCRIPTION
WRD will provide Architect and Engineering (A&E) Services for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Owner) for the development and preparation of a Functional Program Report.
The report will include the agreed upon scope for a proposed construction project to modernize the referenced facility. Included in the report will be Schematic Drawings, consultant reports and a cost estimate.
A previous design project approved by the City for construction in Feb. of 2020 under another architect did not proceed into construction. An addition to the building primarily to provide a new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was of earlier designs and will be a major consideration for this project.
Other portions of the 2020 design may be included in the Report’s modernization program scope as well. The previous architect’s designs will be used as the starting point for meeting discussions. While the previous design was based on the 2019 Building Code, this program will be for a modernization construction project under the 2022 Code. WRD will provide a 2022 California Code of Regulations (Title 24 CCR) and NFPA 13 / 72 Code Analysis as part of the Schematic Drawings for the proposed modernization scope. The anticipated principal Code review items include building height and allowable area, structural safety, fire life safety and accessibility to public buildings. All alteration and addition areas will require full accessibility and other areas of the CPA may also need an accessible path of travel to be provided. As part of the Code analysis WRD will include determining whether space reconfigurations, ramps, elevators, lifts, etc. will be needed. Existing electrical systems will also be evaluated for any Code required upgrades.
Evaluation of the existing fire protection system and the need for upgrades for fire sprinklers and alarm systems will be included in the Code Analysis for the proposed modernization scope. Site improvements for the modernization scope are anticipated to be related to accessibility path of travel only with no landscaping and irrigation design anticipated.
WRD will employ the Structural, Mechanical/Plumbing and Electrical consultants that did the SMEP design the 2020 design for support in this programming and Code analysis effort. The Mechanical/Plumbing consultant will attend up to 2 meetings and provide recommendations for plumbing and HVAC at a schematic level. The Electrical consultant will attend up to three meetings and will perform an assessment of the existing building in order to provide Schematic Electrical Drawings for Power, Lighting and low voltage systems including alarm and Data/IT infrastructure. The MEP deliverables will be at a sufficient detail for the cost estimating to be performed.
The facility (Police Department or CPS) occupies the upper main level and the intermediate basement level of the building at the referenced address.
The CPS shares the building with the Carmel Public Works Department and a city yard/ parking garage on the lower basement level. The Functional Program Report will be related solely to the CPS occupied portions of the building. The Public Works and garage portions are not in the modernization scope except where infrastructure improvements and/or significant deferred maintenance improvements on the lower basement level must be included to complete the CPS facility modernization. All work will be planned for the Attachment 2
most cost-effective installation in lieu of an excessively high level of construction quality however a quality level that the public and the City can be proud of will be the goal.
The facility (Police Department or CPS) occupies the upper main level and the intermediate basement level of the building at the referenced address.
The CPS shares the building with the Carmel Public Works Department and a city yard/ parking garage on the lower basement level. The Functional Program Report will be related solely to the CPS occupied portions of the building. The Public Works and garage portions are not in the modernization scope except where infrastructure improvements and/or significant deferred maintenance improvements on the lower basement level must be included to complete the CPS facility modernization. All work will be planned for the most cost-effective installation in lieu of an excessively high level of construction quality however a quality level that the public and the City can be proud of will be the goal.
In addition to the modernization of the Police Department it is anticipated that other facilities may be used for temporary facilities during construction in lieu of phasing the work for continued operation in the CPS. Such facilities and / or phasing in the CPS will be included in the report.
Being an essential facility, the CPS must remain operational in the event of extreme seismic loading or a centralized power outage. WRD’s structural consultant will prepare a seismic report with a seismic analysis based on the 2022 Code for both the existing building and the proposed alterations and/or additions shown in the Schematic Drawings. Similarly, WRD’s microgrid / resilience consultant will prepare a report with an analysis of the existing generated power system and proposed new distributed power sources/ power storage in an integrated microgrid system. It is anticipated that ancillary support facilities on other sites may be tied into this system. Both seismic report and microgrid/resilience report will be included in the finalized Program Report.
Finally, upon 95% completion of the Schematic Drawings WRD’s cost estimating consultant will prepare a construction cost estimate based on all drawings and all reports.
DESIGN PROJECT DURATION
It is anticipated that the report, drawings and estimate that constitute this project can be finalized in 7 to 10 weeks following the City’s Notice to Proceed.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
• Review of existing conditions (ongoing and as needed during preparation of program):
o Review previously prepared as-built drawings and the 2020 design project.
o Site analysis visit(s) to document existing conditions Attachment 2
• Up to 5 meetings with Owner including city staff, police officials/staff and other stakeholders in order to determine the Functional Program requirements:
o Coordinate and conduct meetings.
o Prepare meeting agendas, graphic presentations, questionnaires and other programmatic tools.
o Prepare meeting minutes recording ongoing discussions, scope determinations, decisions made and ongoing open items of discussion.
• Provide a Functional Program written report for City review and comment.
Report to be based on meeting discussions that have determined a Scope of Work and preliminary schedule that potentially includes but is not limited to the following:
o Documentation of existing conditions
o Preliminary site demolition and modernization:
▪ Site demolition.
▪ Site work related to building modernization work.
▪ Public and Police staff pedestrian flow.
▪ Public and police vehicle flow.
▪ Accessible and regular vehicle parking.
▪ Structural seismic upgrade evaluation for existing main structure.
▪ Electrical vehicle charging stations.
▪ On or offsite improvements for interim housing of police operations during construction.
o Listing of required interior spaces:
▪ Listing of existing spaces to remain.
▪ Listing of new spaces to be constructed within existing floor areas.
▪ Listing of new spaces, if any, required outside of existing floor area to be constructed in building addition or
additions.
▪ On or offsite spaces for interim housing of police operations during construction.
o Program requirements for the site and all building spaces whether for modernization of existing spaces to remain or the requirements for the newly created spaces:
▪ Architectural spatial requirements, finishes, specialties, security features and FF&E.
▪ Accessibility requirements.
▪ Structural strengthening scope
▪ Plumbing, HVAC and fire protection sprinkler system.
▪ Electrical power, lighting, low voltage and alarm systems. ▪ Emergency power generation.
▪ Solar power generation and battery storage systems.
Attachment 2
o Establish Program requirements for onsite and/or offsite interim housing of Police operations during construction.
o Determine a proposed preliminary full Project Schedule:
▪ WRD A&E design work for preparation of Construction
Documents.
▪ Approvals.
▪ Bidding.
▪ Construction through occupancy or phased occupancy.
o Provide Seismic Report
o Provide Resilience / Microgrid Report
• Provide Drawings for City review and comment:
o Schematic Police Station Site Plan with 2022 T-24 CCR and NFPA 13/17 Code Analysis.
o Schematic Police Station Upper Level, Intermediate Level and Lower-Level Floor Plans.
o Schematic Exterior Elevations including colored views from the street.
o Interior Finish, Door and Window Schedules.
o On and/or offsite interim housing operations Site / Floor Phasing Plan(s).
• Provide Cost Estimate
• Respond to City comments and forward finalized Report, Drawings and Estimate.
Attachment 2
EXHIBIT B
KEY PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION AND FEE SCHEDULE
COMPENSATION
The scope of services in Exhibit A can be provided for the following fee:
A&E PLUS ESTIMATING FEE
Site Analysis review / documentation
$2,200
Meetings $9,300
Functional Program written findings $6,800
Schematic Drawings $17,200
Structural Consultant Support and Seismic Report
(Urfer, Fixed) $6,900
Mechanical Consultant support
(Axiom Engineers, Budget, not to exceed) $4,000
Electrical Consultant Assessment and Schematic Drawings (Aurum Consulting Engineers, Fixed) $13,300
Microgrid / Resilience Consultant support
(Ameresco, Inc. or Mynt Systems, Budget not to exceed) $10,000 Cost Estimator support
(TBD Consultants, Fixed) $8,625
Subtotal 78,325
WRD / WRD Consultant design contingency
(@12.5%, not to exceed) $9,790
Reproductions and Expenses
(Budget, not to exceed $1,000
Total, Not to Exceed $89,115
Additional services can be provided at our billable rates in effect
ASSUMPTIONS
Consultants from the 2020 project will provide available site surveys, reports, and building as-bult drawing information as well as Cad drawings for WRD use.
EXCLUDED ITEMS
Services other than identified above
Asbestos and hazardous material reports (by Owner - WRD will review existing asbestos and hazardous material reports and assist Owner in the procurement of additional reports as needed)
Value engineering Landscaping
Design
Geotechnical engineering reports Government
agency fees
Attachment 2
Henry Ruhnke Principal
Christopher Barlow Principal,
LEED AP
Peter Silva Associate/
Project Manager
255
245
200
260
250
205
265
255
210
Job Captains
Interior Designers
Drafting Technicians
Administrative Assistants
175 180 185
175 180 185
160 165 170
120 125 130
x
x
x
x
x
x
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 14
Lou Bartlett
Attachment 2
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES
(Effective January 1, 2021)
Principal Engineer.......................................................$180.00 per hour* Senior Structural Engineer ...........................................170.00 per hour* Structural Engineer........................................................160.00 per hour* Civil Engineer................................................................120.00 per hour* Senior Draftsperson.......................................................110.00 per hour* Junior Engineer................................................................80.00 per hour* Draftsperson.....................................................................70.00 per hour* Minimum fee of $500 per project
MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL SERVICES & FEES
Expert Witness Services
Public Hearings, Arbitration, Depositions, or
Proceedings of the Court........................................... $350.00 per hour with a 4 hour minimum Direct Non-Salary Expenses
These reimbursable expenses will be billed at actual cost plus 10%.
They may include the following:
- Authorized travel and subsistence;
- Subcontracted services;
- Printing costs.
*Overtime Expenses
Authorized overtime will be billed at twice the hourly rate for services noted above.
Terms of Payment:
Invoices will be submitted monthly, unless otherwise provided by contract of special arrangements. Said invoices shall be due and payable when rendered.
Attachment 2
2022 RATE SHEET
Managing Principal $ 220.00
Principal $ 200.00
Director $ 195.00
Senior Engineer $ 190.00
Senior Project Manager $ 185.00
Engineer $ 165.00
Sr Design Engineer $ 175.00
Design Engineer III $ 160.00
Design Engineer II $ 155.00
Design Engineer I $ 150.00
Sr Designer $ 170.00
Designer III $ 155.00
Designer II $ 150.00
Designer I $ 145.00
CAD Technician $ 130.00
Administration $ 100.00
Commissioning Agent II $ 195.00
Commissioning Agent I $ 170.00
Commissioning Technician II $ 160.00
Commissioning Technician I $ 150.00
EXPERT WITNESS, LITIGATION ASSISTANCE AND CONSULTATION
Engineering services related to litigation or legal proceedings (hearings, depositions, court appearances) including preparation will be charged at 1.5 times the standard rates noted above.
EXPIRES 12/31/2022
Attachment 2
2022 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
ENGINEERING DIRECTOR $211/hr
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER $188/hr
PROJECT MANAGER $183/hr
ELECTRICAL DESIGNER $173/hr
CADD MANAGER $135/hr
DRAFTER $116/hr
BOOKKEEPER $83/hr
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $73/hr
Attachment 2
Project Management | Construction Cost Management
Hourly Billing Rates for 2021 Per Hour
Principal $235
Project Manager $205
Senior Estimator / MEP Estimator $205
Senior Project Controller / Senior Scheduler $205
Estimator / Scheduler / Project Controller $195
Assistant Estimator / Assistant Project Controller $165 Administrative / Technical Support $95
Travel
Above rates include travel costs within the immediate area, any travel required outside the Local Area is excluded and will be billed at cost plus 10%.
Reimbursable Expenses
The above rates include for production and distribution of all requested documentation.
Expenses such as drawing reproduction, courier services, special mailing services (Federal Express, Express Mail etc.), and other abnormal costs are excluded and will be billed at cost plus 10% administration.
Attachment 2
ea
te CARMEL POLICE STATION PROGRAMMING
Enter Company Name in cell B2. WRD ARCHITECTSEnter the name of the Project Lead in cell B3. Enter the Project Start date in cell E3. Project Start: label is in cell C3.
Lou Bartlett, Project Manager
is ro
TASK DATE
CITY NOTICE TO PROCEED TUESDAY 12/27/2023 25 26 27SCOPE MEETING #1: (1) PROJECT KICK OFF (2) 5% SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS (EXISTING BUILDING) REVIEW (3) PRELIMINARY PROGRAMMING DISCUSSIONS
THURSDAY
1/5/2023 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5
SCOPE MEETING #2: (1) 20% SCHEMATIC DRAWING REVIEW(2) PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION
THURSDAY
1/12/2023 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SCOPE MEETING #3: (1) EXISTING AND PROPOSED HVAC AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DISCUSSION(2) EXISTING AND PROPOSED DISTRIBUTED POWER SOURCES AND STORAGE DISCUSSION(3) EXISTING AND PROSED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS DISCUSSION(4) TEMPORARY FACILITIES DISCUSSION
THURSDAY
1/19/2023 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
SCOPE MEETING #4: (1) REVIEW OF PROPOSED FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM(2) 60% SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS REVIEW
THURSDAY
2/2/2023 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2
ows
10 th
SCOPE MEETING #5: (1) REVIEW OF PROPOSED FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM (FULLY DEVELOPED) (2) 95% SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS REVIEW
THURSDAY
2/9/2023 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
100% FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM REPORT AND 100% SCHEMATIC DRAWING DELIVERABLE TO CITY THURSDAY 2/16/2023 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Week 112/25 TO 12/31
Week 21/1 TO 1/7
Week 72/5 TO 2/11
Week 82/12 TO 2/18
Week 31/8 TO 1/14
Week 41/15 TO 1/21
Week 51/22 TO 1/28
Week 61/29 TO 2/4
Attachment 2 EXHIBIT C
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
December 6, 2022
ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Nova Romero, City Clerk
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Resolution 2022-107, Establishing the meeting dates of the City Council for calendar year 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2022-107 establishing the meeting dates of the City Council for calendar year 2023.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
The City's Municipal Code Chapter 2.04 states the City Council Regular Meetings are held on the first Tuesday of the month beginning at 4:30 pm and the Tour of Inspection on the Monday prior to the regular meeting of the month, unless otherwise established from time to time by resolution.
The Municipal Code further states, in December of each year, the City Council shall place on its agenda a calendar for the following year. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are to meet prior to the December meeting to develop the calendar for presentation to the City Council.
Resolution 2022-107 includes the proposed dates for the Council meetings for the 2023 calendar year and a date for the annual Public Improvement Authority (Attachment 1, Exhibit A). These dates have been developed to establish a balanced calendar and to allow sufficient time for agenda packet preparation and review, and with City holidays factored in.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact for this action.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Council adopted Resolution 2022-083 on December 7, 2021, establishing the meeting dates of the City Council for calendar year 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1) Resolution 2022-107
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-107
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
ESTABLISHING THE MEETING DATES OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2023
WHEREAS, Section 2.04.010 of the City’s Municipal Code stipulates that the Council regular meetings are held on the first Tuesday of the month beginning at 4:30 p.m. and the Tour of Inspection (Special Meeting) on the Monday prior to the regular meeting of the month, unless otherwise established from time to time by Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and mayor Pro Tem have proposed the 2023 Council Meeting Calendar to establish a balanced calendar, taking into consideration City Holidays, to allow sufficient time for agenda packet preparation and review; and WHEREAS, the proposed 2023 City Council Meeting dates and a date for the Public Improvement Authority annual meeting are attached as Exhibit A.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:
Approve the calendar of the City Council Meetings for calendar year 2021 as attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 6th day of December 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2022-107
EXHIBIT A
2023 City Council Meeting Dates
Monday before Council Meeting City Council Regular Meeting (Tuesday) 4:30 p.m.
January 9* January 10*
February 6 February 7
March 6 March 7
April 3 April 4
May 1 May 2
June 5 June 6
July 10* July 11*
July 31 August 1
September 11* September 12*
October 2 October 3
November 6 November 7
December 4 December 5
Public Improvement Authority Meeting: Monday, June 5, 2023 * Due to holiday the first week of the month
Attachment 1
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
December 6, 2022
ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Swanson, Community Planning & Building Director APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Consider requests and recommendations from the Steering Committee regarding the Design Traditions 1.5 Project
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider requests and recommendations from the Steering Committee regarding the Design Traditions 1.5 project.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
Executive Summary
Council is being asked to consider requests from the Steering Committee regarding potential expansions to the scope of the Design Traditions 1.5 project. Some of these expansions would impact the project’s schedule and the duration of support from the City’s consultant Nore Winter. This report is staff’s summary of the Steering Committee’s request based on minutes and videos from previous meetings. Members of the Steering Committee will be available at the hearing to help clarify the request.
Staff Report
At their March 1, 2022 meeting, City Council approved a professional services agreement with Winter & Company to provide for the “Design Traditions 1.5” project (DT-1.5). The moniker of “1.5” was discussed at some length by Council as a way to convey that the project’s scope of work was not a complete redo of the existing Design Guidelines, but rather a focused update and refresh of what already existed. As part of their March 1st action, Council also voted to establish a Steering Committee to work with staff and the consultant throughout an estimated 12 to 18 month process which would ultimately yield updated guidelines for Council to consider. On April 5, 2022, each Councilmember appointed one community member to this Steering Committee.
On April 13, 2022, the Steering Committee held its first meeting to kick off their involvement in the project.
The Committee continued to meet on a monthly basis, including participation in community workshops, Planning Commission meetings, and City Council meetings. On August 29, 2022, the Steering Committee began holding their meetings in public and have continued to do so ever since.
At their November 3, 2022 meeting, the Steering Committee adopted several items related to the organizational structure of the body including election of a Chair (Victoria Beach) and Vice-Chair (Doug Schmitz), increasing the frequency of meetings as close to weekly as possible, and expanding the breadth of discussions related to the Design Guidelines to include both specific and general matters. The Committee also noted agenda items they wished to address in the near future, including the California housing mandate, development of a landscape ordinance, standards for man-made materials and several more. The approved minutes from this meeting provided by the Committee Chair have been included as Attachment 1.
At their November 18, 2022 meeting, the Committee requested staff prepare a report seeking Council direction on potential expansions to the scope, schedule, and contracts related to the DT-1.5 project. The draft minutes from this meeting provided by the Committee Chair have been included as Attachment 2.
This expansion would also provide leeway for the Steering Committee to thoroughly explore some worthwhile Citywide topics which are adjacent to the DT-1.5 project (housing, etc.). It was noted by a member of the Committee that this direction from Council should include prioritization of the work being undertaken by the Steering Committee and clarification of Council’s expectations for when the updates to the Design Guidelines should be completed relative to these additional topics.
The following is a summary of matters that the Steering Committee has requested direction from the City Council on:
Mission Statement
At their November 18, 2022 meeting, members of the Steering Committee stated a need to ask Council for a mission statement, given the conversation surrounding an expansion of the project’s scope. Members of the Steering Committee noted that guidance from Council was needed to define what the role and duties of the Committee are, and what tasks they are supposed to undertake.
Attached is a proposed charter/mission statement that was prepared by Chair Beach, and Vice-Chair Schmitz for the council to consider (Attachment 3).
Expansion of Noré Winter Scope – Additional Deliverables The Steering Committee has identified some additional deliverables which could help to make the overall design review process more clear while also ensuring applicants better meet the intentions of the Design Guidelines. The Committee would like to work with Noré Winter on the development of these materials as an addition to the original scope of his services, to be completed at the same time as the Design Guidelines. Currently, Nore’s scope of work already includes creating a “next step” list of these types of deliverables that the City would pursue as part of a work plan after the Design Guideline update is complete. These suggested deliverables are:
1. Process map/tool – This deliverable would spell out how to navigate design review in the City for applicants, and serve as a tool to set expectations early in the application process.
2. Key Guidelines Checklist – This deliverable would be a document that applicants and their development team (e.g.: architects, designer, etc.) would complete as part of an application package. The purpose of the checklist is to have the applicant team explain how the proposed project would be consistent with the key principles of the newly adopted Design Guidelines.
Landscape Ordinance
Early in the project, it became apparent that landscaping will be a key item in the update of the Design Guidelines. Although briefly mentioned in the existing guidelines, it appears there is not enough emphasis on the relationship between landscaping and residential design. To that end, the Steering Committee has expressed interest participating in the drafting of a technical landscape ordinance as part of the DT-1.5 project, in addition to updating the Design Guidelines. A landscaping ordinance, which would implement philosophies of the Design Guidelines, would be housed in the Carmel Municipal Code, much like the Zoning Code. This ordinance surely needs to be written at some point, whether alongside updates to the Design Guidelines or shortly after their adoption. Regardless of the timing of this ordinance, the entire DT-1.5 team, which includes the Steering Committee, City Staff, and Winter & Co. suggest the addition of a licensed landscape architect to the project team to assist with its drafting in collaboration with the City Forester.
Housing
With the State’s mandate to plan for 349 new units of housing to be built in the next eight years, it is likely that second stories will play a key role in the City’s Housing Element update. In response to that, the Design Guidelines will need to account for more mass and volume in the downtown commercial areas where many of these second stories will likely go. Currently, the scope of the DT-1.5 project recognizes this coming influx of units, and includes updates to sections of the Design Guidelines relating to bulk and mass in both the commercial and residential areas. As discussed at each community workshop, this could include new tools such as the “bulk plane” concept, or other revisions to how volume is calculated. Again, this work is already in Noré Winter’s scope. Given the large number of units anticipated in the downtown area, the Steering Committee would like to take a deeper, more technical look at things like how the available downtown space can best be planned to create housing opportunities, determining actual available space for second story additions, evaluating if the amount of available space can support the required number of units without impacting the character of downtown and ultimately the design characteristics of those additional future second stories.
Exploring Other Regulatory Documents
Given the importance of design and character in the Village, it is no surprise that many of the City’s regulatory documents and ordinances overlap at some point with the Design Guidelines. Examples of these documents include the City’s General Plan (including the Housing Element), Municipal Code, Forest Management Plan, Local Coastal Plan, Landscaping Ordinance, and ADU Ordinance to name a few. With this in mind, the Steering Committee has expressed the desire to spend more time exploring these key documents to determine the amount of overlap and how updates to the City’s Design Guidelines might affect or possibly necessitate updates to those adjacent regulations. Where there is found to be an overlap, the Steering Committee could recommend changes to ensure greater consistency between the City’s various regulatory documents.
Downtown Masterplan (Clarification only)
Members of the Steering Committee have requested clarification from Council regarding the DT-1.5 project’s relationship to the concept of downtown masterplan, which has been discussed at previous City Council retreats. The Committee members would like direction from Council as to whether their work on the DT-1.5 project should somehow incorporate the potential for a downtown masterplan.
The Steering Committee is not requesting to do work on the downtown masterplan, simply seeking clarification on this topic.
Project Schedule and Contract Impacts
When initially presented to Council in early 2022, the DT-1.5 project was targeted for adoption hearings to take place in March/April of 2023. Since then, given the volume and quality of input received from public involvement, the schedule has been extended to plan for adoption hearings in May/June of 2023. It should be noted that this timeline is based off of the original scope of the project, not the additional work discussed in this staff report. Currently, Noré Winter has confirmed his availability to support the City’s efforts through June of 2023. However, given is other commitments and a pending retirement, Noré has stated that it is unlikely he will be able to work with the City past the middle of next year. At the November 18, 2022 Steering Committee meeting, Nore’ shared that his scope already includes preparation of a “next steps” document which would be produced at the time of adopting the updated Design Guidelines. This document, which would contain some of the items listed in this staff report, would serve as a work plan for the City to complete additional items adjacent to the design review process, but in the near future. Nore’ also stated at the November 18th meeting, that expansions to the scope of the original DT-1.5 project would likely prevent his firm from being able to support the project to the end.
In addition to impacts to the schedule, expansions of the project scope for Winter & Co. would require an amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement. This would likely include supplemental funding. The amount of added funds is unknown at this point, as it would be based on the specific tasks for Winter & Co. and whether or not they could fit them into their schedule between now and June, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff and consultant time associated with the DT-1.5 project is included in the FY 2022-23 adopted budget PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1) November 3rd Steering Committee Minutes (adopted) Attachment 2) November 18th Steering Committee Minutes (draft) Attachment 3) Steering Committee Drafted Charter/Mission Statement Design Traditions 1.5
FOR INCLUSION IN 03 NOV 2022 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Action Items Adopted by Steering Committee on November 3rd, 2022 committee business
- Victoria Beach appointed as Steering Committee Chair (by unanimous consent) - Doug Schmitz appointed as Steering Committee Vice-Chair (by unanimous consent) - Robert’s Rules of Order to be used for conduct of meetings (by unanimous consent) - Near-term meeting frequency to be as close to weekly as possible (by unanimous consent)
- All meeting agendas to allow for discussion and action on general as well as specific Design Guideline matters and to be set in consultation with staff (by unanimous consent)
urgent agenda items
- sequence in which to address each affected document / procedure (by unanimous consent)
- California housing mandate accommodation / 3+ stories downtown (by unanimous consent)
- public row design (including landscape, hardscape, fencing, and related appurtenances) / landscape ordinance / landscape architect involvement (by unanimous consent)
- Strategy Paper (by unanimous consent)
other agenda items
- massing strategies, including volumetrics & bulk plane (by unanimous consent) - utility equipment integration (by unanimous consent)
- public awareness of design heritage (by unanimous consent) - design quality of photographed exhibits (by unanimous consent) - public walking tour (by unanimous consent)
- standards for man-made/faux materials (by unanimous consent) - design review board options (by unanimous consent)
- by VB, DS on 11-04-22
Attachment 1
Design Traditions 1.5
FOR INCLUSION IN 18 NOV 2022 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Action Items Adopted by Steering Committee on November 18th, 2022 committee business
- Available portion of 11/03/22 Meeting Minutes (action items only) adopted as amended to include as future agenda items: Strategy Paper input from both Planning Commission and City Council. (by unanimous consent)
- Reminder to Members and public of Committee resource repository at SteeringCommittee.Univer.se (by Chair)
- Direction to staff to provide critical path diagram of upcoming deadlines for Design Guidelines and any other potentially affected documents or processes. (by unanimous consent)
- Direction to staff to provide any remaining City documents related to a future landscape ordinance, including any plant species information. (by unanimous consent)
- Chair to work with staff on an agenda item for December Council meeting. (by unanimous consent)
- Chair to produce Doodle poll for more advanced scheduling of future meetings. (by unanimous consent)
- Acceptance of Winter Consulting offer to share in about a week’s time a “clean copy” of the draft outline for the Design Guidelines. (by unanimous consent) - Acceptance of Winter Consulting offer to provide bulk plane studies as pertains to maximum downtown envelope for housing. (by unanimous consent) upcoming agenda items
- Workshop on landscape ordinance (by consent of remaining Members / MS absented)
- Reconciliation of Strategy Paper input with received Design Guideline draft outline. (by consent of remaining Members / MS absented)
- Presentation by Carmel Preservation Association. (by consent of remaining Members / MS absented)
additional requested agenda item(s)
- Retention strategies for existing residential and commercial buildings by VB, DS on 11-20-22
Attachment 2
Design Traditions 1.5
CHARTER
DESIGN TRADITIONS 1.5 STEERING COMMITTEE 2022-2023
PURPOSE: The Committee is constituted to review the existing Design Traditions documents and related City documents in order to advise the City Council on improvements that would further the excellence and integrity of the village’s design traditions into the future.
MEMBERS: The Committee consists of five (5) members, one (1) member appointed by each City Councilor. The Council may augment the membership at any time and/or the Committee may request to the Council an additional member(s) with specific skills, knowledge, experience to assist the Committee with its mission. The Committee selects from its members a Chair and Vice-Chair, and/or other positions as needs may arise.
BROWN ACT: Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Committee is a “legislative body” and functions within the regulations promulgated therein.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES: The Committee may coordinate its project with other City of Carmel-by-the-Sea boards, committees, commissions and the City Council, and/or with community groups with interests in the assignment and work program of the Steering Committee.
DUTIES: The Committee shall:
1) Work with the City’s consultant, Winter & Associates, in the development, evolution, drafting, review, presentation and City Council adoption of new residential and commercial Design Guidelines, amendments to the Municipal Code, General Plan or Local Coastal Plan, and othe related documents that may pertain to the Guidelines. 2) Work with the City Planning staff in the writing, editing, review and presentation of the Design Guidelines.
3) Initiate the study and research, drafting and editing, presentation and adoption by the City Council of plans, programs, policies, regulations and ordinances arising from the Committee’s work effort on the Design Guidelines. These efforts may include, but are not limited to, work on a Landscape Ordinance related to community design of private and public properties and the design implications of development related to housing efforts, and similar work as it arises.
Attachment 3
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
December 6, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Swanson, Community Planning & Building Director APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Consider Ordinance No. 2022-007 (first reading) amending Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Sections 17.14.040, 17.28.010, and 17.70.020, to prohibit timeshare and fractional interest uses, as well as advertising and sale thereof, in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (CA Section 30510) - Recommended for Continuance to January 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is recommended for continuance to the next regular City Council meeting in January, 2023.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
December 6, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Katherine Wallace, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Consider Resolution 2022-108, Approving the Historic Context Statement Update for the 1966-1986 time period
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2022-108 approving the Historic Context Statement Update for the 1966-1986 time period.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
On April 4, 2022, the City Council authorized a contract with PAST Consultants to prepare an update to the City’s Historic Context Statement. The City’s current Historic Context Statement was first adopted in 1997 and was last updated in 2008 (Attachment 2). The 2008 update covered the period 1940 to 1965; the current update covers the twenty-year period of 1966 to 1986. The project is funded with a $30,000 grant from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The Context Statement is a vital tool in the City’s historic preservation program, used to establish a baseline of contextual information against which the potential historic significance of a property is evaluated. The maintenance of the Context Statement is directed by the Carmel General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan/Coastal LUP G1-4, O1-14, P1-85) and the City Municipal Code (CMC
17.32.060), as follows:
Coastal Land Use Plan G1-4, O1-14, P1-85
Maintain an Historic Context Statement that documents the historic periods, themes, events, people, architects and builders who have contributed to the cultural and developmental history of the City. Use the Historic Context Statement to identify, document and understand the importance of historic resources. Exclusion from this document shall not preclude a finding of significance for any resource. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments.
CMC 17.32.060 Determining Eligibility for the Carmel Inventory Historic Context Statement.
1. The City shall maintain an Historic Context Statement.
2. The purpose of the Historic Context Statement is to establish a baseline of information against which the potential historic significance of a property is evaluated. “The significance of an historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear.” (National Register Bulletin: “How to Apply the National Register Criteria For Evaluation,” p. 7). However, exclusion of a resource type from the context statement shall not preclude a finding of historical significance by a qualified professional.
3. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments.
4. Staff may, as part of any updates to the Historic Context Statement, require that a reconnaissance survey be conducted by a qualified professional.
On April 14, 2022, (former) Historic Resources Board Chair Erik Dyar and (former) Vice Chair Kathryn Gualtieri were appointed to the Historic Context Statement Update Subcommittee. The subcommittee members met with City staff, Seth Bergstein of PAST Consultants, and assisting consultant Kent Seavey on April 29, June 10, and July 21, 2022. Seth Bergstein, PAST Principal, has a longstanding professional relationship with the City and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications for historian and architectural historian, as does consulting historian Kent Seavey.
On May 16, 2022, a Kickoff Workshop was held to introduce the project to the full Historic Resources Board and the public. A presentation by City staff provided an overview of historic context statements generally and Carmel’s Historic Context Statement; Mr. Bergstein and Mr. Seavey introduced themselves and discussed their approach to the project. The Historic Resources Board and the public expressed support for the OHP grant-funded 1966 to 1986 update effort. The Board and the public additionally identified a need for the entire document to be revised and re-formatted and encouraged Staff to explore a future “Phase II” update. The “Phase II” update would explore re-organizing the document from a thematic to a chronological format, inserting photographs throughout, providing more information about architectural styles that were locally popular in the early twentieth century, and conducting research and outreach to improve the Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement chapter. The limited budget and strict calendar deadlines associated with the $30,000 OHP grant restricted PAST Consultants to the relatively narrow twenty-year scope. Through consultation with OHP and discussion with the subcommittee, it was agreed that the City should satisfy the grant requirements before expanding the scope of the update.
At the June 20, 2022 Historic Resources Board meeting, PAST Consultants provided a progress report and presented a topical outline to the Board. A Working Draft was presented at the July 18, 2022 meeting.
On August 15, 2022, the Historic Resources Board approved the twenty-year update (Attachment 3 and Attachment 4) and passed Resolution 2022-010-HRB (Attachment 5) to accept the City of Carmel-by-theSea Historic Context Statement Update for the twenty-year period of 1966-1986 and recommend City Council adoption of the Update.
On October 10, 2022 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2022-035-PC (Attachment 6) to accept the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Context Statement Update for the twenty-year period of 1966-1986 and recommend City Council adoption of the Update.
City staff has provided required progress reports to OHP throughout 2022 and OHP has reviewed and approved the 1966-1986 update. The grant reimbursement request was approved by the State Controller’s Office on November 7 and is scheduled for payment on December 2.
The City Council is being asked to review and approve the Historic Context Statement Update for the twenty-year period of 1966-1986. Final adoption will ultimately require an LCP amendment and will not be effective until and unless approved by the Coastal Commission. OHP has confirmed that the City can delay a Coastal Commission hearing until the Phase II Update is complete. City staff will apply for additional grant funds in early 2023 to fund a comprehensive update that would explore reformatting the document, inserting additional information, and adding photographs throughout.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Historic Context Statement update was included in the adopted FY 2022-2023 Community Planning and Building Department budget. All associated contract work is fully funded by a $30,000 grant awarded to the City by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. The grant reimbursement request was approved by the State Controller’s Office on November 7, 2022 and is scheduled for payment on December 2, 2022. Staff time associated with this project is also included as part of the adopted FY 2022-23 Community Planning and Building Department budget.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council first adopted the Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Context Statement on January 7, 1997, and adopted an updated document on September 9, 2008. On April 4, 2022, the City Council entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with PAST Consultants, LLC to prepare the Historic Context Statement update.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1) Resolution 2022-108
Attachment 2) Historic Context Statement (Existing)
Attachment 3) Historic Context Statement Update 1966-1986 (Tracked Changes) Attachment 4) Historic Context Statement Update 1966-1986 (Clean) Attachment 5) Resolution 2022-010-HRB
Attachment 6) Resolution 2022-035-PC
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA’S HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR THE TWENTY-YEAR PERIOD OF 1966-1986
WHEREAS, the Historic Context Statement is a vital tool in the City’s preservation program, used to establish a baseline of information against which the potential historic significance of a property is evaluated. The Historic Context Statement is maintained as directed by the Carmel General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan/Coastal LUP G1-4, O1-14, P1-85) and the City Municipal Code (CMC 17.32.060); and
WHEREAS, the Historic Context Statement was first adopted in 1997 and was updated in 2008; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2022, the City authorized a contract with PAST Consultants, LLC to update the Historic Context Statement to include the twenty-year period 1966 to 1986; and WHEREAS, the update is funded by a $30,000 grant from the California Office of Historic Preservation; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2022, Historic Resources Board Chair Erik Dyar and Vice Chair Kathryn Gualtieri were appointed to the Historic Context Statement Update Subcommittee and met with PAST Consultants, LLC and City staff on April 29, June 10, and July 21, 2022; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2022, the Historic Context Statement Working Draft was presented to the Historic Resources Board and all comments were considered for inclusion into the final document; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the Historic Resources Board passed Resolution 2022-010-HRB to accept the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Context Statement Update for the twenty-year period of 1966-1986 and recommend City Council adoption of the Update; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 2022-035-PC to accept the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Context Statement Update for the twenty-year period of 1966-1986 and recommend City Council adoption of the Update; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing was published on November 25, 2022 in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091); and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require the review of certain projects for environmental impacts and preparation of environmental documents; and
Attachment 1
Resolution 2022-108
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA regulations, the project will have no impact on the environment and is not considered a project requiring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in full conformity with the City’s Local Coastal Plan and the California Coastal Act (CA Section 30510)
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:
Adopt the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Context Statement Update for the twenty-year period of 1966-1986 in a manner fully in conformity with the Coastal Act (CA Section 30510).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
__________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Prepared For
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
By
Teresa Grimes and Leslie Heumann
Leslie Heumann and Associates
September 1994
Revised By
Glory Anne Laffey
Archives & Architecture
May 31, 1996
Adopted January 7, 1997
Updated By
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Adopted by City Council September 9, 2008
Certified by the California Coastal Commission November 12, 2008 Attachment 2
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
0.0 Preamble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Historic Context Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Location and Boundaries of Carmel-by-the-Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Community Character and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Overview of Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Gender and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.0 Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement (1542-1846)
2.1 The Original Inhabitants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Early European Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Hispanic Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Associated Property Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3 Significance ……….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …….. . . . . . . . 11
3.0 Economic Development (1846-1965)
3.1 Early Agriculture and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.1 Ranching and Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.2 Whaling and Fishing Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.3 Extractive Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 Business and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.1 Real Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.2 Ocean Avenue Business District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.3 Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4 Associated Resource Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4.1 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4.3 Significance …... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.0 Government, Civic and Social Institutions (1903-1965)
4.1 Civic Development and Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.1 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.2 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.3 Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2.4 Fire and Police Departments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Educational and Religious Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4 Social and Recreational Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.5 Associated Resource Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5.1 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Attachment 2
3 4.5.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5.3 Significance ………. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.0 Architectural Development in Carmel (1888-1965)
5.1 Environmental and Cultural Influences on Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 Geographical Development and Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.3 Builders and Architects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.4 Architectural Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.5 Public and Domestic Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.6 Associated Resource Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.6.1 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.6.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.6.3 Significance …….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.0 Development of Art and Culture (1904-1965)
6.1 Arts and Crafts Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.2 Artists and Writers Colony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.2.1 Artists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.2.2 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.2.3 Drama and Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.2.4 Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.3 Academia and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.4 Influence of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.5 Associated Resource Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.5.1 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.5.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.5.3 Significance ……….….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7.0 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.0 Bibliography until 1940. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8.1 Bibliography 1940-1965.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
9.0 Appendices
9.1 Elected Officials of Carmel-by-the-Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
9.2 Members of the Arts and Crafts Club of Carmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
9.3 Founding Members of the Forest Theater Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
9.4 Charter Members of the Carmel Free Library Association . . . . . . . . . . 84
9.5 Founding Board Members of the Carmel Art Association . . . . . . . . . . 85
9.5.1 Artists Working in Carmel, 1940-1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
9.6 Architects, Designers and Builders in Carmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
9.7 Historical Chronology of Carmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.8 Who’s Who in Carmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9.9 Biographical Information on Architects Working in Carmel,1940-1965. . 104
9.10 Decision-Making Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Attachment 2
4 0.0 PREAMBLE
Between 1997 and 2008, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea utilized a Historic Context Statement that was adopted on 7 January 1997. It is a well-researched document that was carried out to professional standards and it will continue to be used by the City in conjunction with the updated material that follows. The themes outlined in the 1997 Historic Context Statement convey Carmel’s early development and the influences that shaped the City until 1940. In association with the thematic history, the 1997 Historic Context Statement identifies associated resource types and significance.
The 1997 Historic Context Statement has been updated by Architectural Resources Group of San Francisco (ARG) to extend and incorporate the 25-year period, 1940-1965. In accordance with National Register Bulletin 24, this updated document, like the 1997 version, covers a broad pattern of historical development in this community. This document expands on those early patterns of the development of the City that continued through the 1940-1965 period. In some cases, but not all, the themes of the first half of the 20th century covered in the 1997 document are relevant through 1965.
To update the Historic Context Statement, ARG’s methodology has been as follows: undertake extensive documentary research and some fieldwork to review resources that relate to the development of the City between 1940 and 1965; conduct research at local libraries, archives and repositories. Typically, relevant permits would be researched as part of the process; however, building and new construction permits from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the period 1940- 1965 were not available for this project. Based on research and fieldwork, ARG developed applicable contexts relating to the 1940 to 1965 period. Rewriting the 1997 Historic Context Statement was not part of the scope of this update, though minor edits for clarity were made. The 1997 Historic Resources Survey and updated information relating to the 1940-1965 period is presented here as one volume.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Historic Context Statement
A historic context statement is a technical document containing specific sections mandated by the Secretary of the Interior in National Register Bulletin 16. The Bulletin defines a historic context as “a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place, and time.” Historic context is linked with tangible historic resources through the concept of property type. A property type is a “grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics.”
A historic context statement is one of many tools used by municipalities as part of a comprehensive preservation program. Its purpose is to provide a framework for identifying historic resources, determining their relative significance, and applying the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Historic Context Statement is to be used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan policies regarding historic preservation and the Preservation Ordinance found in Municipal Code chapter
17.32 to identify historic resources and is not a stand-alone document.
Attachment 2
5 Throughout the Historic Context Statement specific place names, properties and individuals are included to clarify historical patterns and provide richer detail. Examples are included solely to illustrate physical and associative characteristics of each theme and/or property type. The specific reference to an existing property within the Historic Context Statement is not a determination of historic significance at the present time, rather it signifies that the property contributes to a particular historical theme. Designation of a property as a historic resource is determined on an individual basis following a survey and evaluation process and ultimately reflects a judgment by the City that the property is significant.
The Context Statement is not meant to be all-inclusive, and exclusion from this report is not intended to diminish the significance of any individual historic resource or person.
1.2 Location and Boundaries of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Carmel-by-the-Sea is located on the Monterey Peninsula. It is approximately one square mile in area and is generally bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Highway One to the east, the community of Pebble Beach to the north, and the Carmel River to the south.
1.3 Community Character and Values
When established in 1902, development in Carmel was greatly influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement. Much of the unique character of Carmel-by-the-Sea results from this Arts and Crafts influence coupled with an appreciation of the City’s natural environment. Elements of the natural environment such as topography, vegetation and climate, shaped the human response to the built environment. As the community developed, efforts were made to adapt the man-made elements to the underlying natural elements. In the residential districts, roads are typically narrow and curve and undulate to follow the topography and make room for trees. In the commercial districts, sidewalks curve and are frequently interrupted by trees and mini-parks. Most shops and businesses are built to face open sidewalks and interior or exterior courtyards in acknowledgment of the mild weather. The use of open space encourages pedestrian exploration and movement.
Architectural design includes construction with natural materials, pleasant open spaces, and abundant landscaping.
Over the years, there has been a conscious effort to maintain the village-like characteristics of the town. For example, there are no house numbers, residential sidewalks, parking meters, streetlights, or traffic signals. Houses are small and blend into their surroundings. Gardens are informal, making use of natural vegetation. Trees are greatly revered and given precedence over building expansion and the movement of traffic.
1.4 Overview of Themes
Each chapter of this report is organized by a theme, derived from a broad set of associated events that helped shape the history of Carmel. Each theme spans a particular period; however, at any given point in time, events contributing to more than one theme may be at work. Consequently, time periods for each theme may overlap. The starting and ending dates of thematic periods are usually determined by key historical events.
The development of Carmel-by-the-Sea can be organized into five broad themes: Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement (1542-1846); Economic Development (1846-1965); Government, Civic and Attachment 2
6 Social Institutions (1903-1965); Architectural Development (1903-1965); and the Development of Arts and Culture (1904-1965). From 1542 through 1846, the story of Carmel was not separated from the surrounding region and revolved around the Native American inhabitants, European exploration, and Spanish and Mexican colonization. California’s transformation to an American state after 1846 was characterized by the changes in the economy that led to the development of the village of Carmel and the rise of business and tourism in the area. Following Carmel-by-the-Sea’s development in 1902 and incorporation in 1916, a number of government, civic and social institutions were established. The role of the Arts and Crafts movement permeates both the built environment and the cultural life of the town. The influx of artists and writers after 1905 set the stage for the development of an artists colony and the arts and culture have played a pivotal role in the identity of Carmel ever since.
1.5 Gender and Ethnicity
Women have been critical to the history of Carmel in terms of the development of architecture, cultural institutions and community activities. Beginning in 1889, Abbie Jane Hunter opened the first hotel in Carmel. In 1892 she formed the Women’s Real Estate and Investment Company to help stimulate early land sales. She was followed in 1902 by Jane Powers, an accomplished painter, who worked with her husband Frank Powers to make Carmel-by-the-Sea a center for people of artistic temperament. She helped organize the Arts and Crafts Club in 1905 with several other ladies already involved in the arts. After the San Francisco 1906 earthquake, she encouraged many of her artistic friends to move to Carmel. These individuals were the vanguard of notable women who greatly influenced the character of Carmel.
Ethnic minorities also helped to shape the city’s past. Non-White ethnic groups played a variety of roles in the society including that of laborers, fisherman, small business owners, firemen, and artists. Of course, the ethnic history of Carmel can be traced back to the Native American inhabitants of the region, the Ohlone Indians discussed in the second chapter of this report. The Ohlones played a pivotal role in the mission system by providing labor, including the construction of buildings which still stand. What marks they may have made independently on the landscape, however, were probably erased by successive waves of immigrants to the area, beginning with the Spanish. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Ohlone culture ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group due to acculturation and disease.
According to the 1910 consensus, about 90 percent of people living in Carmel were American born, with most migrating from other parts of California and others arriving from a variety of states in the East or Midwest. The population also encompassed a relatively small number of foreign-born immigrants from Asian and European countries including China, Japan, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Germany, Norway, and Spain. Some of the first property sold by the Carmel Development Company was sold to Mrs. E.A. Foster, an African-American woman from Monroe, Michigan. She purchased two lots on Dolores and ten lots on the south side of Ocean Avenue between San Carlos and Mission. In 1903 Roland and Emma Henderson, an AfricanAmerican couple from San Jose, opened a restaurant in the old carpenter shop on Dolores Street.
Pon Sing opened the second restaurant in Carmel, which was also the town’s first Chinese restaurant. He later became the cook at the Pine Inn, which opened in 1903. One of Carmel’s many artists, Ling Fu Yang, was also of Chinese ancestry. Pon Lung Chung served with the Carmel Fire Department and in 1931 was reportedly the only fireman of Chinese ancestry in the United States.
In 1960, Carmel had a total population of 4,580 inhabitants, consisting of a significantly higher ratio of women to men, with the majority of the population ranging in age from forty to seventyAttachment 2 7 five and older. Carmel was racially homogenous, 99% of the population was Caucasian,1and 83% of the population being of “native” versus of “foreign” parentage.2 Only half of the population were employed and worked in various occupations ranging from sales workers, office managers, and craftsmen to clerical and sales workers.3 The main industries included wholesale and retail trade, finance, personal services, professional services, and public administration.4 54% of the housing units in Carmel were owned occupied and consisted of an average of five rooms, while the remaining 46% of the housing units were renter-occupied and consisted of an average of three-and-a-half rooms.5
Ethnic and gender contributions are considered integral elements that overlay all the themes discussed below. Where known, significant contributions by non-white groups and women will be discussed; however, the absence of specific gender or ethnic references does not preclude the importance that these demographic groups may have played in the development of the community.
2.0 PREHISTORY AND HISPANIC SETTLEMENT (1542-1846)
2.1 The Original Inhabitants
The history of Carmel begins in the centuries preceding the “discovery” of California by Europeans, when there were some 300,000 Native Americans in the state. These early inhabitants were divided into more than 100 tribes which typically shared cultural, linguistic, dress, housing, and other traits according to the regions of California in which they lived:
southern, central (where Carmel is located), northwestern, or northeastern. The indigenous peoples of Carmel were the Costanoans, the Coast people. They are also sometimes referred to as the Ohlones. The Native Americans foraged for seeds and nuts, hunted small animals, and fished from boats. Archaeological evidence has placed Ohlone settlements near the present mission and at the mouth of San Jose Creek. Villages were made up of ten to twelve rounded dwellings of tule grass lashed to willow poles, each with a central fire pit. Other structures included sweat houses used for purification in times of illness and before a hunt.
2.2 Early European Exploration
The Ohlones may have come into contact with Europeans as early as 1542, when the Spanish explorer, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, journeyed to Alta California.6 Contact with the Ohlones was first reported in 1602 by Sebastian Vizcaino, who had been commissioned to map the coast of
1 U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census of Housing: 1960, City Blocks, 1. 2 U. S. Department of Commerce, Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, 6-395.
3 U. S. Department of Commerce, Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, 6-395.
4 U. S. Department of Commerce, Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, 6-395.
5 U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census of Housing: 1960, City Blocks, 1. 6 Cabrillo was actually of Portuguese descent, but acting on the orders of the Spanish viceroy of Mexico.
Attachment 2
8 Alta California. On December 16, 1602, Vizcaino, along with two hundred men and a few Carmelite friars, landed in Monterey Bay. The friars found the area to be almost identical to Mount Carmel and the hills of Galilee and persuaded Vizcaino to call the river through the area Rio Carmelo and the rounded mountain above it Mount Carmel. After surveying the area for three weeks, the group continued to sail north and eventually returned to Mexico to report on their expedition.
2.3 Hispanic Settlement
Despite the sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish explorations of Alta California, occupation and settlement did not begin until the eighteenth century. Fearful that the Russians or the English might try to expand their territory in North America, the king of Spain ordered Gaspar de Portola to set out on an overland expedition from San Diego in 1769 to establish missions, presidios, and pueblos. He was accompanies on his journey by Franciscan friars led by Father Junipero Serra.
Father Serra was born in Petra on the Isle of Mallorca on November 24, 1713. He entered the Order of Saint Francis at a young age. At thirty-six he was sent to Mexico where he was a missionary for nineteen years before journeying to Alta California to establish the chain of missions.7 The missions played two critical roles in the occupation process: the pacification of the Native Americans through conversion and Hispanicization and the establishment of an agricultural base. The first of the missions was founded in San Diego on July 16, 1769. In 1770, the group arrived in Monterey Bay and on June 3 the Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel and the Royal Presidio were dedicated where San Carlos Church stands today in the City of Monterey. A year later the mission was moved five miles south to a more fertile area near the Rio Carmelo. A cross was erected, and work began on the first mud-plastered wooden buildings.
By 1772 Serra could thus describe the mission:
A stockade of rough timbers, thick and high, with ravelins in the corners, is something more than seventy varas long and forty-three wide, and is closed at night with a key, although it is not secure because of the lack of nails. The main house is seventy varas wide and fifty long. It is divided into six rooms, all with doors and locks. The walls are constructed of rough timbers plastered over with mud, both inside and out. Those of the principal rooms are whitewashed with lime. One of the rooms serves provisionally for a church. Near this building, on the outside, is the guardhouse or barracks for the soldiers; and adjoining it, their kitchen. All is enclosed in the stockade. All of these buildings have flat roofs of clay and mud, and for the most of them a kitchen has been made. There are various little houses for the Indians, with straw or hay roofs. Attention was later given to a small garden, which is near at hand, but for want of a gardener, it has made little progress.8
7 The word “mission” applies not only to a church, but the entire individual settlement. The Franciscans followed, in general, the routine of deciding upon a likely spot for a settlement (good land, fresh water, native population, and strategic position), blessing the site, planting a cross, and erection of an open air structure for services. A small chapel, house for the missionaries, house for the female natives, soldier’s dwellings, guard house and kitchen were then built. These early buildings were usually constructed of adobe with tule roofs. Later, a larger church, larger living quarter and store houses were built of brick or stone.
8 James Ladd Delkin, Monterey Peninsula, p. 156-157.
Attachment 2
9 For the rest of his life, Father Serra used Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel as the headquarters from which he established seven more missions.9 In ecclesiastical terms it became the most important of the missions.
Gradually, the Ohlones as well as neighboring tribes were converted to Christianity and incorporated into mission life. Indeed, those who accepted baptism became the de facto labor force in as much as neophytes were not permitted to leave the mission. They were trained to perform a variety of tasks at the mission including raising livestock, cultivating crops, and building construction. By 1973 the mission was self-sufficient and supported a population of 700.10
Construction of the church at Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel near the Carmel River was begun in 1793. Dedication took place in 1797 under the direction of Father Lasuen, who took over as “padre presidente” after Serra died on August 28, 1784. Unlike most of the missions in the chain, which were designed by padres, Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel was designed by a stone mason, Manuel Estevan Ruiz, who was brought from Mexico.
Ruiz also built San Carlos Church in Monterey, which was erected at the same time. The chief material was native brown sandstone, with mortar and plaster obtained from abalone shells. The simple nave plan is 150 feet by 29 feet, measured on the inside, with walls 5 feet thick. Firmly buttressed, the building is surmounted by two belfries, one of which is approached by an outside stairway. Typical of mission churches, the design of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel is rooted in the architectural traditions of Spain and Mexico, although the constraints of the locale and climate, and the locally available materials and skills necessitated certain adaptations. The construction of other buildings—school, dormitories, shops, and granaries— preceded until 1815, when the completion of the mission quadrangle was celebrated with thanksgiving services.
By the 1820s, the lagging economy of the area began to change and increase due to the altered administrative policies of the new Mexican government. Two of these policies had important local ramifications. The first was the legalization of trade with foreign ships in the ports of San Francisco and Monterey. The traders exchanged tea, coffee, spices, clothing, leather goods, etc., for tallow and hides. Under the stimulus of this commerce, coastal settlements became lively trade centers.
The second change in policy to have far-reaching effects in California was the secularization of the missions and the establishment of large, private land grants. During Spanish rule the relationship between the missions and provincial government of Alta California became increasingly tense as the Franciscans were pressured into giving up control over their land and neophytes. Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821 removed trade restrictions that up until then had been imposed on the missions. Open trade allowed the missions to increase their productivity, thereby becoming a supply source for the settlers and travelers along El Camino Real, the road which linked the missions. The Franciscans amassed a great deal of economic as well as spiritual power. However, disputes soon arose between the Franciscans and Mexican government over debts to the missions, taxes, and authority over the neophytes. In 1822 Mexico’s legislature finally mandated the formal secularization of the missions. The Franciscans were replaced, missions were converted to parish churches, and land holdings redistributed.
9 With the establishment of a mission in Sonoma in 1823, the chain totaled twenty-one and was linked by the El Camino Real.
10 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, p. 46.
Attachment 2
10 During this time, the Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel was essentially abandoned, and San Carlos Church became the principal local place of Catholic worship.
With the change of governmental control from Spain to Mexico in 1822 and the secularization of the missions, new land utilization and ownership patterns began to evolve. In 1824, Mexico passed a law for the settlement of vacant lands in an effort to stimulate further colonization. Any citizen, whether foreign or native, could select a tract of unoccupied land so long as it was a specific distance away from the lands held by the missions, pueblos, and Indians. The grantee petitioned the governor for a specific tract, which after investigation and if there were no objections, was granted. The grantee was responsible for building a house and keeping a minimum of 100 head of cattle.
A number of ranchos were created around Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel. The area along the coast south of the Rio Carmelo was Rancho San Jose y Sur Chiquito. It was granted to Teodoro Gonzalez in 1835 and re-granted to Marcelino Escobar in 1835. Another grant resulted in Rancho El Pescadero, located to the north of the mission and including Del Monte Forest, Cypress Point and the present-day community of Pebble Beach. It was granted to Fabian Barreto in 1836. Rancho El Potrero de San Carlos, also on the south side Carmel River, consisted of 4307 acres that had been used by the mission as a pasture. It was granted to Fructuoso del Real in 1837. Rancho Cañada de la Segunda was granted to Lazaro Soto in 1839 and encompassed land east of the mission to Cañada de la Segunda.
Overseeing the immense acreage and herds of cattle, the California ranchero and his vaqueros spent many hours on horseback, the favored form of transportation. Cattle, allowed to range freely, were rounded up twice a year during a rodeo—in the spring to brand the calves and again during the lat summer for slaughter. The rodeo was often an occasion for socializing with the neighboring rancho families. With fiesta and fandango; the rodeo festivities often lasted a week or more.
In the early years of the province, the slaughter, or matanza, was solely for domestic needs.
Cattle supplied beef to be eaten fresh or died for future use; hides for shoes, lariats and outerwear; and tallow for candles and soap. During the period of Mexican rule the matanza became more systematic and extensive. Hides were carefully stripped from the carcasses and the tallow was rendered for domestic use and for export. In trade, the tallow brought six cents per pound, from 75 to 100 pounds were obtained from each carcass. Hides brought from one dollar to $2.50 a piece, becoming known as “California bank notes.” The hide and tallow economy was fostered by foreign merchants who were settling in California during this period. Monterey merchant Thomas Larkin actively encouraged the rancho economy and exploited local resources by purchasing or taking in trade rancho products in exchange for manufactured goods brought by American and English trading ships.
2.4 Associated Property Types
2.4.1 Identification
There are few extant properties associated with the Native American culture or early European exploration and settlement of Carmel. Property types associated with this theme may include archeological sites
mission structures and objects
rancho hacienda buildings and features
Attachment 2
11 2.4.2 Description
Archaeological Sites
Two Ohlone villages were apparently located near Carmel: one near the mission and the other hear the mouth of San Jose Creek (outside of the city boundaries). Specific natural features of locations also may hold strong associations and cultural meaning for the Ohlone people.
Mission Structures and Objects
Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel is designated as a California Registered Historic Landmark and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It is significant as an excellent restored and reconstructed example of a California mission, which has the added importance of having been founded by Father Junipero Serra in 1770, and having served as the headquarters from which he directed the administration of the expanding mission system until his death.
The mission as it exists today is a fusion of an early building plus its early restorations with twentieth century structures sympathetic to the Mission style of architecture. Only parts of the mission church remain as originally built in the late eighteenth or even nineteenth century, while the remainder of the mission quadrangle and the nearby buildings are of more recent construction.
The mission gradually fell into a state of disrepair after its secularization in 1833. During the 1880s the mission was maintained and altered in a piecemeal fashion. Early restoration efforts included the construction of the peaked roof which replaced the original tile, vaulted roof.
In 1931, San Francisco cabinetmaker Harry Downie was commissioned by Monsignor Philip G.
Scher of San Carlos Church to restore the mission. Under Downie’s supervision, the tile roof was restored, three steps to the original altar rail were changed to one, and radiant heating was placed under a new tile floor which replaced the original burnt tile. Many of the original statues and works of art were returned. Restoration of the mission school was undertaken in 1945.
Rancho Haciendas
A number of Mexican ranchos were granted in the sphere of influence of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Although no known hacienda sites are known to have existed in or near Carmel, it is possible that rancho activities associated with the coastal resources or shipping activities were located in the vicinity. A rancho hacienda was typically a small, self-sufficient village that, in addition to the main residence, could also include auxiliary residences for vaqueros and Indian labor, kitchen, privies, granary, ovens, wells, spring house, blacksmith shop, tanning vats, trash deposits, corrals, and gardens and orchards. Most of the building materials would have also been manufactured on site; however, some may have been “borrowed” from San Carlos Mission which had been abandoned after secularization. Barrow pits for the making of adobe bricks and kilns for firing roof and floor tiles would have been located nearby.
2.4.3 Significance
Archaeological sites associated with the Native American, Mission, and Rancho periods that retain integrity may qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria D because they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory of history. The State Office of Historic Preservation or the Archaeological Information Center should be contacted regarding known archaeological sites in the area; exact locations of sites are protected information.
Attachment 2
12 As the headquarters for the California missions, any resources associated with Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel have a high degree of significance despite of low levels of integrity due to deterioration and subsequent restoration. According to the National Register nomination form, only the mission church is listed. Related resources which may qualify for listing on the National Register under Criterion C include a statue of Serra and a cenotaph by Joseph Mora, as they “represent the work of a master and possess high artistic values.” The statue was dedicated during the Serra Pageant in 1922, but is located outside of the city boundaries at the foot of Serra Road in the Carmel Woods. The cenotaph was dedicated to the memory of Serra in 1924 and is located in the mission church.
There also may be other standing and archaeological features associated with mission activities at and/or near the current mission compound. The old pear orchard adobe was occupied by Christiano Machado, which later served as the Mission Tea Room and more recently as a residence. Archaeological features may include building foundations, tanning vats, olive presses, blacksmith shop, canals and other water features, grain mills, etc. The archaeological remains of mission and rancho resources would be important in furthering a more complete understanding and interpretation of the development of the Hispanic frontier.
3.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (1846-1965)
3.1 Early Agriculture and Industry
3.1.1 Ranching and Farming
In May 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico and shortly thereafter the Americans raised the flag in Monterey. In 1848, the United States acquired the Mexican province of California in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Closely following the annexation of California by the United States, the discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills precipitated a sudden influx of population to the State and accelerated California’s statehood. After California was admitted into the Union as the thirty-first state in 1850, increasing numbers of European settlers made their homes in the Carmel area. The U.S. Board of Land Commissioners was created to confirm the Spanish and Mexican land grants. During this time, many ranchos began to break up as Mexican families lost control over their land in court to other claimants because titles were unclear. Others were forced to sell off portions of land to European settlers to help pay taxes and legal fees incurred during the confirmation process.
A similar pattern of land segmentation emerged in the Carmel area. A small section of the once extensive lands of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel, most of which were sold by the Mexican government, was returned to the church. On February 19, 1853, Joseph Sadoc Alemany, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Monterey, petitioned the U.S. Board of Land Commissioners for the return to the Church of a portion of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel including the buildings and surrounding land. The grant was confirmed on December 18, 1855, and a patent was issued on October 19, 1859 for nine acres. On some maps these lands are shown as Rancho Mission Carmel. Honoré Escolle, a French immigrant, gained control over the land to the north of the mission which he called Rancho Manzanitas. His land included the area from present-day Junipero Avenue to Monte Verde Street. In 1860, John Martin acquired a large parcel of land between Escolle’s property on the north and the mission on the south. It encompassed the land between present-day Twelfth and Santa Lucia Avenues and continued west to the shoreline to include Carmel Point. It is believed that John and Anna Murphy settled on Attachment 2
13 land west of Escolle about 1846. Because of unsettled land titles, it was not until 1875 that Murphy received a deed for ninety acres of land along the shoreline. The Rancho Cañada de la Segunda passed through numerous owners until acquired in 1869 by Mrs. Dominga Doni de Atherton, wife of Faxon Dean Atherton, and mother of Gertrude Atherton. William Hatton became Mrs. Atherton’s ranch manager in 1888, later purchasing the western portion in 1892.
Land use during the early American period was primarily cattle ranching and dairies. William Hatton managed several dairying operations in Carmel Valley. Most of the farms and ranches in the area practiced general farming, raising livestock and poultry, producing butter and eggs, planting orchards and vineyards, and growing a variety of field crops. What was not consumed by the family was sold locally or shipped to San Francisco.
The earliest surviving example of a 19th Century ranch house in Carmel is the Murphy-Powers Residence and Barn/Studio, located on a beach front parcel west of San Antonio Avenue. The farm house dates back to 1846 when John Murphy and his family settled the property. John Murphy’s title to 90 acres, including this property, was confirmed in 1875. The house and barn may predate 1875; evidence has been found to support construction as early as 1846.
During the twentieth century, the property changed hands several times and underwent several alterations. In 1904 the buildings and property were sold to Frank Powers, president of the Carmel Development Company. Powers, with his wife Jane, reportedly made improvements to the house. At the same time, they turned the old pine log barn into a studio for Jane, an accomplished artist. In 1920 James and Maud MacKenzie moved into the ranch house and stuccoed the board and batten exterior. The barn/studio property was later subdivided and incorporated into a new house for Herbert and Luella Chapman.
3.1.2 Whaling and Fishing Industries
During the mid-nineteenth century, the abundant marine life of Monterey Bay attracted Chinese, Portuguese, and Japanese fisherman to the area. Possibly as early as 1851, a Chinese fishing village was located on a level terrace above the cove at Point Lobos, now called Whalers Cove.
But 1860 six Chinese fisherman lived in a small village, and were joined in 1862 by Portuguese whalers. The two groups shared the cove until the Chinese left in the 1870s. Located at this site was a stone quay from which the Chinese could ship their catch as well as pull their boats out of the water when necessary. Leasing land from David Jacks, there were also Chinese fishing villages located at Pescadero Point and at Stillwater Cove (now Pebble Beach Golf Course) as early s 1868. In 1880, Jacks sold his Pescadero ranch to the Pacific Improvement Company, who opened a scenic drive along the coast in 1881. Within a year of the drive’s construction, the Chinese at Pescadero opened a roadside stand where they sold polished shells and souvenirs to the parade of tourists. In 1888, J.W. Collins noted the village for the U.S. Fish Commission:
At Pescadero, on Carmel Bay, is another Chinese fishing camp, settled in 1868, and [it] has a resident population of some 30 fisherman; it is picturesquely situated on a road that skirts the shore, and is within easy reach of the fishing grounds on Carmel Bay.
Numbers dwindled at the Pescadero fishing village until it was abandoned about 1912.11 Whalers Cove near Point Lobos became the focal point of the Portuguese whaling industry in 1862. Whalers Knoll was the area from which whales were sighted. The captured whales were
11 Sandy Lydon, Chinese Gold: The Chinese in the Monterey Bay Region, pp. 138-139 Attachment 2
14 brought to Whalers Cove to be “flenced.” The Portuguese built residences on the south side of the cove. Antonio Victorine, a native of the Azores and a whaler by trade, came to the Point Lobos whaling station in 1863. In additional to whaling, he also established a dairy near the mouth of San Jose Creek. The Victorine family stayed in the area, marrying into other local families, with many members of the extended family taking an active role in the development of the region.
Around 1880, the availability of less expensive kerosene for lighting supplanted whale oil, which began the demise of the Carmelo Bay Whaling Company. Some Portuguese whalers returned in 1897 to join the Japanese in a whaling venture operating for a short period under the name Japanese Whaling Company.
In 1896, Gennosuke Kodani, a Japanese marine biologist, arrived from Japan and began an abalone fishing business at Point Lobos. In 1898, Mr. Alexander M. Allan purchased Point Lobos for a business investment and residence. Kodani and Allan established and operated an abalone fishery in 1898 and constructed an abalone cannery in 1902. This partnership continued until 1930. After the abalone cannery was shut down, Japanese divers continued to harvest abalone until shortly before World War II.12
3.1.3 Extractive Industries
Although very little in the way of heavy industry took place in the village of Carmel, there were a number of mining ventures that took place at various locations around Carmel Bay. Point Lobos was also the scene of several extractive industries. As early as 1854, granite was quarried from a nearby rock outcropping. About 35 men were employed in the extraction. The granite was shipped from the stone quay in Whalers Cove. The rock was used in the construction of the Old Monterey Jail, U.S. Mint in San Francisco, and in the Mare Island shipyard.
In 1863, the San Carlos Gold and Silver Mining Company was formed by local citizens. Several abandoned mine shafts have also been discovered on John Martin’s ranch near Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel.
In 1874, low-grade coal was discovered and brought from Malpaso Canyon in the Carmel Valley to Coal Chute point by four horse wagon teams. A narrow gauge, horse-drawn railroad was built by the Chinese in the valley in 1878. The low-grade coal was never found in enough volume to be a very successful operation, and the mining efforts were abandoned in 1901. In an attempt to recoup losses, the Carmel Land and Coal Company subdivided property near Point Lobos, selling lots for $50 or less.
Sand and gravel from Carmel Bay beaches were also exploited. Surveyor George Tolman’s 1872 field notes note that the “large drift of white sand” on Carmel Beach was “much used by painters and glass blowers.” In 1888 sand deposits were mined at Pebble Beach. The sand brought $2.50 per cubic yard. Dr. Walton Saunders signed an agreement with the San Francisco and Pacific Glass Works for the purchase of 89 acres west of Monte Verde Street between the lands of Murphy on the north and Martin on the south. In 1899, Alexander Allan laid narrow-gauge railroad tracks from San Jose Beach to the Coal Bunker at Point Lobos for transporting sand to ships. In 1901, Ann Murphy leased 37 acres of her Carmel Beach ranch to E.B. Lindauer of San Francisco. According to the terms of the lease, Lindauer could haul away at least 500 tons of “pure white sand” annually, paying Ann 20 cents per ton removed. Sand was to be removed by
12 Pt. Lobos State Reserve, The Whaler Cabin and Whaling State Museum.
Attachment 2
15 steamship or railway.13 Point Lobos sand pits again went into operation during World War II when the Monterey Sand Company sent sand to the Navy Shipyards in the San Francisco area. In the 1920s, gravel was quarried at the “Pit” near Point Lobos and trucked to San Jose Beach and crushed for construction use.
After Carmel-by-the-Sea was established the only industrial activities within or near the village boundaries were associated with the building industry. The Plaza Fuel company produced brick and in 1925 Albert and Emma Otey became the owners of the Carmel Thermotite Company in partnership with Ella Maugh. Thermotite was a type of interlocking concrete building block invented by H.E. Clauser and Floyd Bohnett in Campbell in the early 1920s. Clauser and Bohnett produced the machines and molds for the blocks which they sold as franchises throughout the country.14 In Carmel, Thermotite was distributed from a small factory building on Santa Fe and Third streets from 1922 to 1931. The structure still stands today. The Seven Arts Building at Lincoln and Ocean streets and the Flanders Mansion were built of the Thermotite hollow concrete block system.
3.2 Business and Tourism
3.2.1 Real Estate
In 1888, Santiago J. Duckworth purchased 324 acres of land from Honoré Escolle and filed a subdivision map for Carmel City.15 Surveyed by W.C. Little and Davenport Bromfield, Carmel City was generally bounded by Monte Verde Street on the west, Monterey and Carpenter Streets on the east, Twelfth Avenue on the south, and First Avenue on the north. Ocean Avenue divided the area into north and south while Broadway (now Junipero) bisected it into east and west.
Duckworth, already established in the real estate business in Monterey, planned to develop Carmel City as a summer resort for Catholics, akin to the Methodist retreat already established in Pacific Grove. Considering the number of tourists the mission had been attracting since its first restoration, the idea seemed to have merit. In July 1888 the sale of lots began. Corner lots were sold for $25, inside lots for $20 or more and business lots sold for $50. An advertising brochure highlighted the advantages of the lots for commercial purposes, access to the Southern Pacific train station in Pebble Beach, and the soon to be completed road to Monterey over Carmel Hill.
In the first few years, development of Carmel City seemed to be advancing as planned. Cottages were built and businesses established. Duckworth opened the Hotel Carmelo on the northeast corner of Ocean Avenue and Broadway (Junipero) in 1889.16 Abbie Jane Hunter, with her uncle, Delos Goldsmith, as builder, was responsible for the creation one of the first important businesses in Carmel, a bathhouse. Located at the foot of Ocean Avenue, the Carmel Bathhouse also opened in 1889. It was eventually sold to the City of Carmel in 1921, which in turn sold it in 1929 to Mrs. W.C. Mann who dismantled it.
13 Kirstie Wilde, History of the Murphy-Powers-Comstock Barn/Studio, p. 9. 14 Eugene Sawyer, History of Santa Clara County, California, p. 1403. 15 Gilliam and Gilliam state on page 61 of their book, Creating Carmel, that Duckworth purchased 324 acres from Escolle, a prosperous Frenchman.
16 There is some disagreement as to whether Duckworth or Hunter built the Hotel Carmelo. Sharron Lee Hale states on page 11 of her book, A Tribute to Yesterday, that Hotel Carmelo was established by Hunter with Goldsmith as builder. Apparently Duckworth and Hunter were partners, and Goldsmith was the builder.
Attachment 2
16 By the early 1890s, however, Duckworth’s plans began to collapse as the boom of the 1880s quickly turned into the depression of the 1890s. He turned to Abbie Jane Hunter for assistance, and for a short time business seemed to regain its momentum. Hunter was an unusual woman for the era, having formed the Women’s Real Estate and Investment Company in January 1892. In April of that year she sent William T. Dummage to Carmel as her resident agent. By 1895, the company had sold some three hundred lots in Carmel, mostly in what is now the business district.
Sales soon declined, however, and Hunter was forced to disinvest as well.
In 1902 James F. Devendorf took over the unsold land from Duckworth with the financial backing of San Francisco lawyer Frank H. Powers and the two formed the Carmel Development Company with an office at the northwest corner of Ocean and San Carlos. Devendorf, who was the on-site manager, is generally credited with shaping the development of early Carmel.
Originally from Michigan, he went to San Jose in 1874 to be with his mother who had relocated there some years earlier. With a love for the land and experience as a salesman, Devendorf joined in the booming California real estate market and came to own extensive property in San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Alviso, and Stockton. Unlike other real estate developers, he was not interested in land speculation; his passion was for building communities. When Duckworth approached him about exchanging land in Carmel for part of his holdings elsewhere, Devendorf was intrigued by the idea, having visited Carmel on vacation with his family in the early 1890s.
Envisioning the opportunity to build a community that enhanced the natural environment, he made the exchange and filed a map of Carmel-by-the-Sea with the County Recorder in 1902. The new tract was a re-subdivision of most of Carmel City west of Broadway, now renamed Junipero Avenue. Soon thereafter Devendorf built a cottage for himself at Lincoln and Sixth (now demolished). His family continued to live in Oakland where he would join them on weekends.
Frank Powers shared Devendorf’s love for nature and commitment to the development of Carmel, but he had more of a financial stake in its success. Like Duckworth, Powers was certain that the Southern Pacific Railway extension from Pacific Grove would be built. The fact that the rail link to Carmel never came to fruition, of course, probably allowed the natural character of the town to be maintained. Powers and his wife remodeled the old Murphy ranch house as a home for his family and a studio for his socialite wife Jane Gallatin. Powers also maintained his social ties and legal practice in San Francisco.
Initially, lot sales in Carmel-by-the-Sea were slow. A $500 cottage was easily secured with a $5 or $10 deposit, or $6 per month to rent. By 1905 there were seventy-five residents, several stores, a restaurant, a school and hotel. After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, however, lots sold more vigorously as displaced San Franciscans looked for a new place to live. By 1913 there were approximately 550 permanent residents and thousands of summer visitors.
By 1940 Carmel had experienced growth but still maintained an intimate population of 2,837 citizens.17 By this time, the village composition had matured into a population of middle-aged residents and retirees, many of whom had roots in Carmel’s pioneer years. Carmel’s small size allowed the charming idiosyncrasies that defined village character through the 1930s to continue into the early 1940s, including the lack of street addresses, a telephone service without a dial system, and the use of a community bulletin board that served as a social gathering place.18 Still, the autonomy and utopian nature of Carmel, so embraced and promoted by the community at large, did little to protect the village from the events that would shape the entire country in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
17 “This is Carmel 1957.”
18 “This is Carmel 1957.”
Attachment 2
17 In 1937, after eighteen years of construction, California State Route 1 was connected between San Simeon and Carmel.19 Few events have had a greater impact on the Carmel’s character. The completion of this segment allowed traffic to flow easily from Southern California to Carmel.
Tucked into the southernmost corner of the Monterey Peninsula and virtually inaccessible from the south throughout its history, Carmel’s status as a tourist destination was undoubtedly solidified by the connection of this great coastal highway.
The carefree days of Carmel were brought to a halt on December 7, 1941, when Japanese planes attacked the United States Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into World War II. Immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor, fears of a coastal invasion sent the country into a panic. After the announcement of the draft, 418 Carmelites signed up for duty.20 Under orders from the Army commandant at the Monterey Presidio, the entire village of Carmel was evacuated for a day and subsequently forced under a cloak of darkness during mandatory blackouts during the first few weeks of the war. Residents installed blackout shades and painted the headlights of their vehicles while sentries took up posts on the beach. Local citizens volunteered to watch for enemy planes. Firemen were taught how to deal with incendiary bombs, should they be dropped on the village. Carmel became home to 200 navy men who were stationed at the Aviation PreFlight School in Monterey’s Old Del Monte Hotel, which had been appropriated by the Navy (it is now the Naval Postgraduate School).21 The Manzanita Club at Dolores near Eighth Avenue (later the American Legion Hall/Post No 516) was transformed into a United Service Organization (USO) Club and was popular with men from both Fort Ord and the Naval School.
The Pine Inn on Ocean Avenue between Lincoln and Monte Verde dedicated one of its rooms as a relief station for officers.22
Carmel’s experience during and after World War II was intensified by its proximity to Fort Ord and the U.S. Naval Postgraduate and Army Language Schools in Monterey. The post-war years in Carmel witnessed a surge in population that would have a profound impact on the village’s character. Servicemen attracted to Carmel’s charm during recreational leaves returned to settle as permanent residents at war’s end. Officers based at the nearby bases were equally inclined to retire in Carmel.23 In 1948 a former serviceman reported at least sixty retired officers were living in Carmel, including Admiral Richmond K. Turner. General Joseph W. Stilwell lived in Carmel until his death in 1946.24 An additional demographic of younger, non-military residents hoping to open businesses tipped the scales. The sheer volume and composition of this new wave of residents, coupled with a post-Depression economic cushion resulting in a sudden influx of tourism, affected Carmel in ways heretofore unseen.
By 1943, Carmel’s population was estimated to exceed 4,000 and included a smattering of homes in unincorporated areas.25 In 1948 approximately 5,000 lived in the village, and by the next year the crush of people had resulted in population-related problems so powerful they threatened to
19 Carmel Business Association. Carmel-by-the-Sea A Booklet Prepared for Those Who Desire to Learn More of Our World-Famed Village. Carmel, Ca.: Printed for the Carmel Business Assoc. by the Carmel Press, 1940s.
20 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea: From Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987. 21 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea: From Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987. 22 Kay Prine, “Carmel and World War II,” Unpublished manuscripts from the Unpublished manuscript from the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (date unknown).
23 “This is Carmel 1957.”
24 Elmont Waite, “The Cities of America: Carmel, California,” The Saturday Evening Post, 15 May 1948. 25 “This is Carmel 1957.”
Attachment 2
18 “engulf Carmel Village,” according to the Monterey Peninsula Herald. 26 Around this time, the
Planning Commission introduced a statement of policy that defined a collective resolution against anything that could be construed as a threat to Carmel tradition:
Because of the inevitable period of growth and expansion which lies ahead; the Planning Commission…believes in…what has come to be known as the Carmel tradition, a tradition from which there should be no departure…The people of Carmel do not desire the kind of progress that would disturb or alter the atmosphere and unique charms of Carmel…27
Essentially, this was a reaffirmation of Carmel’s Magna Carta, a set of laws written into ordinance the 1920s that codified Carmel’s desire to maintain its residential character.
It is often said that isolationism was the theme of the 1950s, an understandable reaction to the growth and change that defined the 1940s. In 1956 a citizens’ committee set about closing Ocean Avenue to traffic and bar parking at the beach in an effort to stave the swelling tide of tourists.28 One droll solution, proposed by City Councilman Francis Whitaker, suggested changing all streets to one-way streets that led out of town.29 Both ideas are evidence that the anti-growth platform of the 1920s was persisting nearly three decades later. By 1957, Carmel had reached a population of 5,500 within its incorporated boundaries.30 The town had grown large enough to boast five bars and three art galleries, yet there was still no mail service within the village limits.
The community bulletin board had become less of a gathering place and more of a tourist attraction for weekenders seeking vestiges of Carmel’s earlier years.31 Though growing in population, Carmel did everything in its power to maintain its small-town character, going so far as passing an ordinance that disallowed short pants within village limits. However, “It [was] all right to be half naked on the beach,” Mayor Horace Lyon reassured.32 In 1956 Lewis Livingston, Jr., a planning consultant hired by the City, submitted the Plan for the Conservation and Enhancement of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Environs. In the report, Livingston, in conjunction with a “Citizens Committee” of fifty Carmelites, defined the objective of the Plan as a guide to “preserve the primarily residential character of the community.” As such, the Plan called for the following changes: the removal of tourist accommodations from the residential districts; the prevention of development that would be “inharmonious with the present character of Carmel”; the preservation of green space surrounding the community; the realignment of Highway 1 to Junipero Avenue; the addition of parking spaces downtown; and the addition of recreational facilities. The Central District Plan’s most controversial recommendation called for “closing Ocean Avenue from Junipero Avenue to Monte Verde Street and Mission, San Carlos, Dolores, and Lincoln Streets between Sixth and Seventh Avenues to automobile traffic in order to create park-like pedestrian malls.”33 Livingston’s Plan caused much consternation among
26 Dorothy Stephenson. “Threat of Humanity Threatens to Engulf Carmel Village.” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 1948.
27 Elmont Waite, “The Cities of America: Carmel, California,” The Saturday Evening Post, 15 May 1948. 28 Susan Beck, “Carmel in ‘50s: residents feat ‘LAization’,” Carmel Pine Cone, 2 November 1989. 29 “Carmel…An Artist’s Village Grown Into a City of Contrasts,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 13 August 1957.
30 “This is Carmel 1957.”
31 “This is Carmel 1957.”
32 “Carmel in ‘50s: residents feat ‘LAization’.”
33 Lawrence Livingston, Plan for the Conservation and Enhancement of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Environs, 1956.
Attachment 2
19 citizens, and the document was lambasted. After several revisions, the plan was adopted on 28 May 1957.
The plan also warned: “Carmel’s tourist trade can only be expected to expand. Constant vigilance will be necessary to prevent inappropriate commercialization of the area’s tourist attractions.”
At that time, there were still a few empty water-front lots left to sell. In the late 1950s, most large land holdings in Carmel were owned by descendents of pioneer families. These decedents included Tom Doud, a cattle rancher from Monterey; Mary Goold, a descendent of the Carmel Mission Machado family and the widow of former councilman and livery stable operator Charles Goold; Robert and Fred Leidig; and the estate of Mary Dummage.34 Due the post-war flood of new residents wanting to settle in Carmel, real estate costs reached unforeseen peaks in the mid to late 1940s. In 1945 a two-bedroom house on Casanova sold for $4,000. The same house sold for $8,500 in 1946 and $14,000 a year later. In 1948 the most expensive home listed in the Pine Cone Cymbal was $45,000.35 In 1957 the average price of a home was $20,000; empty inland lots sold for an average of $3,500 and lots on the coast were listed for $9,000.36 The swelling of the number of real estate agents working in Carmel from 10 in 1947 to 31 in 1963 serves as a good indicator of the success of the real estate business in the immediate post-war era.37
3.2.2 Ocean Avenue Business District
Carmel’s business district as it exists today began during the first decade of the twentieth century when the Hotel Carmelo was moved and as the Pine Inn was expanded. Commercial services which catered to residents and increasingly to tourists eventually lined both sides of Ocean Avenue between Junipero and Monte Verde and the blocks to either side between Fifth and Eighth Avenues. The commercial climate of the village was relaxed and informal, a characteristic that was also reflected in the architecture of the business district. In order to maintain the unique character of the downtown business district, in 1931 the city council passed an ordinance preventing the use of “neon” and other types of electric signage within the city.
One of the first entrepreneurial businessmen to settle in Carmel was Louis Slevin, who arrived with his mother in 1902. Slevin opened the first general merchandise store, served as the first official postmaster, first express agent, and first city treasurer. Slevin was also an avid photographer whose pictures document much of Monterey County during the early part of the century.
In the 1920s and 30s, art galleries became a focal point of the business district. While many artists had established studios in the village, the only gallery was the clubhouse of the Arts and Crafts Club on Casanova between Eighth and Ninth. In 1927 the Carmel Art Association was formed, and the somewhat exclusive membership paid dues of one dollar per month to the association which would provide exhibition space, hire a curator, and make sales. Their first gallery was rented space in the Seven Arts Building at Lincoln and Ocean. The association
34 “This is Carmel 1957.”
35 Elmont Waite, “The Cities of America: Carmel, California,” The Saturday Evening Post, 15 May 1948. 36 “This is Carmel 1957.”
37 Polk City Directory.
Attachment 2
20 purchased the Ira Remsen Building on the west side of Dolores Street in 1934 which was expanded in 1939. Hazel Watrous and Dene Denny formed the Denny-Watrous Gallery in 1928 which sponsored concerts and art exhibitions in the Tudor building on the east side of Dolores between Ocean and Seventh. Through these and other galleries, the work of local artists found its way into the private and museum art collections all over the world.
By the 1940s, Carmel had very few businesses that catered solely to local residents, such as pharmacies, hardware stores, and medical offices. The Ocean Avenue Business District contained more shops dedicated to tourists than residents. Typical throughout the entire country, business slowed or closed completely during World War II. The businesses that catered solely to tourists were hit the hardest. Nonetheless, Carmel was resilient, and recovered quickly.
The 1951 city directory provides evidence of a commercial district laden with industries dedicated to tourism. There were nine hotels and twenty-one restaurants, such as Blue Bird and Carmel Restaurant on Ocean Avenue and The Tuck Box still active on Dolores. Nineteen clothiers, such as Bandbox and The Hour Glass on Ocean Avenue, and Viennese in the Seven Arts Court building, sold mostly high-end clothes. Seventeen gift shops pedaled themed knickknacks; there was Wee Bit of Scandinavia on Sixth, The Burlwood Shop on Ocean Avenue, and Denslow’s on Lincoln. The Carmel Art Shop on Ocean, The House That Jack Built on Dolores and Sixth, and Village Jewelers all specialized in jewelry. The Gardener’s Friend sold horticultural supplies on Fifth Avenue near Mission. Only a single art gallery was listed: the Carmel Art Association gallery on Dolores between Fifth and Sixth. The Carmel Dairy, an institution in Carmel since 1932, closed after World War II and the space was subsequently leased for use as a soda fountain. In 1953 Italian grocer Joe Bileci moved his Mediterranean Market from San Carlos Street to the Carmel Dairy building on the Ocean Avenue. In the early 1950s, rents for downtown shops and offices – monopolized by a small handful of families – ranged from $100 to $450.38
In 1956, the city directory shows a jump in the number of motels to twenty-six, in addition to eight hotels and various guest houses. Seven additional restaurants appeared, including Birgit & Dagmar and Gene & Parvin’s on Dolores. There were twenty-three gift shops, up from seventeen in 1951. The largest increase in business fell under the clothier category: thirty-five clothiers were listed, under such whimsical names as Bib ‘n Tucker on Ocean, and The Best from Britain on Lincoln. Two art galleries joined the Carmel Art Association: Artists Guild of America, Inc. on Monte Verde and Morgan M. DeNeale Studio on Lincoln. And five artists listed themselves in the city directory, including Mrs. Joyce C. Nielsen on San Carlos, John O’Shea on Vista and Ling Fu Yang on Dolores.39
Two large-scale commercial development projects in the 1950s, markedly out of proportion to the existing buildings in the Ocean Avenue Business District, sparked one of Carmel’s strongest antidevelopment movements in history. Carmelites opposed the Jade Tree Motel on Junipero Street for both its height and massing. Sited on a slope, the Motel’s five stories appeared to rise above the two-story height limit; though, due to the unique nature of the topography, the building was not in violation of the limits. The second controversial project was Carmel Plaza on Ocean Avenue. Undisputedly the largest commercial development in Carmel up to that point, the shopping center covered an entire block and was three stories in height.40
38 Polk City Directory.
39 Ibid.
40 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992.
Attachment 2
21 By 1963, city directories showed the number of hotels and motels had increased to forty-six.
There were thirty-two restaurants, an increase of eleven from 1951.41 The Village Corner, still in existence today, appeared on Dolores and Sixth, in addition to Anzel’s Café on Ocean and The Little Swiss Café on Sixth. Gift shops, thirty in all, were often styled with Asian and Scandinavian themes, contributing to the village’s fantastical international feel, which was very much a construct of the business community. Examples of this include Kjell of Norway and The Little Shanghai Shop on Dolores and Kon-Tiki Imports on Ocean. Thirteen art galleries appeared between 1956 and 1963, including The Louvrette Gallery on Lincoln and Zantman Galleries on Sixth. Comparatively, Monterey had three galleries and Pacific Grove had one. In addition to galleries, eight artists were listed. The Gardener’s Friend was still supporting the gardening community on Fifth Avenue. Continuing along a historical trend, there were fifty clothiers listed in the directory, an increase of thirty-one in twelve years. Carmel appeared to have more shops selling clothes than either Monterey or Pacific Grove.42 The Shell-by-the-Sea gas station at San Carlos and Fifth, constructed in 1963-64, is a remarkable example of a utilitarian building whose design blended well with the existing architectural fabric of Carmel. An industrial take on the Bay Region style so popular in Carmel from the 1940s through the 1960s, the station is softened by skylights in the roof over the service area and wood trellises over the gas pumps and corner signage. The uniqueness and sensitivity of the design was the successful result of the Carmel Planning Commission’s insistence that a “manufactured service station” would never be built in Carmel.43 Designed by local firm, Burde, Shaw & Associates, the Shell-by-the-Sea gas station garnered an award from the Governor’s Design Awards Jury in 1966 as California’s best example in the Service Facilities category.
In 1950, a group of thirty-three merchants formed a local chapter of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, which became the Carmel Business Association. Understanding how some Carmelites would balk at the idea of promoting business in the village, the group announced, “We have assured Carmel that we have no designs on their traditional ‘Way of Life.’”44 Nonetheless, as one newspaper reported, “almost everybody in Carmel rose in righteous wrath” against the formation of the chapter.45 Yet, despite the aggressive opposition, the Business Association persevered and existed through at least the 1960s. The group’s first chairman was Robert Wallace.
In the early 1940s, a City Council with a majority of Carmelites from the “artistic element” voted to abolish parking on the median of Ocean Avenue. Nationally renowned landscape architect Thomas Church redesigned the median with stone walls, shrubs, and flowers.46 Parking has long been a troublesome issue in the downtown core. People who worked downtown often parked their cars on nearby residential streets, which resulted in loss of parking for residents. Consensus was reached that parking meters were out of the question, so, in 1955, a one-hour parking zone was delineated around the Ocean Avenue Business District. In 1957 a newspaper complained,
41 Polk City Directory.
42 Polk City Directory.
43 “Architects Saluted for Design,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 26 December 1966. 44 “Carmel Now Has Chamber of Commerce,” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library, 1950. 45 Barnard Norris, “Carmel Up in Arms Over Mention of Any Such Thing,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 14 December 1950.
46 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992.
Attachment 2
22 “With little room to park in the business district and the ever-present threat of a ticket…visitors are increasingly discouraged from shopping [downtown].”47
3.2.3 Tourism
In 1902 when Carmel City was taken over by Frank H. Powers and John Franklin Devendorf, one of their first projects was to move the Hotel Carmelo, of which they had also taken possession, closer to the beach. The two-story, wood-frame structure was partially dismantled and rolled down Ocean Avenue on logs to Monte Verde where it became the core of the Pine Inn.
Completed in 1903, the Pine Inn included a campground with tents to accommodate the overflow of customers during the summer months. With the depression over by this time, the two men began to promote the town, which they called Carmel-by-the-Sea, as a family-oriented community encouraging people with artistic temperament.
While Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel continued to attract sightseers from around the country, Devendorf and Powers kept rates low at the Pine Inn in hopes of attracting visitors from San Francisco or the inland valleys who might buy lots and build homes. While lots did sell, a significant number of early buyers were not interested in making Carmel their permanent home. Rather, many of the first lots in Carmel were developed as weekend cottages or summer homes by professors from Bay Area universities, particularly Stanford University and the University of California.
The emerging popularity of the automobile in the 1920s further enabled the public to indulge its zeal for travel. While the Pine Inn remained the grande dame of hotels in Carmel, several others soon joined it to keep up with the burgeoning tourist trade. The Carmel Development Company applied the same formula for success in the Carmel Highlands as it did in Carmel-by-the-Sea:
they built a resort hotel as the hub for a housing development. Located south of Point Lobos, well outside of the city boundaries, the Highlands Inn became a favorite destination for honeymooners after it opened in 1917. The La Playa Hotel was also started in 1911.
It was not by happenstance that Carmel became renowned as an artistic enclave. The community character that continues to define Carmel was pre-determined by its founders. California historian, Kevin Starr, writes: “Shrewdly, [Frank Powers and J.F. Devendorf (the developers of Carmel)] realized that if they brought the right people into Carmel, they could establish a tone, a style, that would become self-reflecting and self-perpetuating.”48 Thus, it is easy to understand why the events that unfolded in the 1940s and subsequent decades had such a powerful impact on Carmel. For the first time in its history, Carmel experienced a sudden increase in new residents and tourists, fundamental shifts in demographics, and the arrival of a real estate industry bent on exploiting the uniqueness of the village for profit. By mid-century, a great schism developed between the old guard, composed of older pioneers and what was left of the artistic and utopian set, and a new crop of younger, business-minded residents that moved to Carmel with the intention of setting up shop. Thus, the debate over change was born – a debate so fervid and enduring that it would define the second half of the twentieth century.
The changes that Carmelites fought so desperately to stave off are changes that would have affected Carmel’s architectural traditions. Carmel’s world-renowned “quaintness,” the characteristic that has distinguished the village throughout its history, is often attributed to a distinctive, “storybook" style of architecture embodied in Hugh Comstock’s Tuck Box of 1927.
47 “This is Carmel 1957.”
48 Kevin Starr, The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s, 1997.
Attachment 2
23 The novelty of this style and its accompanying charms proved irresistible to visitors, and Carmel became a tourist destination, drawing legions of onlookers from around the world and creating the need for an infrastructure that would support them. Almost immediately, native Carmelites resisted not only the influx of visitors, but fought fiercely against the encroachment of architectural styles that were not in keeping with the quaintness of the more vernacular or storybook styles – Modernism in particular. Additionally, the fight against progress was in large part a debate against commercialization – a struggle that spans the history of Carmel from the anti-progress mayoral campaign of Perry Newberry in the 1920s to the present. To this day, Carmel continues to balance the tension between the conflicting goals of protecting the village’s identity and the promotion of local business, which is largely geared toward tourists.
By the 1950s, Carmelites had developed a complex relationship with tourists. Residents were openly disdainful of the problems caused by the extra number of visitors, yet equally aware that tourism was an economic boon for the village. In 1952, according to the City Clerk’s office, sales tax returns netted Carmel ten dollars in tax per capita – six dollars higher than the state average.
The disparity was attributed to tourism, and it was estimated that five-sixths of tax was paid by visitors, while the rest was paid by residents.49 In 1957 shop keepers estimated that fifty percent of their sales were made by tourists.50
I. Magnin & Company, a luxury department store, opened in the Carmel Plaza in 1960. The appearance of this high-fashion outlet, along with a growing number of art galleries (thirteen in 1963) and gift shops (thirty in 1963), is illustrative of a change in tourist demographic. Whereas the tourist of the first half of the twentieth century traveled to Carmel to partake in passive enjoyment of the natural and cultural scenery, the tourist of the latter half of the century traveled to Carmel to shop.
The growth of the tourist trade in Carmel saw the need for an architectural infrastructure that would support it, particularly lodging. City directories delineate patterns of growth and help show the number and type of businesses that were located in a place at a given time. Between 1947 and 1963, multiple hotels were listed in city directories for Carmel. Guest houses were first listed in the mid 1950s. Though not comprehensive, the following lists offer examples of the hotels that were located in Carmel during a given period.51 The following hotels and guest houses appeared in the 1947 city directory:
Carmel Inn on San Carlos between Sixth and Eighth ;
Colonial Inn on San Antonio between Twelfth and Thirteenth; Green Lantern Hotel Cottages on Casonova and Sixth;
La Playa Hotel on Eighth and Camino Real;
La Ribera Hotel on Lincoln and Sixth;
Lobos Lodge Ocean between Monte Verde and Casanova;
McPhillips Hotel on San Carlos near Fifth;
Pine Inn on Ocean between Lincoln and Monte Verde;
Sea View Inn on Camino Real between Eleventh and Twelfth; Williams Hotel on Ocean and Dolores.52
49 “This is Carmel 1957.”
50 “This is Carmel 1957.”
51 Polk City Directory.
52 Polk City Directory.
Attachment 2
24 The following hotels and guest houses first appeared in the 1952 and 1956 city directories:
Beverly Terrace Lodge on San Carlos and Fourth (1952); Cypress West Hotel on Lincoln and Sixth (1952);
Dolores Lodge on Dolores near Eighth (1952);
Hide-a-Way Inn on Junipero (1952);
Lobos Lodge on Ocean between Monte Verde and Casanova (1952); Torres Inn Hotel on Ocean and Torres (1952);
Anchorage Guest House on Carmelo near Twelfth (1956); Edgemere Guest House on San Antonio near Thirteenth (1956); Happy Hills Guest House on San Antonio near Thirteenth (1956); Schwerin Guests on Carmelo near Twelfth (1956);
The Homestead on Lincoln near Eighth (1956);
Rosita Apartment Hotel Fourth and Torres (1956);
Tally Ho Inn on Monte Verde near Sixth (1956).53
The following hotels and guest houses appeared in the 1960 and 1963 city directories:
Green Pastures Guest House on Santa Lucia near San Antonio (1960); The Stonehouse Guest House on Eighth near Casanova (1960); The Rider Apartment Hotel on Lincoln near Fifth (1960); The Stonehouse on Eighth and Monte Verde (1960);
Wayside Inn on Mission and Sixth (1960);
Argonaut Guest House on Monte Verde near Ninth (1963); Whispering Pines on Monte Verde near Ninth (1963).54
Vacationing, tourism, and a recreational tradition were established in the area in the 1890s when the Hotel Del Monte in Monterey was established. Recreation, specifically the sport of golf, has a long tradition on the Monterey Peninsula. The Del Monte Golf Course in Monterey, immediately a popular tourist destination, opened shortly thereafter as a nine-hole course in 1897.
The area surrounding the City of Carmel is host to many historic, challenging, and internationally known golf courses. The Pebble Beach Golf Links opened in 1919. The Pebble Beach Resorts includes The Links at Spanish Bay (1987), Spyglass Hill (1966) and the Peter Hay Golf Course (1957). The Monterey area courses have been the sites of many invitational and championship tournaments.
While no golf facilities exist within the boundaries of the City of Carmel, the golfing tradition continues to draw tourists to the area and remains a popular activity for residents. The sport of golf has played a major role in the development of early tourism and recreation on the Monterey peninsula.55
3.3 Transportation
From the Spanish period, there were two routes between the Mission and Monterey. The more direct main trail, described by surveyor George Tolman in 1872 as “the old road” from the Mission to Monterey, passed over Carmel Hill and crossed the peninsula. By 1872, there was
53 Polk City Directory.
54 Polk City Directory.
55 All information in these two paragraphs is summarized from the book Pebble Beach Golf Links: The Official History by Neal Hotelling,
Attachment 2
25 also a “wagon road” that roughly followed the route of the state highway. Another route was known as the beach trail. In 1888 Mexican and Chinese laborers were brought in to cut trees and clean the streets. Old ranch roads were the main routes through the wilderness in early Carmel, with Ocean Avenue serving as a secondary street to Broadway (now Junipero).
In 1888 the Southern Pacific Railroad surveyed a route west of the Monterey depot through Pacific Grove and around the point to the sand deposits, and for a time rumors flew that the line would be extended to the Carmel Valley and the coal deposits there. By July 1889 the SP line reached the sand deposits where it stopped, and despite periodic proposal to extend the line to Carmel, it never went farther, which dampened the prospects of Duckworth and other investors in Carmel City during the 1890s. Powers and Devendorf still had expectations the railroad would be extended to Carmel at the time they made their investments in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
During this period, the Monterey Development Company provided tours of the mission by horse and wagon. In the early 1900s, the Coffey Brothers had a livery stable in Carmel and provided hired rigs for sightseers. They also ran stages to and from Monterey from the stage stop in front of the Hotel Carmelo. The Carmel Development Company also ran stages to pick up visitors and prospective buyers from Monterey and the Del Monte Lodge. Joseph Hitchcock worked for Devendorf as a surrey driver. From 1911 to 1916, he drove a four-horse stage from the train depot in Monterey to Carmel. In 1912 Charles Goold took delivery of two sixteen-passenger buses, eventually busying out the Coffey and Hitchcock operations. Additional bus services continued to expand until replaced by the Greyhound service and Joe’s Taxi in 1930.
With the increased popularity of automobile travel, blacksmith shops, except for The Forge in the Forest which lasted until 1964, and livery stables gave way to gasoline stations and auto service facilities. Determined to maintain the rural appearance of the village, early residents and city fathers resisted paving city streets. The Carmel-Monterey Highway was paved in 1916, and Ocean Avenue was paved in 1922.
3.4 Associated Resource Types
3.4.1 Identification
Properties associated with the context of Economic Development (1846-1965) include:
1. Properties associated with agriculture and industry
Ranch houses and farm buildings
Fishing, Whaling, and Extractive Industries
2. Properties associated with business and tourism
Commercial Buildings
Hotels, Inns and Boarding Houses
Seasonal Homes
3. Properties associated with transportation
Gasoline/service stations
3.4.2 Description
Properties associated with agriculture and industry
Ranch Houses and Farm Buildings. Few resources remain in Carmel that are associated with the area’s early agricultural history. This resource type includes ranch houses, barns, other Attachment 2
26 outbuildings, water towers and windmills. As the oldest remaining residential structures in Carmel and due to their association with the rancho period of Carmel’s history as well as their connection with frank and Jane Powers, the Murphy-Powers residence and Barn/Studio have been designated as landmarks under Carmel’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Other ranches in Carmel’s sphere of influence include the Martin’s Mission Ranch, the Hatton Ranch, the Victorine Ranch behind the Bay School at San Jose Creek, and Palo Corona, today the Fish Ranch.
Fishing, Whaling and Extractive Industries. Although not located in the City of Carmel, there is a residence built by Chinese fisherman at Whalers Cove, which houses the Whaling Station museum at Point Lobos State Park. It is unlikely that any resources associated with the fishing industry in Carmel Bay are located in the City of Carmel.
Likewise, few if any resources associated with quarrying and mining activities in the area would be located within the boundaries or the sphere of influence of Carmel. Little is known of the silver mining activities near Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo. Evidence of mine shafts have been discovered. It is therefore possible that there may be some subsurface evidence of silver mining activities in the vicinity of the Mission and in the Walker Tract near Junipero Avenue and Rio Road.56
The brick kilns of the Plaza Fuel Company and buildings associated with the Thermotite concrete block operation still exist near Santa Fe and Third, but are no longer in operation. If further research and study does not reveal the existence of resources associated with local industrial activities, they might be considered as significant.
Properties Associated with Business and Tourism
Commercial buildings. Most of the historic commercial buildings (those built prior to 1940) are located on Ocean Avenue and Sixth and Seventh Avenues between Mission and Monte Verde Streets. They consist primarily of two story reinforced concrete and wood frame buildings in a variety of architectural styles with retail and/or gallery space on the ground floor and office space and artist’s studios on the upper floors.
Hotels, Inns, and Boarding Houses. Tourist accommodations have played an important role in the economic development of Carmel since the days of the Hotel Carmelo and Carmel City. In fact, a business census of the community in 1956 listed forty-six such establishments. Building during all periods of Carmel’s development, hotels, inns, and lodges reflect a wide range of architectural preferences.
Many times older structures were remodeled to serve as inns. Built in 1929, The Cypress Inn, formerly called La Ribera Hotel was built specifically for the purpose of lodging. Oakland architects Blain and Olsen were responsible for its Spanish Colonial Revival design, highlighted by a lavish stucco entry, tower, generous use of tile, and a flower-strewn patio.
On the other hand, the La Playa Hotel began in 1903 as the home and studio of Chris Jorgensen and was converted to hotel use after the tragic drowning of Mrs. Angela Ghiradelli Jorgensen in 1911. The house was designed around a two story stone tower with gable-roofed wings extending west and south. In 1921 more rooms were added, but in 1924 it was almost completely destroyed by a fire. The Godwins, who had also been associated with the Pine Inn, rebuilt the
56 Sharron Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, p. 119
Attachment 2
27 hotel, retaining some of the original stonework, and added 30 rooms in 1925. Subsequent additions increased the room count substantially. This hotel is now listed by the National Trust as a Historic Hotel of America.
Likewise, the Holiday House was originally the home of Stanford profession Guido Marx. Built in 1905, it was sold to Basilicio Jesena who converted it into the Holiday Inn in 1926. It was renamed the Holiday House in 1929 when it was taken over by Isabel and Mary Smith. The Sea View Inn at Camino Real and Twelfth, built in 1905, was owned and run by the Stout sisters.
Many of the local residents opened their homes during the summer season for boarders, such as professor Vernon Kellogg on Casanova between Ninth and Tenth streets. Some residents added guest cottages to accommodate extended family and summer visitors. Many of these homes later were expanded to become full-time inns, as were Edgemere Cottages and the Green Lantern.
Seasonal Homes. Carmel’s identity as a vacation or part-time destination originated in the Carmel City era and continued past World War II into the present. A substantial percentage of homes in Carmel are still only occupied or rented for part of the year. In most ways, these houses are indistinguishable from year-round homes, except perhaps for an increased tendency towards informality, simplicity and outdoor orientation leftover from the early days.
Properties associated with transportation.
Resources associated with pre-automobile transportation activities would include early trails and roads, blacksmith shops, livery stables, stages stops. The Mission Trail exists in part from the Carmel Mission north, probably to old Highway 1. Oliver Road is the old road to Carmel Valley.
This resource category would include the Forge in the Forest, and the stage stop at the Goold Building at San Carlos between Ocean and Sixth. Charles Goold also owned a garage at the southeast corner of Ocean and San Carlos which later became the Standard Oil Station and is now a clothing store.
With the advent of the automobile, associated resources would include early service stations, garages, car dealerships, taxi companies, and bus depots, such as the first depot built by Jon Konigshofer on the northwest corner of Junipero and Sixth. Existing resources include the Texaco (now Shell) Station at the corner of San Carlos and Fifth, the Richfield station on the southwest corner of Seventh and San Carlos, and Miller Harris’ Shell station. Levinson’s Automobile Agency was located at Dick Bruhn’s on the southeast corner of San Carlos and Ocean.
Until 1970, a Volkswagen showroom and sales agency was located at the corner of Fourth and Mission Streets.
3.4.3 Significance
Due to their relative scarcity, any properties associated with the agricultural and industrial economy would be considered significant resources. Agricultural resources usually existed in complexes of several types of functionally related structures. Generally the more pivotal buildings in the complex such as barns and farmhouse would have a greater significance than sheds and other ancillary resources.
Properties associated with business and tourism exist in abundance throughout Carmel.
Significant examples should retain a high degree of integrity. Significance would be enhanced by Attachment 2
28 association with prominent members of the business community and with specific businesses or business types that were pivotal in the town’s economic development.
Due to relative scarcity and the importance in representing the continuum of development within this context, pre-automobile transportation resources would have a high degree of significance.
Due to the prevalence of adaptive reuse, there would be a lower level of integrity expected for these resources. Significance of resources within this context would be enhanced by association with individuals that played important roles in the development of the Carmel business community or promoted tourism in the area.
4.0 GOVERNMENT, CIVIC AND SOCIAL (1903-1965)
4.1 Civic Development and Incorporation
In addition to assisting with the early formation of community and cultural institutions, James Devendorf also acted as the unofficial mayor, resolving disputes between residents. Ultimately, however, he could not create the kinds of ordinances or regulations necessary to control development or shape public improvements. A group in favor of cityhood circulated a petition for incorporation in October 1916. The County Board of Supervisors approved the petition and scheduled an election for October 26. There were 199 votes cast with 113 in favor and 86 against. At the same time, the first board of Trustees was elected. There were five members in the total with two holding two-year terms and three holding the four y ear terms. The board then elected a president to a two-year term. The charter members included A.P. Fraser, president, Peter Taylor, G.F. Beardsley, E.K. DeSabla and D.W. Johnson. In addition, Louis Slevin was elected treasurer and J.E. Nichols was elected as clerk. In 1920 Saide Van Brower was elected City Clerk. Serving until 1942, she started and kept the only city building records. The position of City Clerk became elevated to City Administrator when Hugh Bayliss was promoted in 1968.
In 1978 the system was slightly modified when the office of Mayor was changed to a publicly elected position. William Askew, Sr. was superintendent of Public Works for thirty years. Also employed by the city, William Askew, Jr. also served as the superintendent of Public Works for thirty years.
In 1917, the first official City Hall was located in the Philip Wilson Building on the northwest corner of Ocean and Dolores. In 1927, City Hall was located upstairs in the Oakes-Mitchell Buildings on the west side of Dolores between Ocean and Seventh. It moved again in 1946 to the old All Saints Episcopal Church on the east side of Monte Verde between Ocean and Seventh.
The Department of Public Works was located in the little green building on the southwest corner of Mission and Seventh with the Police Station. In 1966, the new Public Works/Police Station, located on the east side of Junipero between Fourth and Fifth, was dedicated.
From the beginning there has been general agreement among Carmel residents for slow growth and preservation of the residential character of the village. One of the first city ordinances prohibited the cutting down of trees on public land. Determined to keep the rural setting, residents also fought the introduction of paved streets, mail delivery, and electricity. Public improvements and development continued, but not without controversy. Even the paving of Ocean Avenue, which did not occur until 1922, was so hotly debated that the issue had to be resolved in court. Another battle raged over the development of the Dunes, a stretch of the beach at the foot of Ocean Avenue. A resort hotel planned for the site was defeated when a group of Attachment 2
29 residents successfully persuaded Devendorf to sell the land to the city for $15,000. Citizens voted four to one in favor of its purchase.
Another hot issue was the bathhouse on Carmel beach. The bathhouse, constructed in 1889 for Women’s Real Estate Company by Delos Goldsmith, served Carmel with dressing rooms and towels, had a tea room, and served as a meeting place and a site for wedding receptions. The City of Carmel purchased the building in the 1920s. However, the cost of upkeep and the potential for lawsuits should someone drown while using the life rope which extended from the bathhouse to the ocean, led many to question ownership of the property. The bathhouse was sold in 1929, and later demolished.
Battle lines over such issues were usually drawn between the art and business factions in the community. Perry Newberry became one of the central leaders of the art faction. Newberry had come to Carmel in 1910. Formerly on the art staff of the San Francisco Examiner, he became the assistant editor of the Pine Cone and later its owner until he sold it in 1935. He was first inspired to run for public office in response to a proposal to construct a city hall, an idea he opposed. He successfully ran for the Board of Trustees in 1922 and fought to preserve the unique and rural quality of Carmel. He promised voters:
Believing that what 9,999 towns out of 10,000 want is just what Carmel shouldn’t have, I am a candidate for trustee on the platform, DON’T BOOST. I am making a spirited campaign to win by asking those who disagree to vote against me.
DON’T VOTE FOR PERRY NEWBERRY:
If you hope to see Carmel become a city.
If you want its growth boosted.
If you desire its commercial success.
If concrete street pavements represent your civic ambitions.
If you think a glass factory is of greater importance than a sand dune, or a millionaire than an artist, or a mansion than a little brown cottage.
If you truly want Carmel to become a boosting, hustling, wide-awake, lively metropolis, DON’T VOTE FOR PERRY NEWPERRY.
In an effort to control the postwar building boom, Carmel re-established a new Planning Commission in 1946. The newly re-organized Commission was comprised of Bert Heron, former City Council member and mayor; Hugh Comstock, architect; Clara Kellogg, city trustee and cocreator of Devendorf Park; and Florence Josselyn, wife of Talbert Josselyn, a writer for the Saturday Evening Post.
57 All members were either part of the artistic element or were avid supporters of it. This group of individuals was responsible for codifying some of Carmel’s most recognized planning restrictions, including bans against billboards, electric signs, and displays over sidewalks; requirements for off-street parking at motels; a two-story building height limit and appropriate setback; a restriction against sidewalks in the residential districts; and the most notorious of all, an ordinance requiring a signed waiver for anyone wearing high-heeled shoes. In 1954 the Commission hired San Francisco planner Lawrence Livingston, Jr. to author a city plan, which he submitted in 1956. Highly controversial, the plan made such suggestions as eliminating
57 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992.
Attachment 2
30 vehicular traffic on Ocean Avenue to create space for an open-air pedestrian mall.58 After a series of revisions, the Carmel General Plan was adopted in 1957.
Throughout the history of the village, Carmelites have appreciated the urban forest and sought to preserve it. In 1945 a gentleman denied a request to cut down his tree sent a poem to the Monterey Peninsula Herald: “I asked them to cut down that tree; I was prepared for ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’; they answered me in one word – ‘nuts.’”59 Carmel formally declared its respect for local trees in the establishment of a forestry commission in 1958. Driven by the determination of council-member Gunnar Norberg, the Forest Commission took the responsibility of the City’s trees from the City Council and placed it in the hands of a forester. The city’s first forester, Robert Tate, was quoted as saying, “Without the trees, the city would be little different from many other coastal villages in California.”60
4.2 Public Services
Carmel’s early residents organized to provide themselves with local public services and utilities long before the community was incorporated. In addition to the more frequently recognized services discussed below, other important community infrastructure basics include sanitation and disposal services. In 1966 a new Public Works Department building was constructed at Junipero and Fourth Avenue.61
4.2.1 Communication
The history of postal service in Carmel began in 1889, when leather mail pouches were hauled over the hill from Monterey to a small building in Carmel Valley known as the White Oak Inn.
This arrangement was discontinued in April 1890. This post office was re-established in 1893, and there was an abortive attempt to move it in September 1903. At this time, Frank Powers traveled to Washington, D.C., where he successfully lobbied to have Carmel made the official post office for the area. The Carmel post office was finally established in December 1903. The first mail carrier was A.F. Horn, who carried the mail between Carmel and Monterey on a onehorse wagon, along with baggage express and passengers. Charles Goold, who owned a local stage and hauling company, eventually earned the contract to bring Carmel mail from Monterey.
Mail was distributed from Devendorf’s office at the general store and Devendorf’s brother-inlaw, Mr. J.P. Staples, handed out the mail. Mr. Williams, proprietor, acted as post-master until Louis Slevin had been a resident of Carmel for one year. Beginning with eight boxes, Slevin was Carmel’s first official postmaster, a position he held from 1904 to 1914. Slevein was followed by L. Payne, and Stella Vincent was postmaster from 1918 to 1929. Subsequent post office locations include Dolores near Seventh, where it moved in 1922; the southwest corner of Ocean and Mission in 1934; and the second building from the northeast corner of Dolores and Sixth. Since there was never door-to-door delivery, the post office, now located at the southeast corner of Fifth and Dolores, was, and still is, a favorite spot to meet and chat with friends. In 1951 the post office was moved to its current location on Fifth Avenue between Dolores and San Carlos. The building received an addition and doubled in size in 1957.62
58 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 59 Steve Hauk, “Carmel Determined to Keep its Charm,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 1 June 1970. 60 “Carmel Determined to Keep its Charm.”
61 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea from Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987. 62 Sharon Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, 1980.
Attachment 2
31 In the early days, Carmel residents devised a unique method of communication, described by Daisy Bostick and Dorothea Castelhun in Carmel at Work and Play. On an old board fence on Ocean Avenue, residents and visitors posted lost and found notices, announcements of meetings, help-wanted signs, advertisements, and bits of world news. One enterprising individual attached a pad of paper and a pencil with the command, “Leave your orders for wood here.” As the village developed, the bulletin board found new sites. It remained a community institution until recent years.
It was often said, “If you don’t hear about it on a trip to the bulletin board or the post office, you’ll read it in the Pine Cone.” The Pine Cone was established in 1915 by William Overstreet.
An ex-San Francisco news reporter, clerk and correspondent, he dreamed of owning his own newspaper. Beginning on a shoestring with a second hand press in the room behind the post office, the Pine Cone became the voice of the village. Although the newspaper has changed hands several times over the years, it continues today as Carmel’s primary news organ. There have been numerous competitors and other local news publications; however, none outlasted the Pine Cone. Examples include the Carmel News from 1914-1917; the Carmelite co-founded by Lincoln Steffens, lasted from 1925-1931; the Village Press from 1926 to 1935; and the Village Daily published from 1930 to 1935, to name a few.
The first telephone service in Carmel was the Sunset Telephone Company, established in 1903.
The Carmel Telephone Exchange was established in 1913 in a section of Blood’s Grocery on the corner of Ocean and Lincoln, with 35 customers. On April 13, 1917, a two-party telephone line was ordered by Carmel’s city government, one for the residence of the city marshal and one for the office of the clerk in City Hall. By 1928 there were 880 subscribers in the village. In 1949 a new telephone central office building was constructed on Sixth Avenue between Junipero and Mission Streets. The building housed equipment for a new dial telephone system.
4.2.2 Utilities
As in most frontier locations, water for domestic use was originally provided by individual wells.
Windmills and tank houses were common components of rural settlements during the early American period. In 1888, Wesley Hunter and his uncle Delos Goldsmith carried water from the Carmel River until a good well was dug. The first well in the city was on Carpenter near Ocean, but was too alkaline. The second, “Mary’s Well,” was at Guadalupe and Fifth. Water was piped to a windmill on Ocean Avenue where a tank supplied the Hotel Carmleo.
The Pacific Improvement Company constructed the first unit of the water system when they piped the spring at the head of Laguna Grande, which proved unsuccessful. The first reliable water was supplied by a pipeline from Carmel Valley, built to supply water to the Del Monte Hotel in Monterey and Lost Laureles Lodge, a spa in Carmel Valley. Water was supplied from the original San Clemente Dam built by 700 Chinese laborers in 1882-1883 under the supervision of William Hatton. After the dam was completed, a pipeline was constructed to a new reservoir in Pacific Grove. The Pacific Improvement Company laid a pipeline down Ocean Avenue. Those not connected to the pipeline drew water from the line and hauled it in barrels. The Carmel Water Works had a large holding tank during the early days, and there was a public water trough at Ocean and San Carlos.
In 1905, the Carmel Development Company installed its own water system, with a pump at the river to bring water into a large tank at Ocean Avenue and Mountain View. Horse drawn barrels allowed water to be brought to higher elevations. Later, the Monterey County Water Works took over water distribution. In 1935, the Monterey County Water System was owned and operated by Attachment 2
32 the California Water and Telephone Company, a private corporation serving Monterey, East Monterey, Del Monte, Carmel, Pebble Beach, and various Carmel Valley locations. Cal-Am (California-American) now supplies water to Carmel.
Electricity may have come to the area as early as 1894. Monterey Electric Light and Development Company organized in 1891 and extended lines into Pacific Grove in 1894.
However, Sharron Hale and other long time residents agree that electricity did not arrive in Carmel until 1914. In the early days, the merchants and developers in Carmel-by-the-Sea agreed that the village should grow slowly and gas and electricity should be “forbidden.” Gas service finally arrived in Carmel in 1930.
4.2.3 Health Care
Carmel’s first health care institution was a sanitarium operated by Dr. Himmelsbach. Opened in 1902, the Pine Sanitarium was located in his parent’s home on the northeast corner of Dolores and Ninth. A second facility, Carmel Hospital, was established in 1927, the brainchild of Edith Ballou Shuffelton, a graduate of the nursing school at Stanford. Shuffelton persuaded individuals to donate funds for a facility to meet the general medical needs of the community. Located in Carmel Woods, the hospital was designed by Robert Stanton and built by Michael J. Murphy. In a matter of a few years, however, the facility proved to be inadequate. The equipment was sold to the Monterey Peninsula Community Hospital and the building converted to the Forest Lodge apartments.
The Metabolic Clinic was founded in 1928 by Grace Deere Velie Harris, an heir to the John Deere Tractor fortune. This clinic conducted research on the blood disease from which Harris suffered. Unfortunately, Harris died before the facility was completed in 1930. The Clinic was dissolved in 1934 and the structure became the Monterey Peninsula Community Hospital on Highway 68. Community Hospital had formed in 1934 and was located in the former Metabolic Clinic on Valley Way and Highway 1. When Community Hospital moved into its modern facility outside of the Carmel city limits, the building was transformed into a convalescent home (the Carmel Convalescent Hospital).
In the 1950s Samuel F.B. Morse donated twenty-two acres for the relocation of the Community Hospital of Monterey County. Famed modernist, Edward Durell Stone, received the commission for its design. The new hospital opened on 28 June 1962 and received many awards for its progressive design. The hospital was the first in the country to offer private rooms to all its patients. The hospital cost $3.5 million, two-thirds of which was donated by the community.63 As stated above, the hospital is outside the boundaries of the City of Carmel, but it does serve the city’s residents.
4.2.4 Fire and Police Departments
A group of twenty citizens, led by Robert Leidig, established a volunteer fire department in 1908.
Equipment was stored in a tent on the southwest corner of San Carlos and Sixth and in a garage still standing at Santa Fe and Fourth streets. The Citizen’s Fire Protection Committee organized to raise funds for a proper fire engine and a permanent fire company in 1915. The equipment was kept in a building contributed by the Carmel Development Company. When the city incorporated the following year, the fire protection service became the responsibility of the city. In January
63 “Our History,” Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula Online, 2008.
Attachment 2
33 1917, the Fire Protection Committee reported to the City Council that the Monterey County Water Works would lay six-inch drain pipes down Ocean Avenue to Monte Verde, then down Monte Verde to Twelfth with necessary fire hydrants. In 1920, John Jordon, owner of the Pine Inn, donated the shed which housed McDonald’s Dairy on Sixth between San Carlos and Dolores.
Moved in 1936, this building is now at the old Thermotite site on the west side of Santa Fe and Third. Through the approval of a bond and a federal Works Project Administration grant, money was raised for a new firehouse in 1936. Completed in 1937, the new firehouse designed by Milt Latham was constructed of poured-in-place concrete faced with Carmel stone. The Carmel Fire Department underwent significant equipment upgrades in the 1950s and 1960s, including the installation of a radio system in 1958, a new ambulance, and in 1963, a La France Engine, which cost the city $27,000. The Fire Department celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 1965. Robert Leidig served as chief from 1925 to 1941; Vicente Torras from 1941 to 1956; and Robert E.
Smith from 1956 to 1965. 64
In 1948 Carmel’s police force was decidedly small and consisted of only eight men.65 In 1957, Carmel allocated a third of its budget toward policing the village, yet a newspaper from that year was quick to underscore that such a police force was unnecessary, as “almost nobody – and sometimes not even a few forgetful businessmen – lock their doors at night.”66 In 1967 a new police department station was completed at Junipero and Fourth Avenue, designed by Robert Jones.67 The new police station was designed and engineered for future construction of a City Hall, Council Chambers and City Offices. The Carmel Police Department was headed by Roy C.
Fraties from 1940 to 1950 and Clyde P. Klaumann from the 1950s to 1975.68
4.3 Educational and Religious Institutions
The Carmelo School District was established in the 1850s and served all the families in the Carmel Valley and beach area. The Bay School was established in 1879 on Joseph Gregg’s ranch at the mouth of San Jose Creek. The Sunset School, founded in 1904, was the first and only public school established in the village of Carmel.69 Children first attended classes in Delos Goldsmith’s shed with Mary Westphal as teacher. Increasing enrollment, however, created a need for larger quarters. Classes were temporarily moved to Michael J. Murphy’s lumber yard while plans were drawn for a two-room school house on the southeast corner of Ninth and San Carlos. Completed in 1906, the mission Revival style building held forty-eight students in eight grades during its first year. In late 1931, additional classrooms and an auditorium were built to accommodate the growing student body. During this time, older students attended high school in Monterey or Pacific Grove. Miss Emma Williams taught a private school at two sites from 1906 through the 1930s.
In 1938, the Sunset School District seceded from the Monterey Union School District. In 1938 a bond was issued for the construction of Carmel High School. Designed by acclaimed school
64 Sharon Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, 1980.
65 Elmont Waite, “The Cities of America: Carmel, California,” The Saturday Evening Post, 15 May 1948. 66 “This is Carmel 1957.”
67 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea from Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987. 68 Sharon Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, 1980.
69 State law at the turn of the century required that a school be formed when as many as seven children lived in a town. Sharron Lee Hale states on page 10 of her book, Tribute to Yesterday, that “Devendorf, who was in favor of beginning a school in Carmel, begged the Nortons to stay so that Mabel [their daughter] would make the seventh pupil the law required and he could have his school.” Attachment 2
34 designer Franklin & Kump Associates with Hugh Comstock, the high school was completed in two phases in 1939 and 1941.70 Though the high school is located across Highway 1 outside of Carmel’s city limits, the school’s progressive design is worth noting. Immediately after its construction, Carmel High School caught the attention of the national architectural community.
Pencil Points magazine raved in 1945, “Carmel High School deserves an exceptionally high rating.”71
By the 1940s Carmel School District had a population of 400 students.72 In 1947 four schools were listed in the city directory: Carmel High School, Sunset Grammar School, and Forest Hill School. In the mid to late 1950s, the district population rose to 1,081 students and was comprised of four schools, three of which were located outside Carmel’s incorporated boundaries.73 In 1953 two additional schools appeared in the city directory: Carmel Woods on Dolores near Vista and Carmel Pre-School on Santa Rita near Third Avenue. In 1958 two new schools appeared: Carmel River School on Fifteenth near Monte Verde and Carmel Art Institute on Ocean Avenue near Monte Verde.
The 1956 Plan for the Conservation and Enhancement of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Environs stated:
“The Sunset School buildings do not comply with earthquake resistance requirements of the State Law, and the site is substandard in size.”74 Soon thereafter, in the early 1960s, the district offered to sell the Sunset School to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. In 1964 the City Council voted to acquire the Sunset School with the intention of developing the complex into a cultural center.
The school cost $550,000 and was purchased in 1965 after passing a bond measure.75 Renamed the Sunset Center, it housed 733 in its auditorium and quickly became the Monterey Peninsula’s regional theater and the permanent home of the Bach Festival.
In the early 1960s the district covered more than 500 square miles and oversaw nine schools. In 1963 three new schools appeared in the city directory: Academy of Applied Osteopathy on Third Avenue near Carpenter; Bishop Kip School on Dolores near Ninth Avenue; and the Kramer School for Secretaries on Fifth near Mission.
As was the case with many early community institutions in Carmel, the first libraries were located in private homes. Mrs. Helen Jaquith operated the first library in Carmel out of her cottage.76 Beginning in 1904, she would receive books as gifts in exchange for lending privileges. The following year the Carmel Free Library Association was formed. The group, led by Frank Powers, dedicated itself to establishing a permanent public library by sponsoring fundraising events, expanding the collection of books, and attracting new members. In 1911 the group changed its name to the Carmel Library Association. Shortly thereafter, the Carmel Development Company donated a building for the library at Lincoln and Sixth. The box-like building resembled many of the small cottages built in Carmel during the period. Clad with Shingles, it was capped by a hipped roof with flared and extended eaves. The façade featured a central door flanked by bay windows. As the books in the library began to exceed capacity, funds were raised
70 The twenty-two acre campus of Carmel High School is actually located outside the city limits. 71 “Carmel High School, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.” Pencil Points, 1945. 72 Daisy Bostick, Carmel Today and Yesterday, 1945.
73 “This is Carmel 1957.”
74 Lawrence Livingston, Plan for the Conservation and Enhancement of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Environs, 1956.
75 Nancy Hills, “City Showed Foresight in Buying Sunset Center,” Carmel Pine Cone, 21 September 1989. 76 Dora Hagemeyer, a poet, operated the Woodside Library out of a cottage on San Carlos Street north of Fourth. It moved to Monte Verde in 1927 and eventually closed when the Harrison Memorial Library took root.
Attachment 2
35 to purchase the adjacent lot. In 1921, the existing building was relocated diagonally across Sixth Street, presumably to provide space to construct larger facilities. After the new library was completed, the old library building was remodeled for use by the Girl Scouts.
Ella Reid Harrison can be considered the most generous supporter of Carmel’s library. Harrison bequeathed a large portion of her estate, including bonds, land, books and furniture, to the city on the condition that they be used to build a public library in memory of her late husband. Designed and built by Michael J. Murphy in consultation with Bay Area architect Bernard Maybeck, the Ralph Chandler Harrison Memorial Library was completed in 1928. Located at the northeast corner of Ocean Avenue and Lincoln, the building is designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The L-shaped plan consists of two wings, one facing west and one facing south.
Characteristics of the style, the cross-gabled roof is covered with red tile, and the exterior walls are finished with smooth stucco. Arched, multi-paned windows allow sunlight to flood into the reading room in the south wing. The building was modernized in 1949 and 1976.
As Carmel was originally envisioned as a religious retreat for Catholics, it is not surprising that churches were some of the first community institutions to form. After the Mission was rededicated in 1884, Catholic services were once again held there. Other religious denominations in Carmel which can trace their roots back to the turn of the century include Christian Scientists, Methodists, and Episcopalians. These early congregations often held services in hotels, private homes, or out-of-doors.
In 1903, a group of Christian Scientists began to meet at the newly-built Pine Inn. That congregation eventually disbanded, but Christian Scientists continued to meet in each other’s homes on a more informal basis. Organized meetings commenced again in July 1913 in the Arts and Crafts Hall on Casanova Street between Eighth and Ninth avenues. The First Christian Scientists Society of Carmel incorporated in 1917. The following year a church was dedicated.
In 1936 a reading room was established on Ocean Avenue.77 The congregation relocated to a new building at Monte Verde between Fifth and Sixth avenues in 1950.
Methodists in the area began to meet under the trees on the corner of Dolores and Sixth in 1904.
James Devendorf hired the Reverend George Clifford as pastor of the congregation, and donated two lots on Lincoln near Ocean for a Mission Revival style church which was dedicated in 1905.
As the congregation grew so did the need for larger quarters. In 1926 Michael J. Murphy constructed a new room for Sunday services, a kitchen, and a recreation hall. In 1940 the name of the church was changed to the Carmel Community Church, and a new building at Lincoln and Seventh was dedicated. Designed by Robert Stanton, the new church was a single stuccoed mass under a front-facing gabled roof. The name of the church changed again in 1947 to the Church of the Wayfarer. The Church of the Wayfarer celebrated its sixtieth anniversary in 1964 with a membership of 529.78
The Carmel Presbyterian Church was founded on 3 January 1954 by Dr. Harry Clayton Rogers.
Arriving in Carmel in 1953 to retire after forty-two years in ministry service, Dr. Rogers soon realized the need for a Presbyterian church. On 14 November 1953, the first service was held in the Carmel Women’s Club. Located on Mountain View and Junipero, the Carmel Presbyterian Church building was dedicated on 11 September 1955. President and Mrs. Dwight D.
77 The Christian Science Reading Room is now located at the church on Lincoln near Sixth. 78 “Celebrate Oldest Protestant Church in Carmel,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, n.d.
Attachment 2
36 Eisenhower attended services on 26 August 1956. An educational building and parking lot were added in 1964.79
An Episcopalian congregation had been meeting at various locations since 1907. In 1910 the Reverend E.H. Maloney, the rector of St. Mary’s-by-the-Sea in Pacific Grove, began to hold services in the basement of the Pine Inn. Soon a committee was created to raise funds for a church. Devendorf donated two lots for the church that later were exchanged for ones on Monte Verde. Completed in 1913, All Saints Church was designed by Albert Cauldwell, a San Francisco architect, and built by Michael J. Murphy. Eventually, Reverend Darwell was hired as the full-time minister. In July 1948 retired U.S. Navy officer, M. R. Allen, launched a buildingfund campaign for a new church at the southwest corner of Dolores and Ninth. All Saints’ Episcopal Church commissioned famed local Modernist Robert R. Jones to design the building and charged preeminent landscape architect Thomas Church with the design of the patio and terrace.
The groundbreaking was celebrated on 5 February 1950, and the church was completed in 1951.
The next year, Architect and Engineer magazine devoted six pages to new building, writing: “… the All Saints’ Episcopal Church…is a unique blending of traditional church structure features and modern church design.”80 Constructed of Carmel stone and redwood, the church served a membership of 600 into at least the 1960s. In 1960 Jones designed an auditorium addition at the south end of the church site. In 1961 the church formed the Bishop Kip Day School under direction of headmaster, Rev. Peter Farmer.81 The old All Saints’ church on Monte Verde was purchased for use as City Hall in 1949.
“White Cedars,” the home of Mrs. M.E. White on the corner of Ninth and Dolores was the site of the founding of the Carmel Missionary Society in 1907 by the auxiliary of the San Jose Presbyterian Society. The Missionary Society built a chapel in 1911, which it occupied until 1951. Located on the southeast corner of Dolores and Eighth, the chapel was also used by the local Chinese. White Cedars was purchased by All Saints Church in 1946, when it was moved to become the home of Rev. Seccombe, All Saints’ new pastor.
4.4 Social and Recreational Institutions
From its earliest days, Carmelites took their playing very seriously. Undoubtedly, the informal atmosphere, the pleasant weather, and the beautiful scenery promoted the casual lifestyle and the enthusiastic participation of the residents in a wide variety of social and recreational activities. In 1911, James Devendorf in the Carmel Development Company brochure extolled the opportunities for swimming, fishing, hiking, and riding in the area. Local shopkeepers felt free to put up a “gone fishing” sign anytime the mood struck. In addition to fishing, swimming, and picnics on the beach there were also more organized opportunities that played important roles in the social life of Carmelites. Many of these organizations also contributed to the arts and cultural development of the community, and will be discussed in Chapter 6.
The Bathhouse, completed in 1889, was probably the first of the recreational institutions constructed in Carmel. Besides providing towel and suit rentals to sea bathers, it was the site for many club meetings, dances, and church outings. In 1906, James Machado opened the Carmel Bowling Alley on Ocean Avenue, which also offered “Pool, Cigars, and Tobacco.” Formed in
79 “Carmel Presbyterian Church Completes 1st Decade,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 23 March 1964. 80 “All Saints’ Episcopal Church: Carmel-by-the-Sea, California,” Architect and Engineer, December 1952. 81 “All Saints Church Grew With Carmel,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 23 March 1964.
Attachment 2
37 1905, the Manzanita Club was responsible for bringing the first moving pictures to Carmel in 1916. The club was incorporated in 1925 and the clubhouse was constructed in 1926. The Manzanita Club was responsible for many plays, outdoor athletic events, and a summer camp.
The Arts and Crafts Club sponsored festivals, parades, street fairs, and fundraisers such as the Dutch Market and Sir-Cuss Day. These events were enjoyed by all segments of the community— artists, writers, craftsmen, business owners, police and firemen, and their families.
Carmel’s first and only golf course was located south of the village on Point Loeb (Carmel Point).
Designed by Philip Wilson, who settled in Carmel in 1905, the golf course was abandoned during World War I. Wilson also kept a fleet of 20 rowboats that he rented to tourists during the spring and summer months. After the first World War, informal softball games were organized and played at a rough field on Carmel Point near Inspiration Avenue. The games led to the formation of the Abalone League in 1921, the first softball league in the western United States. Whole families joined in the Sunday double-headers. League rules required that at least one woman and one child be on each team. In time the league moved its games to Tortilla Flat in Carmel Woods at a triangular shaped area bordered by Camino del Monte, Serra, and Portola. The league lasted until 1938.
Clubs organized for young people included the Carmel Boys Club, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts. The Boy Scouts in Carmel began with a visit from Sir Baden-Powell in 1910. BadenPowell stayed at the Presidio of Monterey and bivouacked with a group from the presidio and some of the members of the Boys Club of Carmel. All the boys and their leader, John Neikirk, became official scouts, with the help of Douglas Greeley, Sr. and Fred Leidig. The Scouts raised funds to build a clubhouse at Mission and Eighth. The clubhouse was built M.J. Murphy.
According to city directories, local Boy Scout Troop 86 was active through at least the early 1960s and still based in the same clubhouse. Organized by Mrs. Eva Douglass in 1922, Carmel’s Girls Club specialized in cooking and other homemaking activities. In 1923, this group officially became Carmel’s first Girl Scout Troop. City directories list the a “Girl Scout House” on the corner of Sixth and Lincoln which served as home for the Scouts in the 1950s and 1960s.82 Nurtured for many years by artists Josephine Culbertson and Ida Johnson, the Boys Club provided opportunities for boys to learn parliamentary law, hear interesting talks from learned men who were visiting in the area, as well as hiking, camping, and picnics on the beach. The Carmel Youth Center was established in October 1949 and received a home soon thereafter.
Designed by architect Robert Jones, construction began on the Carmel Youth Center in 1949.
The idea for the Youth Center was conceived by Bing Crosby, then a resident of Pebble Beach.
Crosby was responsible for the organization of over 200 private non-profit youth centers across the country. Of all Crosby’s operations, the Carmel Youth Center is the sole remaining privately operated outfit.83 The Youth Center is still extant on the corner of Fourth and Torres and in operation today.
The Carmel Women’s Club was an outgrowth of informal salons held in the home of Anne Martin on Mission and Eleventh. Martin, a suffragette who ran for senate in 1918 and was Vice Chair of the National Woman’s Party, moved to Carmel in the early 1920s.84 Martin was a friend of Mary Austin and Carol Steinbeck. Immediately after her arrival, Martin’s home became the
82 Polk City Directory.
83 From “A Brief History of the Carmel Youth Center” distributed at the Anniversary Open House on 26 April 2008.
84 “Nevada Woman to Run for Senate,” New York Times, 4 March 1918.
Attachment 2
38 center for Carmel’s nexus of progressive women. Martin served as the western regional director for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom from 1926 through 1931, provoking discussions of local concerns, including spillage of sewage into Monterey Bay, unnecessary tree cutting, poor city planning policies, and the killing of local wildlife.85 The Carmel Women’s Club was officially founded in the 1940s. The Carmel Women’s Club entertained local women with card games, reading groups, cocktail parties, and afternoon teas.86 The Women’s Club building is located at San Carlos and Ninth Avenue and the club continues to meet.
The American Legion Post 512 was organized after World War II in 1948 and set up its hall in the former Manzanita Club on Dolores and Eighth Avenue. The Legion Post 512 hall is still extant and the organization is active.
Additional benevolent or civic organizations active between 1940 and 1965 include the following: Carmel Masonic Club on Lincoln between Seventh and Eighth Avenue; Catholic Daughters of Carmel in Court Number 1496 on Sixth and Lincoln; American National Red Cross on Dolores near Eighth; Carmel Foundation on Lincoln near Eighth Avenue; Carmel Lodge Number 680 on Lincoln near Seventh Avenue; Carmel Lions Club on Dolores near Ocean Avenue; and Carmel Rotary Club on Camino Real and Eighth Avenue.
Artistic organization in operation between 1940 and 1965 were: Artists Guild of America, Inc. on Monte Verde and First; Cherry Carl Foundation on Guadalupe near Fourth Avenue; Carmel Craft Studios, Inc. on San Carlos near Ocean Avenue; Monterey Peninsula Chapter of the American Federation of Arts on Lincoln near Ocean Avenue; and Carmel Bach Festival, Inc. on San Carlos near Ocean Avenue.
Business-related operations active after 1940 were the Carmel Board of Realtors on Sixth near Lincoln Avenue and the Carmel Business Association based in City Hall. Social clubs consisted of the Carmel Pistol Club on San Carlos near Ocean Avenue, Cypress Club on Lincoln near Seventh Avenue, and the High Twelve Club on Lincoln near Seventh Avenue. The sole religious organization listed in city directories was the International Association of Religious Science Churches on Lincoln near Seventh Avenue.
4.5 Associated Resource Types
4.5.1 Identification
The following property types have been identified with the context of Government, Civic and Social Institutions:
Properties associated with civic and public services
Schools and churches
Social and recreational property types
4.5.2 Description
Properties associated with civic and public services
85 John Thompson, “Turn-of-the-Century Feminist: Anne Martin,” (accessed online) 2006. 86 Daisy Bostick, Carmel Today and Yesterday, 1945.
Attachment 2
39 This property type includes buildings and other resources that have served public functions.
Examples may include buildings that served as City Hall, post offices, library, police departments and firehouses. Also included here would be other resources that represent public works and services. Resources associated with this theme also include the homes of individuals who played significant roles in civic affairs or were employed in positions that influenced the development of the city. Such individuals would include, for example, mayors and council members, city attorneys, the Chief of Police, Fire chief, postmaster or mistress.
Newspapers also played an important role in civic development. The Pine Cone has had a continuing role in reporting local events, as well as taking editorial stands on the development of community character. Competing, although shorter lived, newspapers were important in that they often presented views in opposition to the Pine Cone’s editorial position on civic issues.
Resources include not only buildings where newspapers had their offices and printing facilities, but also the homes of newspaper editors or publishers.
Utilities, whether private or public, are resources associated with this theme. Resources that represent the development of water management, electrical and gas service, and waste management are important in the full understanding of a community’s history. Resources associated with the development of communication include telephone and telegraph services, as well as post offices and newspapers.
Health care is also an important aspect of community development. Associated resources include hospitals, clinics, sanitariums. Resources also include the homes or offices of prominent local physicians, dentists, and other types of health care providers.
Schools and churches
A number of schools and churches were established in Carmel before 1940. Resources in this category include surviving residences or buildings that were used as schools, as well as buildings specifically constructed to serve as private and public schools. Also included are resources that represent particular developments in the history of local education, such as kindergartens, nursery schools, the Arts and Craft summer school programs. The Sunset School, opened in 1906 and now part of the Sunset Center, is a significant resource associated with this theme.
Churches and resources associated with religious institutions include Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel, previously discussed in Chapter 2, as well as churches established since 1903, such as the Christian Science Church, All Saints Episcopal Church, the Church of the Wayfarer and the Presbyterian Church. In addition to church structures, buildings that served other religious functions or served as residences for the pastor should be considered under this property type.
Social and recreational property types
The people of Carmel led active social lives and were involved in a variety of community activities. This property type would include buildings that served as club houses or that were associated with important social events that are not included under other contexts. This property type would also include resources associated with recreational and athletic activities. Certainly, this would include any extant resources associated with the Abalone softball league.
Attachment 2
40 4.5.3 Significance
From its inception the residents of Carmel were active in the civic, educational and social life of the community. Property types associated with this theme are important in reflecting this aspect of the community’s character. The significance of these resources would depend not only on the association with significant aspects of community life and its high degree of integrity, but also on the quality of the impact the activity had on the social life of Carmel residents.
5.0 Architectural Development in Carmel (1888-1965)
5.1 Environmental and Cultural Influences on Architecture Carmel is located in the angle formed by two ranges of hills, one running in a generally east-west direction, forming the backbone of the Monterey peninsula, and the other at a right angle to it, forming the natural barrier between the Carmel Bay and the Carmel River (Rio Carmelo). In this angle a forest of pine trees has grown. East of the town along the Carmel River lies the Carmel Valley, a strip of rich alluvial soil thirty miles long and from one-half to two miles wide. West of the town is the Pacific Ocean, the water of which is rarely colder than fifty-five degrees nor warmer than sixty-five degrees. The Carmel Valley acts as an equalizing factor by furnishing currents of warmer or cooler air whenever the land and ocean temperatures differ. For that reason Carmel’s temperature is moderated to a range of twenty degrees lower or higher than the ocean’s temperature.
Carmel as viewed by Spanish explorers or even as observed later by European settlers differs significantly from today’s landscape. The most obvious sign of human intervention, of course, is the town itself. Devendorf inherited Duckworth’s county-approved map of Carmel City with its conventional grid pattern. He continued to use it, but did not hesitate to curve roads around trees or topographical features in later additions. His respect for the natural environment was in contract to many developers who flattened hills and cleared trees. Devendorf also encouraged the planting of trees so much that an illusion has been created of an area more wooded that originally.
A reporter for the Oakland Tribune described how Devendorf “drove up and down and crosswise in a buggy drawn by a white horse, planting trees as he went along. When he sold a lot, he threw in a few trees for good measure. If he actually got cash for the lot—which rarely happened—the buyer might have had a whole grove presented to him as a bonus.”87 Early photographs show open meadows or coastal scrub with few trees west of Monte Verde except in natural canyons or near water courses. The efforts of Devendorf and others who followed have created a more forested character for Carmel-by-the-Sea.
The other important influence in the development of Carmel was the Arts and Crafts Movement.
A reaction against the impersonal production of the Industrial Revolution and the loss of pride of craftsmanship, the movement had its roots in England during the last half of the nineteenth century reaching its zenith in 1888 when the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society was founded in London by the young members of the Royal Academy. These individuals were frustrated by the institutional definition of art in terms of the fine arts only, relegating the applied and decorative arts to a position of second place.
87 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, p. 69.
Attachment 2
41 In the United States, the Arts and Crafts Movement gained momentum from the 1893 Colombian World’s Exposition in Chicago, which preceded an expansion of trail-blazing developments in building techniques. After 1893 dozens of arts and crafts societies were formed across the nation.
The years between the Pan-American Exposition and the outbreak of World War I, 1901-1916 are often referred to as the “Craftsman Movement.” The movement was named after the Craftsman magazine, which was the voice of a generation of designers who established a severe geometric style of furniture and ornamentation and the rise of the Prairie school of architecture.
Architecture in California, moving away from the Queen Anne style of the late Victorian period, was seeing the influence of young eastern architects. Ernest Coxhead and his young protégé, Bernard Maybeck, were designing simple, shingle-clad houses in San Francisco and Berkeley.
Dedicated to the work of Maybeck, Charles Keeler wrote in The Simple Home in 1904, “The ideal home is one in which the family may be most completely sheltered to develop love, graciousness and individuality, and which is at the same time most accessible to friends, toward whom hospitality is as unconscious and spontaneous as it is abundant.”88 This statement surely describes Carmel’s architecture and society during this formative period.
By the 1940s, Carmel was comprised of a conglomeration of architectural styles, and the village was known world-wide for the uniqueness of its building stock. Yet, despite a history of local acceptance of designs wrought by quirky individualism, the Modern movement was initially met with resistance. By 1950 Modern architectural styles had gained enough visibility in Carmel to draw both scorn and acclaim from village citizens. A press release from September of that year summarized the extent of the distaste for the movement in its title, “Modern Style in Carmel Brings Cries of Anguish.”89 Even local poet, Robinson Jeffers, chimed in: “Motors and modernist houses usurp the scene.”90 Those who were accustomed to Carmel’s distinctive pitched roofs and vernacular construction considered the horizontality and manufactured materials of the Modern design vocabulary an affront to tradition. Merchants, especially, were hyper-conscious of the power that story-book-style buildings had in luring tourists through their doors; to these shopkeepers, Modern architecture was a potential impediment to business.
Conversely, in the spirit of a village known for avant-garde thought, many residents welcomed the novelty and ingenuity of Modern buildings. To these residents, the practical functionality and minimalism of designs provided a welcome respite from the buildings that dated to earlier periods in Carmel’s history. Either way, Modernism was triumphant, as Carmel saw the construction of an incalculable number of Modern-style buildings between the years of 1940 and 1965.
5.2 Geographic Development and Expansion
As related in Chapter 3, Carmel City was the vision of Santiago Duckworth who purchased part of Las Manzanitas Rancho from Honoré Escolle in 1888. Located in the northeastern portion of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Duckworth subdivided 164 acres bounded by Monte Verde, Pescadero Canyon and First Street, Monterey Street, and Ocean Avenue. In 1902, Devendorf and Powers took over the unsold land from Duckworth and formed the Carmel Land Company, which resubdivided the Carmel City tract. Powers also brought up a number of adjoining tracts owned by Honoré Escolle, V.D. Moody, portions of the Mission Ranch from the Martin heirs, the P.H.
Sheridan property, 702 lots from Dr. Saunders, and land previously owned by the San Francisco Pacific Glass Works.
88 Keeler is quoted in Robert Judson Clark’s The Arts and Crafts Movement in America 1876-1916, p. 81. 89 “Modern Style in Carmel Brings Cries of Anguish,” 9 September 1950. 90 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992.
Attachment 2
42 The early subdivision maps greatly influenced the later character of Carmel. The grid overlaid slope, canyons, and forests with the long axis of the blocks offering the small lots exposure to the sun which contributed to the popularity of residential patios and outdoor living. People often purchase multiple lots, and lot lines were adjusted to fit the topography and the trees. Drainage systems and street layout was all done in a non-urbanized, environmentally friendly way.
In the 1920s, many cities across the nation responded to the City Beautiful Movement by instituting city planning measures. Having formed a Planning Commission in 1922, Carmel was in the forefront of this movement. The original members of this commission were Dr. Alfred Burton, Susan Creighton, Tomas B. Reardon, Charles Sumner Green, and Jessie A. Botke. In 1923, the first rudimentary zoning ordinances were passed by the city. The city adopted its first comprehensive zoning ordinance on March 2, 1925, which was the first ordinance to prohibit most non-residential uses from the residential zone. At this time fewer than 500 cities in the country had adopted zoning ordinances and it was not until 1926 that zoning was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 5, 1929, a new simpler zoning plan was adopted that began with the now famous preamble by City Attorney Argyll Campbell: “The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is hereby determined to be primarily, essentially, and predominantly a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, and now, and are proposed to be in the future, subordinated to its residential character.” This ordinance defined the commercial district and helped shape and sustain Carmel’s unique character.
As the population of the town increased, the lands adjoining the original subdivisions were supplemented by a number of additions made between 1905 and 1922:
Addition #1, 1905, generally bounded by Monte Verde Street, Santa Lucia Avenue, San Antonio Avenue, and Ocean Avenue (formerly the Sheridan property) Addition #2, 1916 (surveyed 1906), bounded by Mission Street, Santa Lucia Avenue, Casanova Street, and Twelfth Avenue (the northern portion of John Martin’s Mission Ranch)
Addition #3, 1907, bounded by Monte Verde Street, Ocean Avenue, San Antonio Avenue, and Second Avenue (a portion of the Murphy ranch purchased by Powers in 1904)
Addition #4, 1908, generally bounded by Junipero Avenue, Third Avenue, Monte Verde Street, and a zig-zag line beginning at the intersection of Monte Verde and Second and continuing northeast in block increments to Alta Avenue Addition #5, 1910, known as the Eighty Acres, generally bounded by Forest Road, Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues, Junipero Avenue, and Ocean Avenue Addition #6, 1910, bounded by San Antonio Avenue, Santa Lucia Avenue, Scenic Road, and Eighth Avenue
Addition #7, about 1911, part of the Martin Ranch that included Point Loeb (Carmel Point), bounded by Carmelo, Santa Lucia, and Scenic Drive (outside Carmel’s southern city limits)
Addition #8, 1922, generally bounded by San Antonio Avenue, Eighth Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, and Ocean Avenue
Other subdivisions included Paradise Park, between Forest Avenue and the City limits, which was subdivided in 1918 but remained undeveloped until the 1940s. Del Monte Properties opened the Carmel Woods area for development in the 1920s. The Walker Tract adjacent to the Eighty Acres was subdivided in the 1920s.
Attachment 2
43 On 3 September 1950 the City Council purchased from private owners the beach and lagoon that stretched from the end of the city limits to the Carmel River.91 A resource for tracking development patterns is Sanborn Fire Insurance maps published by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. In addition to earlier maps, Carmel was surveyed by the Sanborn Company in 1930 and 1962. For the most part, the areas to the east of Junipero were not surveyed by the Sanborn Company; the exception was a rectangular section bounded by Third to the north, Ninth to the south, Junipero to the west and Guadalupe to the east. Despite the thirtytwo-year gap, a comparison of the two maps is important in understanding how the city grew during those three decades. In 1930, most blocks were only partially developed, with the exception of the Ocean Avenue commercial district where nearly all parcels contained a building.
The 1922 subdivision north of Third Avenue was the least developed, with an average of seven residences per block. The residences north of Ocean Avenue were generally small, square or rectangular dwellings of a single story in height. South of Ocean, the residences were larger and had more irregular footprints.
Remarkably, the majority of homes extant in 1931 were still standing in 1962. Approximately sixty-seven residential buildings and twenty-five commercial or institutional buildings disappeared, either through demolition or accidental loss – a very low average for such a lengthy span of time. Most of the residences were located near Ocean Avenue and were replaced by commercial buildings. Equally notable, Carmel experienced vigorous development during this period with the addition of over six-hundred residences. In 1962 almost every parcel was developed, and many parcels had been subdivided to allow the construction of additional residences. The subdivision north of Third Avenue was still sparsely developed and the parcels were generally larger than those in other areas. Many new residences were constructed with detached guest houses or outbuildings.
5.3 Builders and Architects
The tradition of designer-builders began with Delos Goldsmith, who was responsible for the construction of many of the builders in Carmel before the turn of the century. However, M.J.
Murphy and Hugh Comstock were responsible for giving Carmel its unique architectural character.
When Devendorf and Powers took over the development of Carmel, prefabricated cottages from San Francisco were offered as a low-cost housing alternative. After materials for one hundred cottages failed to show up in 1904, Devendorf hired Michael J. Murphy to take charge of the building for the Carmel Development Company. Murphy went on to become the most prolific designer-builder in the history of Carmel, with the Pine Inn, Highlands Inn, La Playa Hotel, Sundial Lodge, Tor House, Harrison Memorial Library, several notable commercial buildings, and about 350 houses to his credit. It is estimated that about 80% of the homes in Carmel were designed or constructed by Murphy by the 1930s. Never a proponent of a particular style, Murphy designed buildings to suit his client’s taste, often in currently popular styles. His earliest homes were late Victorian cottages and Craftsman bungalows. Born June 26, 1885, in Minden, Utah, Murphy first came to Carmel on visit in 1900. In 1914 he established M.J. Murphy Inc., an enterprise which sold building supplies, provided rock crushing services and concrete work, and operated a lumbermill and cabinet shop located between San Carlos and Mission. When Murphy retired in 1941, Carmel lost its first and most important master builder.
91 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea from Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987.
Attachment 2
44 Hugh Comstock developed the “Fairy Tale” style with which Carmel has become closely identified. Born in Evanston, Illinois, in 1893, Comstock moved to Santa Rosa with his family in 1907. In 1924, he came to Carmel to visit his sister, artist Catherine Seideneck, where he met and married Mayotta Brown. The newlyweds decided to remain in Carmel where Mayotta had a successful doll-making business. Comstock’s career as a designer-builder began when his wife asked him to build a cottage for her dolls. The “Doll’s House” became the first of many Fairy Tale style cottages he would design and build. Several commercial buildings, including the Tuck Box on Dolores and the old Monterey County Trust on Dolores near Seventh (now the China Art Building), remain as good examples of his work. Comstock also designed buildings in many of the traditional styles of the 1920s and 1930s. After World War II, Comstock developed the postadobe system of construction, which he described as “simplified adobe construction combining a rugged timber frame and modern stabilized adobe.”92 Though never having received a degree in architecture, Comstock was described by the Monterey Peninsula Herald as one of Carmel’s most influential architects.93
Carmel’s most famous resident architect, Charles Sumner Greene, who made significant contributions to California architecture in the early part of the century, moved to Carmel in 1916.
Greene, along with his brother Henry Mather Greene, established the architectural firm of Greene and Greene in Pasadena in 1893. Together, the brothers developed and refined the Craftsman style of architecture into high art. When Daniel L. James engaged the Greenes in 1914 to design a home on a rocky bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean south of Carmel, Charles Greene took charge of the commission. A year later he began a gradual withdrawal from the firm and eventually made Carmel his permanent residence. After building his own home and studio on Lincoln Street, Greene worked on commissions in Pebble Beach and the Fleishacker house in Woodside. He did the extensive remodeling of Spindrift, the Martin Flavin house in Carmel Highlands, and on several homes in Carmel, since demolished. Greene also designed the War Memorial Arch on Ocean Avenue at San Carlos.
Robert Stanton was one of the few academically trained architects to practice in Carmel. A graduate of the University of California School of Architecture, he designed many notable buildings in the Monterey and Santa Cruz areas. He was born in Torrance, California, and worked for the architect Wallace Neff as a traveling superintendent until 1934. At that time, he moved to Pebble Beach, having developed a liking for the area during his honeymoon at the Highland Inn twelve years earlier. Establishing his office in Carmel on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ocean, his first local commission was the Salinas County Courthouse in 1935. He also designed sixteen hospitals and forty schools. His projects in Carmel include the Normandy Inn and All Saints Episcopal Church. His office later became Merle’s Treasure Chest on the southeast corner of Lincoln and Ocean.
Other builders and contractors included Artie Bowen, George Mark Whitcomb, A.C. Stoney, Meese and Briggs, Percy Parkes, Fred Bigland, Lee Gottfried, and Donald Hale. Dene Denny and Hazel Watrous constructed seven houses in Carmel Woods. Most of the builder/designers lived in Carmel and were also active in other aspects of the village’s development. Prominent architects who worked in Carmel include C.J. Ryland, who designed the Sunset Center, Milton Latham, Albert Farr, Mark Daniels, Guy O. Koepp, Bernard Maybeck, Willis Polk, and William Wurster.
92 Hugh W. Comstock, Post-Adobe.
93 Dorothy Stephenson, “Carmel’s Architecture Both Interesting and Livable,” 1 June 1970.
Attachment 2
45 As a strong testament to the prominence of the Modernist architectural idiom that emerged in Carmel in the post-war era, some of the movement’s most recognized names designed buildings locally. Frank Lloyd Wright designed a house on the coast for Mrs. Clinton (Della) Walker in 1954. Premier Bay Region architect, Gardner A. Dailey designed a home for himself on Ocean and Forest Road in 1945. William Wurster of San Francisco firm Wurster Bernardi and Emmons designed the Nelson Nowell House on Scenic between Tenth and Eleventh in 1947-48 and the Dr.
Albert K. Merchant House on Scenic and Eleventh in 1961-62. Though not necessarily recognizable on the national stage, architects well-regarded in California also designed buildings in Carmel. Albert Henry Hill, promoter of the Second Bay Region Tradition, designed multiple homes in Carmel, including the following: the Chazen Residence on Scenic between Ocean and Eighth in 1948; a second house for himself and his family on Lopez Avenue in 1961; the Mr. and Mrs. Irving Fisk House on Lopez in 1961 (with partner John Kruse); the Vivian Homes House on Mountain View and Santa Fe in 1962 (with John Kruse); and the Vivian Homes II House on Torres and Ninth in 1963. Mark Mills, a Taliesin Fellow in the 1940s, designed the Mills House on Mission and Thirteenth in 1952-53; the Walker Spec House on Rio Road and Junipero in 1951-52; and the Mr. and Mrs. William Junk House on San Carlos and Thirteenth in 1965.
Additional notable architects who designed buildings in Carmel between 1940 and 1965 include Hugh Comstock, Jon Konigshofer, Clarence Mayhew, and Marcel Sedletsky.
Prominent architects and designers who worked in Carmel in the post-war era include Carl Bensberg, Will Shaw, Walter Burde, William L. Cranston and Thomas S. Elston, Olaf Dalhstrand, Gardner Dailey, Lee Gottfried, Roger Gottfried, Albert Henry Hill, James Heisinger, Sr., Robert Jones, Jon Konigshofer, Fred Keeble, Jack Kruse, Frank Lloyd, Rowan Maiden, Clarence Mayhew, Mark Mills, James Pruitt, Guy Rosebrook, Marcel Sedletsky, Edwin Snyder, Robert Stanton, Robert A. Stephenson, George Thomson, George Willox, Frank Wynkoop, and landscape architect Thomas Church.
Some architects spanned the pre- and post-war era such as William Wurster. This was also true for builder Miles Bain and contractor George Mark Whitcomb. Father and son, Richard Bixler and Ernest Bixler were prominent builder/contractors in Carmel in the 1940s and 1950s.
It is worthy of note that a number of prominent Carmelite architects, designers and builders created homes for themselves between 1940 and 1965, including Ernest S. Bixler, Gardner Dailey, Albert Henry Hill, Frank Lloyd, William A. Smith, Robert A. Stephenson, and Helen T.
Warren.
See Appendix 9.9 for biographical information on architects working in Carmel,1940-1965.
5.4 Architectural styles
Carmel is essentially a residential community with single family homes as the most prevalent property type. Residential neighborhoods surround the business district and display a wide architectural variety due to age, aesthetic and architectural preferences, lot size, building siting, and the subordination of buildings to nature. No tracts of similar homes were constructed in Carmel, and no one block was constructed in a single period of time. A taste for simplicity, often articulated by the use of shingles or board-and-batten siding, transcends the divisions of time and architectural fashions. Other features which regularly appear regardless of architectural style include “Dutch” doors, which can be opened on the top and left closed on the bottom, and the use of the local chalkrock or Carmel stone for chimneys, paving, garden walls, and exteriors. An adjunct to many houses figuring prominently in the streetscapes of Carmel is a detached single or Attachment 2
46 double garage, usually front-gabled, sided with board-and-batten, entered via an arched vehicular door, and set close to the street.
Many of the earliest homes built in Devendorf’s and Powers’ Carmel-by-the-Sea were one story cottages typical of turn of the century housing elsewhere in the country. A hipped roof and boxlike proportions are the hallmarks of this genre. They could be sided with narrow or medium clapboard, shingles, or clear heart redwood board and batten. Typical features include bay windows on the front or sides, porches attached to the façade or tucked into one corner, and double-hung or fixed sash windows with decorative patterns of muntins in the smaller upper sash.
Details of such cottages related them either to the Victorian era Queen Anne style, the Colonial Revival style (enclosed soffits, frieze and endboards) or the Craftsman style (exposed rafters in the eaves, tripartite windows). Turn of the century cottages of these types were built through the first decade of the twentieth century.
The Craftsman style was an expression of the philosophy of the Craftsman movement, with the American adaptation of the English Arts and Crafts Movement which had crystallized around William Morris in the second half of the nineteenth century. Popularized in this county with Gustav Stickley and his Craftsman magazine, and in California by the work of architects Greene and Greene, Craftsman homes were characterized by horizontality of proportions, seen in the spreading lines of low-pitched, overhanging gable roofs and informal building plans; reliance on the honest use of materials such as wood, brick, and stone and undisguised structural elements such as exposed beams, braces, and rafters for architectural beauty; and enjoyment of the natural setting through porches, outdoor spaces, and the clustering of windows into horizontal bands.
The architectural precedents for Craftsman homes were the wood traditions of Japan and India, as well as past styles such as the American Colonial and the English Tudor. Typical features of Craftsman homes in Carmel include stucco or shingled siding, “L: or “U” shaped plans which enclose a patio, and windows—either sliding, hinged casement, or double-hung sash in operation—which are framed by extended lintels and sills. The heyday of Craftsman building in Carmel lasted from about 1905 into the early 1920s.
Both the aesthetic characteristics of the Craftsman style, and its philosophic underpinnings, which linked it to progressive political, social, and artistic movements in the early twentieth century, made it popular with Carmel’s academic, literary, and artistic residents. The Craftsman style and the emerging popularity of architectural revivals, particularly those based on medieval England, set the stage for a burst of individualism and creativity in Carmel during the 1920s. Hugh Comstock, with his fanciful Tudor cottages, was the most visible manifestation of this period.
Steep gables, decorative half-timbering set on stuccoed surfaces, and diamond-paned windows were some of the characteristics of this deliberately picturesque mode of design. Some builders expressed themselves through their choice of materials—clothing an entire building in bark or the local Carmel stone—while others whimsically combined features associated with several styles on a single home to create a unique and eclectic whole. For example, heavy wooden lintels that suggest adobe construction would be incorporated into a home whose other details were derived from an English manor.
In the 1920s and 1930s a taste of revivalism in architecture swept the country. The English, French, Spanish, Italian, and early American countryside were explored for architectural inspiration. This fashion coincided in Carmel with an increase in building of summer homes by the well-to-do, as well as with new demands for traditional amenities by year-round residents.
Most of Carmel’s larger homes date from this era. English homes were inspired by a variety of precedents. Tudor homes were usually stuccoed, half-timbered, and gabled. Cotswold houses mimicked thatched roofs with rolled eaves and shingled surfaces. English Revival homes could Attachment 2
47 be sided with stucco, shakes, or even board and batten or Carmel stone and usually had at least one arched opening, often a front door. The French Revival could be distinguished from the English by the use of hipped roofs and the occasional incorporation of turreted bays. Spanish and Italian Revival houses adhered to the Mediterranean customs of stucco sheathing, tile roofs, and arched opening. American Colonial Revival homes could look to the Cape Cod tradition of New England, with side gabled volumes faced with shingles and pierced by a symmetrical arrangement or neatly framed opening. Regionally popular styles such as the Monterey Revival, usually recognized by a second story balcony across the façade, or the Pueblo Revival, characterized by flat-roofed, cubic massing, were also occasionally attempted.
Like elsewhere in Carmel, commercial buildings in the business district also displayed wide architectural variations. Generally, buildings are one to two stories in height and form contiguous streetfaces, interrupted by frequent courtyards. Intercommunication between courtyards is possible in several places. Commercial uses occupy the ground levels, with upper stories used more frequently for office or residential space. Window boxes, decorative paving, and other urban design amenities are frequently employed.
The oldest buildings in the business district, although remodeled, retain features associated with the Italianate and commercial falsefront styles typical of late nineteenth and early twentieth century American “Main Street” vernacular. These include second story bay windows, doublehung sash windows, remnants of board-and-batten and tongue-and-groove siding, quoins, and paneled and glazed doors. The building housing the Carmel Bakery, located on the south side of Ocean Avenue, exhibits these characteristics. However, it was the construction which took place under the influence of the architectural revivals of the 1920s which left the most lasting imprint on the character of the business district. Both the Spanish Colonial Revival and the Tudor Revival were employed. Beyond the usual Spanish stylistic trademarks of stuccoed exteriors or tiled roofs, the Spanish styled buildings feature ornate wrought iron and carved wood detailing, generous use of colorful glazed tile for staircase risers, dados, fountains, planters, and backsplashes, patios and courtyards spaces, arcades, and towers.
The typical Modern-style building in Carmel can be categorized as belonging to the Bay Region sub-style. This warmer and rustic variation of the colder and more austere Modern styles has been described under multiple labels: Bay Area, Bay Area Regionalism, San Francisco Bay Regionalism, Bay Region, post-war Bay Region and Bay Tradition. The style was not officially named until October 11, 1947, when Lewis Mumford, author of the New Yorker column Skyline, described a new phenomenon occurring on the West Coast:
I look for the continuous spread, to every part of our country, of that native and humane form of modernism, which one might call the Bay Region Style, a free yet unobstructed expression of the terrain, the climate, and the way of life on the Coast.94
In its infancy, Bay Region was little more than a movement or an “attitude” rather than a formal style. Architectural historian David Gebhard qualifies three loosely defined schools of the Bay Region style: The principle adherents of the First Bay Tradition (1890-1930) were A. Page Brown, Ernest Coxhead, Bernard Maybeck, Willis Polk, and John Galen Howard, among others.
The principals of the Second Bay Tradition (1930s-1959) were William Wurster, Joseph
94 David Gebhard, Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally Woodbridge. A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco & Northern California, 1973.
Attachment 2
48 Esherick, John Dinwiddie, and Gardner Dailey. Charles Moore and his contemporaries defined the Third Bay Tradition (1960 onward).95
The Bay Region style became somewhat formalized when this loosely-knit group of architects in California’s San Francisco Bay Area redefined Modern designs to include natural, local materials.
The plentiful stock of redwood in Northern California made this an obvious choice for structural and aesthetic elements. The result was a softer expression of Modernism that was sensitive to California’s unique natural setting, yet still incorporated key principles of the Modern movement, such as clean lines, strong horizontals, and open and airy designs. For proponents of Bay Regionalism, the site – topography, vegetation, viewshed – drove both the form and materials of the building. A Bay Region building was viewed as an organic extension of nature. Large expanses of glass window walls, sliding doors and partitions, and lofty ceilings allowed the outdoors to flow flawlessly into the interior living spaces. In a place like Carmel where the natural environment reigned supreme, the Bay Region was a perfect fit.
Bay Region buildings in Carmel share similar characteristics, such as irregular-shaped plans; sharp, angular forms and irregular massing; vertical board and batten, shiplap, or shingle cladding; local stone cladding; plate-glass window walls; skylights; flat, low-pitched gabled or shed, A-frame, or inverted, butterfly-shaped roofs; wind screens; terraces and decks; and ample gardens and garden courts. The use of traditional materials within a Modern architectural vocabulary is common. The integration of house, setting and landscape is a critical consideration.
Another variation of the Modern architectural style appeared in Carmel in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The Wrightian Organic style, not entirely different in principle from Bay Regionalism, was realized in Carmel by adherents of Frank Lloyd Wright. Mark Mills was a Taliesin fellow for four years. Albert Henry Hill, Rowan Maiden, Jon Konigshofer and Olaf Dahlstrand were all influenced by Wrightian methods. The most recognizable characteristic of Wrightian architecture found in Carmel were dramatic roof forms sheltering buildings constructed of natural materials.
Modern style homes in Carmel continued along a historical trend and were of modest size and massing; the houses generally contained a maximum of two bedrooms. Local author Daisy Bostick described the feeling toward Carmel architecture in the mid 1940s:
[The recently constructed houses] flagrantly proclaim their newness and are a matter of concern to some of the old-timers who regret the note of modernity insidiously being thrust upon us. But these new modern houses may become mellowed with time, the shrubbery and trees may soften the bright colors and sharp lines of the buildings and they will probably eventually fit better into the storybook quality of Carmel architecture.96
This appears to have been the case. In 1950, one visiting Iowan stated, the residences in Carmel were “low and unostentatious…dark, shrub-hidden.”97
According to local lore, the only way architects could usher their Modern designs through the approval process was to “dress up their rendering with knickknacks.”98 In 1954 Carmel’s
95 David Gebhard, Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally Woodbridge. A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco & Northern California, 1973. 96 Daisy Bostick, Carmel Today and Yesterday, 1945.
97 Harlan Miller, “Carmel, As Seen By Visiting Iowan,” Des Moines Register, 23 August 1950.
Attachment 2
49 building inspector, Floyd Adams, permitted thirty new homes and three residential [apartment] buildings that, along with multiple remodels, totaled $770,765 in building costs.99 Though Modern-style buildings were the most likely designs to appear between 1940 and 1965, other styles appeared as well. Notable examples include George Whitcomb’s Tudor Revival Etting House on Camino Real and Sixth Street that was designed in 1941. A Cape Cod bungalow at Carpenter and Fifth was designed in 1951. A post-adobe residence, the L.L. Spillers Guest Cottage at Third and Carpenter, was designed in 1951 by William Cranston. The Ranch-style Ernest Bixler House at Sixth and Forest was designed in 1954. The Spinning Wheel Restaurant on Monte Verde south of Ocean was designed in the Monterey Revival style in 1952.
Other Modern styles popular in Carmel in the post-war era include Minimal Traditional and Ranch. Also prolific throughout the rest of the country, these styles were used for houses that typically were relatively small, single story structures. The Minimal Traditional style (1935- 1950) emerged during the years of the Depression. Houses built in this style generally reflect traditional forms but lack decorative detailing or enrichment. Roof pitches tend to be low or intermediate rather than steep and eaves are close rather than overhanging. Built in great numbers before and after World War II, these houses are commonly built of wood, brick, stone or a mixture, as wall cladding materials.
Characteristics of the Ranch style ((1935-1975), which originated in California, include asymmetrical single-story forms with low-pitched roofs with a moderate or wide eave overhang and a modest amount of traditional detailing, typically decorative iron or wooden porch supports, ribbon windows and decorative shutters. Partially enclosed courtyards or patios, borrowed from Spanish house traditions, are a common feature. The private outdoor living areas to the rear of the house are a direct contrast to the large front and side porches of most late 19th and early 20th century styles. The style is loosely based on early Spanish Colonial precedents of the American Southwest modified by influences borrowed from Craftsman and Prairie modernism of the early 20th century.
5.5 Public and Domestic Landscaping
The garden was one of the most important contributions of the Arts and Crafts Movement to creating natural, unpretentious, and harmonious environments. According to the tenets of the movement, gardens were intended to express regional character, built from local materials and simple plants. They were meant to be used as outdoor rooms and places for growing productive plants. Ideally, Arts and Crafts garden had an irregular path system through the landscape and conformed with the natural topography avoiding trees and natural lock outcrops. Bernard Maybeck and Charles Sumner Greene were important exponents of this type of garden.
The influence of the Arts and Crafts movement combined with the Carmelites’ appreciation and enjoyment of the natural coastal environment is expressed in the prevalence of gardens, courtyards, and informally landscaped open space throughout the city. Most homes have some sort of outdoor living space, be it a paved terrace nestled between wings of the house or an area carpeted with pine needles set in amongst the trees. Pines, oaks, cypress, and other trees punctuate the lots, and flowers and vines grow, seemingly unchecked on and around them. No front lawns or sidewalks separate the properties from the streets; rather, garden fences of pickets,
98 “This is Carmel 1957, n. pag.
99 “This is Carmel 1957, n. pag.
Attachment 2
50 stakes, or stone blend in with the landscape. Since Carmel homes do not have addresses, signs with the owner’s or the house’s name are attached to fences, walls, or posts. Daisy F. Bostick and Dorothea Castelhun in their affectionate description of Carmel in 1925 state “The true Carmel garden knows no straight line nor conventional symmetry of arrangement.”100 Public landscaping projects were promoted by Devendorf and Powers. Powers was a nature lover who took delight in planting trees in the village and often made gifts of seedlings to friends.
Trees were not always planted in a random fashion, especially on commercial streets. In 1904, Devendorf had his Japanese work crew plant Monterey pine trees down the middle of Ocean Avenue and a boardwalk was built on both sides, affording some relief to shoppers from the dust in the summer and the mud in the winter. Two years later Scenic Road and San Antonio Avenue were planted with cypress trees. Devendorf also gave children a one-cent piece to plant seedlings.
In 1921, a group of prominent citizens lobbied the city to purchase 15 acres of dunes from James Devendorf to preserve it for the future. The price was set at $15,000 and the voters approved the purchase by the city. The purchase included the dunes and beach and Block 69, now Devendorf Park. For a considerable time Block 69 served a multitude of uses—polo field, horseshoe pit, campground, and fairground. Unfortunately, most of the time it was either a dust bowl in summer and a quagmire in winter. By 1928, it became apparent that beautification could be realized through the support of the clubs and organizations. The development of Devendorf Park was accomplished by the city in 1932.101
In the early 1940s, a City Council with a majority of Carmelites from the “artistic element” voted to abolish parking on the median of Ocean Avenue. Nationally renowned landscape architect Thomas Church redesigned the median with stone walls, shrubs, and flowers.102 One of the leading American modernist landscape architects active from the 1930s to the 1970s, Thomas Church is known for his pioneering modern garden designs that were appropriated to the local environment and climate. His design approach influenced the next generation of landscape architects, including Garrett Eckbo, Robert Royston, Lawrence Halprin, Theodore Osmundson, and Douglas Baylis, acknowledged as pioneers of the “California Style” of landscape design.103 Church was educated at the University of California and Harvard, where he became fascinated with issues of California’s climate and outdoor living. 104 By 1930 Church had established his own practice in San Francisco, the neoclassical style was the prevailing approach in landscape and city planning design. Church’s unique approach towards unifying building and landscape with particular attention towards climate context and lifestyle gave birth to modern landscape design and planning. Some of Church’s most notable works include the residential design of Donnell Gardens in Sonoma County, California, and the innovative middle-income housing development of Parkmerced in San Francisco. Church and William Wurster, of Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, were close friends and collaborated on many house and garden projects throughout their careers.105
100 Daisy F. Bostick and Dorothea Castelhun, Carmel at Work and Play, p. 30 101 Sharron Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, p. 55
102 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 103 Corbett, 19.
104 Marc Treib, editor. Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1992, 169.
105 Corbett, 12.
Attachment 2
51 5.6 Associated Resource Types
5.6.1 Identification
Within the context of Architectural Development in Carmel the following resource types have been identified:
Single family houses
Commercial buildings
Landscaping and public art
5.6.2 Description
Single family houses
Carmel had always been a residential community and has consciously resisted efforts to develop and urbanize in defiance of economic pressures. Therefore, a substantial percentage of Carmel’s residential properties were developed prior to World War II and will constitutes the bulk of the historically significant resources in the city. Described in detail in Section 5.4, architectural styles include the simple vernacular cottages from the earliest period, craftsman bungalows, and the revival styles popular during the 1920s and 1930s. Many Carmel residences also represent the work of notable architects and designer/builders.
Commercial buildings
Commercial construction which took place under the influence of the architectural revivals of the 1920s has left the most lasting imprint on the character of the business district; however, buildings that represent earlier building periods should also be considered for preservation. In 1903, the Carmel Development Company constructed the first “fireproof” commercial building of concrete blocks made to look like stone. Formerly the Carmel Development Company’s office, the People’s Market, and Holman’s Hardware store, this building is still standing at the northwest corner of San Carlos and Ocean.
Both the Spanish Colonial Revival and the Tudor Revival styles are well represented in the business district. Beyond the usual Spanish stylistic trademarks of stuccoed exteriors and tiled roofs, the Spanish styled buildings feature ornate wrought iron and carved wood detailing, generous use of colorful patterned tile for staircase risers, dados, fountains, planters, and backsplashes, patios and courtyard spaces, arcades, and towers. The courtyard complexes, Las Tiendas (1921) and El Paseo (1927), are among the best exponents of this genre of commercial construction which reached its acme in the 1920s in Santa Barbara. Other notable Spanish buildings include the China Art Center (1929) on Dolores and the Mediterranean Market (1932) on the corner of Ocean and Mission. Hugh Comstock’s Tuck Box (1926-29) on Dolores symbolized Carmel’s love affair with the quaint and the picturesque to many visitors. Like his residential “doll houses,” the Tuck Box employs steep gables with uneven rakes, rolled eaves, and a capricious combination of shingles, bricks, Carmel stone, stucco, and wooden halftimbering. Other Tudor Revival commercial buildings such as the southeast corner of Ocean and Monte Verde were more conventional in their use of half-timbering, vari-colored brick, and multi-paned casement windows.
Attachment 2
52 Landscaping and public art
Regardless of building use, architectural style, or period of construction, Carmel’s neighborhoods reflect a love of nature, expressed in terms of gardens, window boxes, and trees. In addition, civic improvements such as street trees, the island on Ocean Avenue, the street pattern which is especially noteworthy when it bends and curves to accommodate a tree, and stone-lined curbs and culverts are property types which do much to shape the character of the build environment. This property type would also include Picadilly Nursery/Park, the Wayfayer’s Church Biblical Garden, the War Memorial arch designed by Charles Greene, and the Serra Memorial designed by sculptor Joseph Mora.
5.6.3 Significance
Significant single family residences are those that are related to Carmel’s architectural chronology as describe din Section 5.4 above; that reflect Carmel’s pronounced taste for individualism; or that represent the work of a master builder or architect. Architectural integrity should be substantially intact, and should be considered for individual merit or contribution to potential historic districts on the basis of architecture (in addition to or in lieu of any historic associations with notable residents). Where there are many representatives of a particular style or examples of an architect or master builder’s work, the property should retain a high degree of physical and architectural integrity.
Nearly every commercial building on Ocean and Dolores contributes to the character of the historic business district. Other commercial properties in the city may also be eligible for listing if they were constructed more than 50 years ago. Since it is the nature of commercial buildings that storefronts are frequently remodeled, such modifications do not necessarily compromise a building’s integrity. Historic associations enrich the significance of most buildings in the business district as well, and may outweigh a lack of architectural integrity in the application of the criteria for listing.
Significant landscape and garden resources are those that characterize the Arts and Crafts ideal of integrating the natural environment into the overall ambiance of the building site, streetscape, neighborhood, or district.
6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ART AND CULTURE (1904-1965)
6.1 Arts and Crafts Movement
As previously discussed, the Arts and Crafts Movement was very influential in many aspects of Carmel’s physical and cultural development. The movement promoted the pride of craftsmanship and had particular influence on the decorative arts and architecture of the period. However, Arts and Crafts ideals permeated all aspects of American society as can be seen in the changes in dress and fashion, home management and patterns of living, trends in education, and in social reform.
The philosophy of Arts and Crafts Movement was spread through popular literature and periodicals, as well as through the establishment of clubs, societies, and schools.
Attachment 2
53 The Arts and Crafts Club in Carmel was established in 1905 by Elsie Allen, former editor of Harper’s magazine and faculty member of Wellesley College, Jane Powers, Louis Slevin, and a number of other like-minded citizens. Arts and Crafts were broadly defined to include all the visual and decorative arts, literature, music, domestic arts, and drama. The club also established a natural history museum, sponsored fund-raising events, mounted exhibitions of the members’ artwork, and promoted civic improvements. In the following years a number of more specialized art, music, literature, and drama clubs and associations were formed. In 1910, the Arts and Crafts Club organized its first summer school, called Cedar Croft, offering classes in botany, drawing and painting, pottery, china painting, art needlework, dramatic reading, music, and art metal, in addition to tutoring in Latin, English, and mathematics. The school operated until the mid-1920s, giving students from around the country the opportunity to work with nationally recognized artists as well as noted local artists.
The art community continued to grow in the 1940s, but by the 1950s concerns mounted over the dearth of artists living in Carmel in relation to the growing number of art galleries catering to tourists. The “art for art’s sake” folk were forced out not only by the skyrocketing price of real estate, but also by artists who began to create art purely for profit. Yet again a rift formed between the artistic and business elements. For gallery owners, the commodification of art was good business, as tourists’ appetites for art proved voracious. To the artistically inclined old guard, the popularity of art galleries was yet another threat to community character; Carmel was on its way to becoming less of an artistic getaway and more of an attraction for tourists. Local artist and art teacher, John Cunningham warned, “Carmel is going to destroy itself as an art center by too many galleries that are selling too much schlock.”106 The Carmel Art Association maintained its status as the largest art organization in the community with a working membership of 175 and an overall membership of 800 in 1945.107 (See Appendix
9.5.1 for a list of artists who were members of the Carmel Art Association and were working in Carmel, 1940-1965.)
Founded in 1937, the Carmel Art Institute was bought by John and Pat Cunningham in 1939, whereby it was moved to the Court of The Golden Bough and then the Flanders mansion. The Art Institute was a center of the art-education community in Carmel for the decades to follow.
The Carmel Art Gallery, a non-profit organization first listed in city directories in the early 1950s continued to feature work by local artists. The Carmel Art Gallery was in operation on Dolores between Fifth and Sixth Avenues through at least the early 1960s. The Carl Cherry Foundation gallery at Fourth and Guadalupe, housed in the home of Jeanne D’Orge (nee Lena Yates), was a notable bohemian salon. In the late 1940s, the talented abstract artist and poet converted her home into a gallery and theater where she showcased her and other artists’ work and hosted experimental plays. At her house and gallery, Jeanne D’Orge hosted the avant-garde set for nearly two decades until her death in 1964.108 The Foundation is now the Carl Cherry Center for the Arts.
In 1958 the City Council, under the encouragement of Gunnar Norberg, voted to create an Arts Commission. The Arts Commission was comprised of representatives from each of the arts. In 1967 the Commission was reorganized into the Community and Cultural Commission.109
106 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 107 Daisy Bostick, Carmel Today and Yesterday, 1945.
108 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 109 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992.
Attachment 2
54 Additional arts organizations that were active during this period include the Carmel Camera Club, the Carmel Adult School, the New Group Gallery, and the Carmel Music Society.
6.2 Artist and Writer Colony
6.2.1 Artists
The Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo (known to locals as the Carmel Mission) and the breath-taking landscape of the surrounding area has made Carmel a popular destination for artists since the 1870s. Coupled with the discounted lots and agreeable terms offered by the Carmel Development Company, many artists decided to make Carmel their home. The remodeled barn of Jane Gallatin Powers, an accomplished artist and wife of Frank Powers, is considered to be the first art studio in Carmel. Mrs. Powers persuaded many San Francisco artists to relocate their studios to Carmel, after the 1906 earthquake. Other studios were soon established, including those of Mary DeNeale Morgan, Arthur Vachell, Laura Maxwell, Jessie Frances Short and William Silva.
By 1911, James Devendorf reported that over 60% of the residents of Carmel were devoting their lives to work connected with the “aesthetic arts.” Although Carmel was a thriving artist’s colony by the 1920s, there were no galleries except for the clubhouse of the Arts and Crafts Club, which was used for other functions as well. Even this limited gallery space disappeared when the Club ceased to hold its annual exhibition in 1922, and it sold the clubhouse to the Abalone League in 1927. Many artists displayed their work in their home studios. That strategy proved to be unsuccessful, however, as potential buyers, mainly tourists, often had a difficult time finding the studios, given the lack of addresses and street lighting. This problem was resolved in 1927 by the formation of the Carmel Art Association. Members paid dues of one dollar per month to the association which would provide exhibition space, hire a curator, and make sales. Twenty-five percent of sales went to the curator, five percent to the association and the rest to the artists.
Meetings were held at “Gray Gables,” the home of Josephine Culbertson and Ida Johnson. The group first rented commercial space in the Seven Arts Building, designed by Herbert Heron, at Lincoln and Ocean. Through the assistance of Barnet Segal, the association purchased Ira Remsen’s old studio on Dolores Street in 1934 and expanded it in 1937.
Three particularly active members of the Carmel Art Association were Mary DeNeale Morgan, William Ritschel, and Armin Carl Hansen. Born in San Francisco in 1868, DeNeale Morgan attended the California School of Design from 1888 to 1890. She later exhibited throughout the United States. She had previously come to Carmel in 1903 with her mother and brother Thomas and helped run the Pine Inn for a little more than a month for Frank Devendorf. Morgan returned the following year and occupied a cottage on Monte Verde near the Pine Inn. Six years later she established her permanent home and studio in the former Sidney Yard studio on Lincoln near Seventh. An avid painter in tempera and oils, DeNeale Morgan was also active in the Forest Theater Society and All Saints’ Church.
William Ritschel and Armin Carl Hansen were two of five members of the Carmel Art Association to be admitted into the National Academy of Design, one of the highest forms of recognition for artists. Marine landscapes artist Ritschel was born in Nuremberg, Bavaria in 1864. He came to the United States in 1895 and settled in New York City. Having later visited Carmel, he returned in 1918 to have his “Castle” built in the Highlands with the help of a Spanish stone mason. Born in San Francisco on October 23, 1886, Hansen studied art at the California Attachment 2
55 School of Design and later in Stuttgart, Germany. He was a painter and etcher who was noted for his portrayals of the Spanish and Portuguese fisherman of Monterey Bay.
In 1937 Hansen and Paul Whitman, an etcher, founded the Carmel Art Institution as a school where all branches of art were taught. Their studios were in the Seven Arts Buildings on Lincoln.
Two years later, however, Hansen became ill and asked another active member of the Carmel Art Association, John Cunningham to take over. Cunningham—and his wife Pat, an oil painter and muralist—moved the institute first to the Court of the Golden Bough and then to the city-owned Flanders Mansion. Closed after Cunningham’s retirement, the Institute was a vital part of Carmel’s art scene for decades; among its faculty were such internationally-famed artists as Fernand Leger and Alexander Archipenko.
Carmel also attracted a number of cartoonists. In the early years, Gene Byrnes, creator of “Reg’lar Fellers,” was named by Literary Digest in 1923 as one of the seven big cartoonists of the United States. Bill O’Malley, creator of the cartoon, “The Little Nuns” was a Carmel resident.
Other cartoonists that have made their homes in Carmel include Jimmy Hatlo, Hank Ketcham, Gus Arriola, Eldon Dedini, and Bill Bates.
The natural beauties of the area have also attracted photographers. Arnold Genthe, a native of Prussia with academic training, came to San Francisco in the early part of the century. Here he discovered photography and began specializing in informal portraits and landscapes. As a member of the Bohemian Club and a friend of poet George Sterling, he first visited Carmel in 1905. Attracted by the easy terms offered by the Carmel Development Company, he built a house and studio in Carmel on East Camino Real between tenth and Eleventh, where he lived periodically for ten years. It was here that he took the first color photographs of “the cypresses and rocks of Point Lobos, the always varying sunsets, and the intriguing shadows of dunes offered a rich field for color experiments.”110 In 1911 he displayed one of the first exhibitions of color photographs in the United States. Other photographers included Edward Weston, Lewis Josselyn, Johann Hagemeyer and George Seideneck. Edward Weston maintained a second floor studio at the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue and Monte Verde between 1929 and 1937. This influential photographer helped established the West Coast Tradition of fine art photography and was a prolific interpreter of the Carmel Valley, Point Lobos and Big Sur environments. One of the most important local photographers was Louis Slevin. A man of many facts, Slevin was a shopkeeper, postmaster, writer, and stamp collector, collector of rare books, and maritime historian. Ranging from 1899 to 1935, Slevin’s photographs provide important documentation of the changes as the Monterey Bay area developed. The businesses of Louis Slevin and Dale Hale’s Camera Shop supported local photographers by selling the tools of the trade.
Craftsmen of every type found a home in Carmel. Ruth Kuster kept a weaving shop in her husband’s Court of the Golden Bough. Catherine Seideneck specialized in hammered brass and copper, leather work, and hand-made jewelry. Mayotta Brown Comstock fashioned handmade dolls, and Ida Johnson produced fine pottery. J.J. Wright established the Press in the Forest where he wrote, set the type, printed and bound each volume by hand. Also notable were artist/blacksmith Francis Whitaker and Charles Sayers, a master woodcarver.
6.2.2 Literature
Arriving from 1901 to 1907, the earliest writers to come as full or part-time residents were David Starr Jordan, Hal Lewis (later Sinclair Lewis), and Frederick Bechdolt. The author of Blood of
110 Franklin Walker, The Seacoast of Bohemia, p. 24
Attachment 2
56 the Nation, The Higher Sacrifice and The Strength of Being Clean, Jordan first visited the Carmel area in 1880 while taking the U.S. Census. Short story writer Jimmy Hopper, editor of Commonweal Michael Williams and his wife Peggy, and Grace MacGowan Cooke and her sister Alice MacGowan also settled in Carmel in the early years of the century.
Jimmy Hopper moved to Carmel permanently after the San Francisco earthquake in 1906. First renting a cottage on Dolores and Ninth, he later took over George Sterling’s house at Torres and Eleventh, which was destroyed by fire in 1924 and rebuilt on the same site. Hopper wrote more than four hundred short stories and several novels for popular magazines such as Collier’s and The Saturday Evening Post.
Born on July 27, 1874, in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, Frederick Ritchie Bechdolt went from placer mining in the Klondike, to cow punching, to rubbing shoulders with criminals at San Quentin and Folsom. When he first arrived in Carmel in 1907, he rented a cottage in the Eighty Acres until he met and married Adele Hale. His novels include When the West Was Won, The Hard Rock Man, Tales of Old Timers and 9009 in collaboration with Jimmy Hopper. He also wrote for various newspapers including the Seattle Star and Los Angeles Times. In addition to being a prolific writer, Bechdolt served as postmaster, city council member and police commissioner. He died in 1950.
Alice MacGowan and Grace MacGowan Cooke moved to Carmel in 1908 to join the literary colony. They had already achieved wide popular success with their novels, short stories, essays, and poems, a success that began as early as 1888 with the publication of Grace’s first magazine stories. They bought a two-story, shingled house located on a cliff above the beach at what came to be known as “Cooke’s Cove.” They were also active in the Forest Theater Society from its founding in the spring of 1910.
Soon after the MacGowan sisters arrived in Carmel, they wired twenty-three year old Sinclair “Hal” Lewis to join them as their secretary and collaborator. The three had met at Helicon Hall, a utopian writers colony in New Jersey established by Upton Sinclair. For a little over a year Lewis lived in the house of Josephine Foster on the beach near the MacGowan house; that spring he shared his modest quarters with friend William Rose Benet. During the summer, the two young men were hosts to The Nautilus editor Elizabeth Towne and her husband, William E. Towne.
The cut-rate prices for building lots offered by Devendorf made Carmel a magnet for the Bohemian writers of San Francisco. George Sterling had moved to California in 1890 from Sag Harbor, Long Island. He studied for the priesthood for three years, then left to work for his uncle, Frank Havens, as a realtor. He married Carrie Rand and settled in Piedmont. During his fifteen years as a businessman he made a point of meeting most of the literary figures of San Francisco, and he gradually came to think of himself as a poet instead of a realtor. Eventually Sterling became the center of a group of artists and writers that met at Coppa’s, a San Francisco restaurant. About the same time Sterling joined the Bohemian Club, San Francisco’s refuge for playful businessmen, and received the title “King of Bohemia.” His friend, writer Ambrose Bierce, helped him publish his first collection of poems in 1903. In 1905, Sterling and author Mary Austin visited Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel. Soon thereafter, each decided to make Carmel their permanent residence. The Sterlings built a house in the Eighty Acres, on Torres Street between Tenth and Eleventh. Jack and Chairman London were frequent guests.
Born on September 9, 1868, in Carlinville, Illinois, Mary Austin was a prolific writer who published some thirty-two books and approximately two hundred periodical articles. Austin had Attachment 2
57 moved to a ranch near Bakersfield with her family when her father died in 1888. Married to Stafford Wallace Austin in 1891, Austin eventually left her husband to devote herself to her intellectual interests. After a prolonged visit to Italy, Austin returned to Carmel in 1912. Always unconventional, Austin had San Francisco architect Louis Mulgardt design a quaint redwood cabin and a studio platform around the limbs of an oak on her North Lincoln property. Austin called the studio her “wick-i-up” and spent many hours there writing about nature and women’s rights. By 1924 she had established herself in Santa Fe where she fought for the preservation and rehabilitation of Native American and Spanish art and handicrafts.111 The circle of writers and artists around Sterling began to crumble in 1910 when he made the first of what came to be regular summer trips back to his family home on Long Island. His marriage to Carrie Rand, which had been shaken many times by his infidelity, broke up in 1914 as the result of a particularly flagrant affair. He left Carmel for good the following year, settling in Greenwich Village where he hoped to begin a new and more successful career. Despondent over the death of his friend Jack London and the estrangement with his wife, Sterling committed suicide in 1926.
Robinson Jeffers was Carmel’s most original poet. Sterling’s enthusiastic, lyrically descriptive letters describing Carmel and its isolated inhabitants, struck a chord with Jeffers. He rented a house on Monte Verde near Ocean in 1914. After his marriage to Una Call Kuster, the Jeffers purchased land on Carmel Point and hired Michael J. Murphy to build a house in 1918.
Constructed of native granite, they called it “Tor House” because the treeless, wind swept lot facing the ocean reminded them of the tors in England. Observing the stone masons’ techniques during the construction “Tor House,” Jeffers later built “Hawk Tower” himself. Robinson Jeffers continued to live in Tor House until his death in 1962. In 1941 he produced the play The Tower Beyond Tragedy for the Forest Theater. The play starred Judith Anderson. In 1950 Robinson’s wife, Una, passed away from cancer. Jeffers’ poetry became retrospective in his grief. When the Carmel Master Plan was published in 1956, Jeffers’ learned that his famous house and property were planned to house the “Jeffers Memorial Library,” a plan that he knew nothing about. Jeffers was furious and out of revenge sold a portion of his property for a subdivision.112 Although Jeffers did not replace Sterling as the center of Carmel’s bohemian society, he was not the hermit many have made him out to be. Indeed, he attracted many friends and visitors to his home including Lincoln Steffens and his young wife, Ella Winter.
Son of a wealthy Sacramento dry goods merchant, Lincoln Steffens became a “muckraking” reporter, holding several editorial positions with magazines that included McClure’s Magazine and American Magazine before he wrote The Shame of Cities. Steffens and Winter moved into a cottage on San Antonio near Ocean Avenue in 1927, where Steffens wrote his autobiography.
Steffens also took an active interest in the affairs of the town, in its politics and schools. He also edited the Pacific Weekly and wrote a regular column for the local weekly. The Carmelite, edited by his wife. During this period, Steffens was host to many of the world’s literati and politically important people. In 1929, Ella sued Steffens for divorce amid much gossip. After the divorce was final in 1931, Steffens remained in Carmel until his death in 1936.
111 Austin’s place of residence during this time alternated between Europe, New York Carmel and Santa Fe with various sources contradicting the actual time periods. One source has her moving back and forth between Europe and New York from 1903 until she moved to Santa Fe in 1918. Another source has her living in either Carmel or New York between 1911 and 1918 until she moved permanently to Santa Fe in 1924.
112 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992.
Attachment 2
58 6.2.3 Drama and Theater
Drama in Carmel was pursued in close conjunction with the other arts. The first theater in Carmel was created by Herbert Heron, a professional actor with the Belasco and Morasco Stock Company in Los Angeles. He first visited Carmel in July 1908 and returned a year later to build a home at Guadalupe and Mountain View. He selected a site for an open air theater in the Eighty Acres which Devendorf gave to him on a long term lease without rent to build a stage and seats.
Devendorf was so excited about the idea that he tossed in the reminder of the block and two workmen to help clear the grounds. By 1910 there was enough interested individuals living in Carmel to form the Forest Theater Society. Its motto was “to produce plays by local writers, and to give local writers the opportunity and experience of writing, producing, acting and directing as well as stage and costume design.” The first production was the play David, written by Constance L. Skinner and directed by Garnet Holmes, which took place on July 9, 1910. Most of the town’s residents played a role in this and following productions or were part of the audience.
Perry Newberry and a group broke away from the Forest Theater for a time and formed the Western Drama Society in 1912. Later, in 1919, the two groups were reunited and merged with the Carmel Arts and Crafts Club, the Forest Theater Society becoming its theater wing. The Arts and Crafts Club constructed an indoor theater on Monte Verde near Ninth Avenue in 1924.
During the Depression Era productions at the Forest Theater were halted, and the facility was deeded to the city of Carmel so that the Public Works Administrative could rebuild the stage and continue its upkeep. For almost a decade, from 1937 through 1947, the Forest Theater was dark.
From 1939 to 1940, the Theater was reconstructed by the Works Progress Administration under direction of local architect Hugh Comstock. Rock was used to re-face the concrete dressing rooms and original stage, the plain wood benches were replaced with redwood plank seating, and a new fence was built around the property. During World War II, the Theater was closed due to blackout regulations, but, in 1941, opened briefly for its first original production, Robinson Jeffers’ play The Tower Beyond Tragedy, which starred actress Judith Anderson. 113 Historian Kevin Starr writes, “The very elaborateness of [Forest Theater] productions, which called for the cooperative effort of hundreds of Carmelites, testified to the coherence of the Carmelite identity among its permanent summer residents.”114 The Theater opened briefly in 1947 for Dan Totheroh’s play, The Distant Drum.
115
In 1949 after being dark for nearly a decade, the cityowned theater sought a sponsor. Founder Herbert Heron met with Cole Weston, son of famed photographer Edward Weston, and twenty villagers; together, they formed the Forest Theater Guild, which was charged with the Theater’s financial oversight. Cole Weston directed several plays at the Forest Theater through the early 1960s when the popularity of outdoor venue dimmed.
A prominent figure in the development of theater in Carmel, Edward J. Kuster came to the village in 1919 from Los Angeles where he had been a lawyer for twenty years. He gave up the legal profession to study theater arts with a former client, Ruth St. Denis. He was first cellist with the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and an amateur bicyclist. He then spent two seasons in Berlin and Munich, moving to Carmel in 1920 to work with the Forest Theater Society as its president and director. Next he went to New York to study classical and medieval architecture and later enrolled in the San Francisco School of Theatre. Again he retuned to Carmel, and decided to build a state-of-the-art indoor theater. He opened the Theatre of the Golden Bough on Ocean Avenue at Monte Verde on June 3, 1924. Constructed for experimental drama, the Golden Bough
113 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 114 Kevin Starr, The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s, 1997. 115 Michael Whitcomb, Carmel: The Architectural Spirit, 1978.
Attachment 2
59 featured a projecting semicircular platform connected to the main stage by a flight of wide shallow steps, indirect lighting and small balconies. Costing $100,000, the theater resembled an old pagan temple and was praised nationwide by critics, not only for the quality of the production, but for its comfort and beauty.
The Theatre of the Golden Bough opened with a summer session in 1924 with Maurice Brown’s original play, The Mother of Gregory, based on an old Scot legend of Annie of Lochroyan.
Theater productions in Carmel had usually been plays involving almost the entire community from small children to elders in every aspect of its production. While great community involvement, fun, and satisfaction was evidenced, Kuster felt a more disciplined professional product was necessary.
During the Depression, Kuster leased the theater as a movie house. He also took over the old Arts and Crafts Theater from the Abalone League, which he renamed The Studio Theater of the Theatre of the Golden Bough, and leased it out as well. In 1935, he began bringing back live theater. On May 17, the play By Candlelight opened and two days later the theater burned, leaving only a portion of the lobby in tact. After the fire, the theater was moved to the old Arts and Crafts Theater (near Monte Verde and Ninth) and renamed the Golden Bough Playhouse. It became Carmel’s first art movie house—Carmel Filmarte.
Kuster continued to present theater productions and summer workshops. He was called “The Starmaker” because Hollywood scouts would attend his productions to find promising young actors. Some of the actors he nurtured include Rosemary de Camp, Ruth Warshawsky, Robert Ryan, Nanette Fabray, and Donnon Jeffers, son of Robinson Jeffers.
The Golden Bough Playhouse was damaged by fire in 1949 while again running By Candlelight.
A new Golden Bough Theater was built at this site on the Monte Verde side, and The Circle Theater of the Golden Bough was built behind it on the Casanova side. When rebuilding was completed by a newly organized corporation, Kuster was hired as manager. He retired in 1956 and moved to Switzerland in 1961, where he died an untimely death. The Circle Theater continued to offer productions until 1969 when it was purchased by United Artists.
The team of Watrous and Denny were active participants in the cultural life of Carmel. Hazel Watrous was a supervisor for the Alameda school system, and also had experience as a stage designer. She moved to Carmel in 1924 with her companion, Dene Denny, whom she had met at Berkeley. During 1927 and 1928 they leased the Golden Bough Playhouse from Kuster and presented eighteen plays.
The Studio Theater, a dinner theater, presented plays by local thespians; it was located on Dolores Street between Ocean and Seventh.
6.2.4 Music
From the early days of Carmel, informal groups of music lovers gathered in homes to hear resident or visiting artists play or sing. Sally and Teresa Ehrman, Mrs. Lawrence Strauss, and Mabel Gray Young formed the nucleus of the musical colony. Young is believed to have been the first trained musician to settle in Carmel. She often gave concerts in San Francisco and was said to be teaching piano to most adults in Carmel.
The Norwood Music Colony established in 1917 had eleven cottages where many eminent musical artists lived. A large number of notable musicians spent some time in Carmel. Cellist Attachment 2
60 Frederic Preston Search taught worked with local organizations. Concert Pianist Katherine Vander Roest Clarke held informal Sunday afternoon musicales in her Carmel home. Others included Thomas Vincent Cator, Henry Cowell, Antonio DeGrassi, Edward Johnson, Betty Lawrence, Nathan Firestone, Marina Ralston, Evadna Lapham, Louis Persinger, George H.
Richardson and his wife, and David Alberto.
Denny and Watrous were responsible for organizing the most important musical events and venues in Carmel. They founded the Carmel Music Society in 1926 which hosted chamber music concerts. Later the two became professionally involved in music management and promotion.
They opened the Denny-Watrous Gallery on Dolores which hosted informal recitals and exhibitions. They also sponsored concerts in other cities as well. In 1935 they organized the Carmel Bach Festival. Although envisioned as a venue for local talent, it achieved national recognition, featuring noted professional musicians. Presented in the Sunset School Auditorium and at the Mission, the festival originally consisted of five concerts, two organ recitals, and a series of lectures on related musical subjects. Each series was concluded by the Mass in B Minor, sung in the Carmel Mission by the full chorus accompanies by a full orchestra. The conductors were Ernst Bacon, followed by Michael Penha until 1939, and then Gatson Usigli from 1938 to 1955. The Festival’s first permanent conductor, Usigli was born in Venice and was known as an inveterate perfectionist with a fiery temper. Sandor Salgo took the reins as conductor of the Bach Festival from 1955 through 1992. The company was made up of approximately 60 musicians and a chorus of 50 singers. One of the more important supporters of music and especially the Bach Festival was Noel Sullivan, the nephew of James D. Phelan, mayor of San Francisco, state senator, and builder of Saratoga’s Villa Montalvo. The Festival was suspended for three summers during World War II.116
The City acquired the Sunset School on 30 June 1965 with the intention of developing the complex into a cultural center. The school cost $550,000 and was purchased after a bond measure was passed.117 Renamed the Sunset Center, it housed 733 in its auditorium and quickly became the Monterey Peninsula’s regional theater and the permanent home of the Bach Festival.
The buildings surrounding the auditorium space housed a photography gallery, pottery and dance studios, and workshops for the arts.
6.3 Academia and Science
Dr. David Starr Jordan was the first of the college professors to settle in Carmel. He first visited the area while taking the U.S. Census in 1880. In 1904, Jordan, then president of Stanford, purchased three lots on the northeast corner of Camino Real and Seventh where he built a “comfortable and stately” house in 1905. Soon after, many professors, no doubt responding to a brochure they received from Devendorf inviting “school teachers of California and other brain workers at indoor employment,” began to populate Carmel-by-the-Sea. Starr’s colleagues from Palo Alto such as Vernon Kellogg, George Pierce, Karl Rendtorff, and Guido Marx soon followed. Since most of them bought lots on Camino Real south of Ocean, that section of town became known as “Professors’ Row.” Professors from the University of California at Berkeley tended to build homes in other parts of Carmel. For example, John Galen Howard, Dean of the School of Architecture, purchased lots on Monte Verde between Thirteenth Avenue and Santa
116 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 117 Nancy Hills, “City Showed Foresight in Buying Sunset Center,” Carmel Pine Cone, 21 September 1989.
Attachment 2
61 Lucia while George Boke, Dean of the School of Law, settled on the northwest corner of San Carlos and Santa Lucia.
Among the professors and scientists who had permanent or vacation homes in Carmel were included plant ecologist William S. Cooper; Professor James Worthington, a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society of Great Britain and conductor of eclipse expeditions; Dr. Alfred E. Burton, former dean of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Drs. Fenner and Stillman, early experimenters with vitamins; zoologist Professor Vernon Kellogg; Dr. J.L. Fish engineering expert. Dr. and Mrs. Karl G. Rendtorff, a professor of Germanic languages, came with his family and built a house in 1910 and subsequently became very active in village life. Dr. O. V. Lange was a professor at the University of California. The home of Professor Guido Marx at Ninth and Camino Real became the Holiday House.
The Department of Botanical Research of the Carnegie Institute, locally known as the Coastal Institute, was located at the east end of Twelfth Street at Junipero. The Lab brought many members of the scientific community to Carmel. Institute staff included Dr. Daniel T.
MacDougal, director of botanical research, who was its director for thirty years; Dr. Beverly Clark, authority on photosynthesis; Professor Benjamin M. Duggar, physiological pathologist; Dr. Forest Shreve, known for his map of North America; and Professor Francis E. Lloyd, a botanist who specialized in the study of carnivorous plants.
6.4 Influence of Women
From its earliest years, Carmel has attracted intelligent, creative and independent women from all walks of life. Whether artists, writers, community activists, health care advocates, politicians, philanthropists, or builders, women were unusually visible and dynamic participants in the creative and development of Carmel. The early social structure of the village allowed women to challenge typical gender roles and lifestyles and to fully exercise their talents in business, art, and politics while in other localities women were still engaged in the struggle for recognition and autonomy.
The organization and activities of the Arts and Crafts Club was dominated by women. Elsie Allen served as the first president. She was followed in office by Josephine Foster and Mary E.
Hand. Hand led the groups for sixteen years, organizing fund raisers and overseeing the construction of the Arts and Crafts Theater in 1922. Fannie Yard (Mrs. Sidney Yard) was the director of the Cedarcroft School, a position she held for many years.
Many female artists who made Carmel their home took an active role in the community. A good friend of James Devendorf, Mary DeNeale Morgan first came to Carmel in 1903 with her family.
A painter in oil and tempera, she had graduated from the California School of Design in 1890 and exhibited her work throughout the United States. She was a founding member of the Arts and Crafts Club, the Forest Theater, All Saints Church, and the Carmel Art Association. She also taught drawing and painting in the Cedarcroft school, and led the 1921 campaign for the city purchase of the Sand Dunes and Block 69.
Morgan’s good friends, artists Josephine Culbertson and Ida Johnson, were also active in the development the community. They had come to Carmel in 1906. Both gifted artists, Culbertson painted in oils and Johnson was a potter. Culbertson was also a talented organist who played in the Arts and Crafts orchestra as well as at the Community Church. They organized “The Dickens Club” for the young men of the village. Miss Culbertson also had a hand in the organization of the Carmel Art Association in 1927. Ida Johnson was the chairwomen and curator of the Attachment 2
62 “Museum of Yesteryear,” sponsored by the Arts and Crafts Club. Both ladies were active in the Carmel Library Association, founded in 1904. Miss Johnson served as the Association’s president in 1911-1912.
The contributions of Dene Denny and Hazel Watrous have already been discussed. Both were very influential in the development of art, music, and drama in Carmel. Daisy Bostick, co-author of Carmel at Work and Play with Dorothea Castelhun, wrote for many years on the Pine Cone.
Women were involved in local politics from the date of city incorporation in 1916. Eva K.
DeSabla was a charter member of the city’s board of trustees. She was reelected to a second term on April 12, 1920 and appointed president of the board. Saidee Van Brower was first elected city clerk in 1920 and won every bid for reelection thereafter. A dance instructor in Berkeley, Van Brower was one of the many artistic-minded people who moved to Carmel in 1907. She performed in the Forest Theater productions as well as directed the corps de ballet, as did her niece Jeanette Hoagland Parkes, who married Percy Parkes.
The contributions of other influential women have been discussed in the forgoing sections, i.e., Abbie Jane Hunter, Jane Powers, and Mrs. E.A. Foster (Section 1.5); Mrs. Dominga Doni de Atherton, Ann Murphy, Emma Otey and Emma Maugh (Section 3.1); Dene Denny and Hazel Watrous (Section 3.2, 5.3 and 6.2); Grace Deere Velie Harris (Section 4.2); Emma Williams, Helen Jaquith and Ella Reid Harrison (Section 4.3); Josephine Culbertson and Ida Price (Section
4.4 and 6. 2); Elsie Allen and Jane Powers (Section 6.1 and 6.2); and Mary DeNeale Morgan, Ruth Kuster, Catherine Seideneck, Mayotta Brown Comstock, Mary Austin, Alice MacGowan, Grace MacGowan Cooke, Mabel Gray Young, Sally Ehrmann and Katherine Vander Roest Clarke (Section 6.2). Other women who were active in community life or made significant contributions in their fields of endeavor include Laura Maxwell, Ivy Basham, Agnes Signor, Daisy Bostick, Mary Goold, Josephine Foster, Marie Gordon, Nora May French, and Eunice Gray.
6.5 Associated Resource Types
6.5.1 Identification
Properties associated with context of Development of Art and Culture include:
Homes and studios
Art galleries
Theaters
6.5.2 Description
Homes and studios
The homes of artists, writers, dramatists, photographers, musicians and others who shaped Carmel’s identity as an art cultural center between 1905 and 1940 are easily distinguishable from their neighbors, perhaps due to the strong individualism of their inhabitants and their expression of personal creativity. Studios and other types of work spaces would also be important resources associated with this context.
Attachment 2
63 Art galleries and shops
The Carmel Art Association building and numerous art galleries are focal points of this context throughout the business district. Many craftsmen kept retail shops where they sold the products of their art.
Theaters
Historic theaters in Carmel include the open-air Forest Theater and the Arts and Crafts Community Theater, now the Pacific Repertory Theater. In addition, remnants of the Kuster’s Theatre of the Golden Bough on Ocean and Monte Verde exist in the Court of the Golden Bough.
The Sunset Center is significant within this context for the role it played in the community as an auditorium for cultural events since 1934. Designed by C.J. Ryland, the Sunset Center has been the venue of many cultural activities and performances, including pottery classes, dance recitals, painting studios, and lecture and meeting rooms. Other resources include the American Legion Hall and the Woman’s Club at Ninth and San Carlos.
6.5.3 Significance
The registration requirement for a property associated with this context would be the role the resource played in the development of art or culture, and its integrity to the period of significance, i.e., the occupation of the person in question and his or her productive years, or with the period of significant activity. Commercial buildings significant under this context include those constructed prior to 1940 which were associated with notable artists and craftsmen or promoters of art and culture.
7.0 ENDNOTES
The endnotes in this section have been converted to footnotes for purposes of formatting and clarity.
Attachment 2
64 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY UNTIL 1940
Askew, Bill, interview, December 14, 1995.
Austin, Mary, “George Sterling at Carmel” in American Mercury, vol. 11, May 1927, pp. 65-72.
“Bach by the Sea” in Time, vol. 50, August 4, 1947, p. 55. “Beachcombing bonanza: Store with Curios Washed Up by the Sea” in Christian Science Monitor Magazine, June 11, 1949, pp. 8-9.
Bostick, Dairy F. and Dorothea Castlehun, Carmel at Work and Play. Monterey:
Cypress Press, 1991 (1977 & 1926).
Bostick, Daisy F., Carmel Today and Yesterday. Carmel: The Seven Arts, 1945.
Bostick, Daisy F., “Outdoor Living in Carmel” in California Arts and Architecture, May 1938, pp. 10, 33.
Boule, Mary Null, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo. Vashon, Washington:
Merryant Publishing, 1988.
Brady, M.E., “New Cult of Sex and Anarchy” in Harper’s, vol. 194, April 1947, pp. 312-
22. Brewer, Joseph, Up and Down California in 1860-1864. Edited by Francis Farquhar.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.
“California Beauty Spot: Photographs” in School Arts Magazine, vol. 25, March 1926, pp. 392-94.
“Carmel Announces Annual Bach Festival” in Musical America, vol. 70, June 1950, pp.
35. “Carmel’s Bach” in Newsweek, vol. 38, July 30, 1951, pp. 48. “Carmel-by-the-Sea” in Outlook, vol. 141, October 28, 1925, pp. 301-02.
Carmel-by-the-Sea: Commemorative Pageant of the Founding of the Mission San Carlos del Rio Carmelo in 1771. (Official Program.) Monterey: Webret-Lee Co., July 4, 1911.
“Carmel Mission: The Favorite of Artists” in School Arts Magazine, vol. 49, June 1950, p. 34648.
City of Carmel, Minutes of the Carmel Council, 1916-1933.
Clark, Donald Thomas. Monterey County Place Names. Carmel Valley: Kestrel Press, 1991.
Attachment 2
65 Clark, Robert Judson, The Arts and Crafts Movement in America 1876-1916. Princeton University Press, 1972.
Cole, David, “Carmel’s Oldest House is Still a Home” in Carmel Pine Cone, April 22, 1976.
Comstock, Hugh, Post-Adobe. Carmel-by-the-Sea: Hugh Comstock, 1948.
Connell, Evan S., Notes From a Bottle Found on the Beach of Carmel. Viking Press, 1963.
Culleton, James, Indians and Pioneers of Old Monterey: Being a chronicle of the religious history of Carmel Mission considered in connection with Monterey’s other local events and California’s general history. Fresno: Academy of California Church History, 1950.
Delkin, James, Ladd, Monterey Peninsula, Compiled by Worker of the Writers’ Program of the Work Projects Administration in Northern California, American Guide Series.
Sponsored by California Department of Education, 1935.
DeNevi, Don and Noel Francis Moholy, Junipero Serra, The illustrated story of the Franciscan Founder of California’s Missions. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1985.
DiGirolamo, Vincent, “Bach’s Beheading. Carmel’s Great Unsolved Art Crisis” in San Francisco Chronicle, This World (Sunday Supplement), November 22, 1987, p. 12. “Downtown Center for an Unusual West Coast Town” in Architectural Record, vol. 131, June 1962, pp. 166-69.
Dunn, Arthur, Monterey County California. San Francisco: Sunset Magazine Homeseekers’ Bureau, 1915.
Dutton, Davis and Judy, Tales of Monterey Since the Beginning. New York: Ballatine Books. 1974.
Fink, Augusta, Monterey County, the Dramatic Story of it’s Past. Santa Cruz: Western Tanager Press, 1972.
Garrott, H., “California City Holds Fourteenth Bach Festival” in Musical America, vol. 71, August 1951, p. 24.
Garrott, H., “Carmel Holds Bach Festival” in Musical America, vol. 69, August 1949, p.
34. Gaston, Kay Baker, “The MacGowan Girls” in California History, Summer 1980, p. 117.
Gory, Walter, unpublished reminiscences. On file at Carmel Preservation Foundation.
Gray, E.T., “Forest Theater at Carmel-by-the-Sea, California” in St. Nicholas, vol. 42, April 1915, pp. 570-71.
Attachment 2
66 Gilliam, Harold and Ann, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision. Salt Lake City:
Peregrine Smith Books, 1992.
Hale, Sharron Lee, A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery and Los Burros. Santa Cruz: Valley Publishers, 1980.
Howard, Donald M., Primitives in Paradise: An Archaeological History of the Monterey Peninsula. Monterey. Angel Press, 1978.
James, George Wharton, In and Out of the Old Missions of California: An Historical and Pictorial Account of the Franciscan Missions. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1927.
Kaplan, Wendy, The Art that is Life: The Arts & Crafts Movement in America, 1875- 1920. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1987.
Knox, Maxine, Exploring Big Sur, Monterey, Carmel and Highway One Country. Los Angeles: Ward Ritchie Press. 1973.
Lemos, P.J., “Little Houses of Carmel” in School Arts Magazine, vol. 27, Fall 1928, pp. 338-43.
Magary, Alan, South of San Francisco: A Guide to the San Mateo Coast, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel, Big Sur, and Hearst Castle. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.
Matthewson, Joanne, The Fairy Tale House of Carmel. Carmel: The Tuck Box, 1977.
McGlynn, Betty Hoag, Carmel Art Association: A History. Carmel-by-the-Sea: Carmel Art Association, 1987.
Morgado, Martin, Junipero Serra’s Legacy. Pacific Grove: Mount Carmel, 1987.
Murphy, Michael J. Structures of the Period. Carmel-by-the-Sea: M.J. Murphy Inc.
Nixon, Clara, unpublished memoirs. On file at Local History Archives, Harrison Memorial Library.
“Oldest House in Carmel Located Near our Cherished Sand Dunes” in Carmel Pine Cone, 1936. Reprinted February 3, 1975.
Orth, Michael. “Ideality to Reality: The Founding of Carmel” in California Historical Society Quarterly, September 1969, pp. 195-210.
Palou, Francisco, The Expedition into California of the Venerable Padre Fray Junipero Serra and His Companions in the Year 1769. San Francisco: Nueva California Press, 1934.
Parry, Albert, Garrets and Pretenders, A History of Bohemianism in America. New York: Dover Publications, 1960.
Attachment 2
67 Peattie, Donald Culross, “Four of Our Prettiest Towns” in New York Times Magazine, August 12, 1962, pp. 12-13.
Porter, S.C., “Theatre of the Golden Bough” in Theater Arts Magazine, vol. 9, Fall 1925, p. 8995.
Powell, Lawrence Clark, California Classics. The Creative Literature of the Golden State. Essays on the Books and Their Writers. Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 1971.
Richardson, L., “Birthplace of Garden Ideas, Carmel-by-the-Sea” in Better Homes and Gardens, vol. 2, January 1943, pp. 28-29.
Roseth, Brian, “A Brief History of Early Zoning Ordinances in Carmel-by-the-Sea.” Roseth, Brian, personal communication with Glory Anne Laffey, 20 March 1996.
Rowntree, L., “Homes in the Highlands” in Sunset Magazine, vol. 64, May 1930, pp. 12-
13. Smith, Frances Rand, The Architectural History of the Mission San Carlos Borromeo, California. Berkeley: California Historical Survey Commission, 1921.
Starr, Kevin, Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Taylor, F.J., “City-in-the-Forest” in Better Homes and Gardens, vol. 10, August 1932, p.
9. Temple, Sydney, The Carmel Mission: From Founding to Rebuilding. Fresno: Valley Publishers, 1980.
Temple, Sydney, Carmel-by-the-Sea: From Aborigines to Coastal Commission.
Monterey: Angel Press, 1987.
Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910 Population. “Tourists Follow Artists to Nature’s Hideouts” in Literary Digest, vol. 118, December 15, 1934, p. 24.
Trapp, Kenneth, The Arts and Crafts Movement in California: Living the Good Life.
New York: Abbeville Press, Publishers, 1993.
Vial, Sandy, interview regarding the Carmel area wastewater district, 10 January 1996.
Wadsworth, Euel, “Carmel-by-the-Sea” in American Mercury, vol. 79, December, 1954, p. 2829.
Waite, E., “Cities of America” in Saturday Evening Post. Vol. 220, May 15, 1948. pp. 22-23.
Attachment 2
68 Walker, Franklin, The Seacoast of Bohemia: An Account of Early Carmel. San Francisco: Book Club of America, 1966.
Watkins, Robin. History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, California: Cradle of California’s History and Romance, Vol. 11. Chicago: The S.J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1925.
Whitcomb, Michael, Carmel – The Architectural Spirit. Carmel: Ridgewood Press, 1978.
White, Emil, Carmel-by-the-Sea: In Story and Pictures. Big Sur, 1958 White, Richard Edward, Padre Junipero Serra and the Mission Church of San Carlos del Carmelo. San Francisco: P.E. Dougherty & Co., 1884.
Williams, M., “Forest Theater in the Shadow of Junipero Serra’s Mission” in Sunset Magazine, vol. 29, Summer 1912, pp. 319-25.
Attachment 2
69 8.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1940-1965
Books
Bostick, Dairy F. and Dorothea Castlehun. Carmel at Work and Play. Monterey:
Cypress Press, 1991 (1977 & 1926).
Bostick, Daisy F. Carmel Today and Yesterday. Carmel: The Seven Arts, 1945.
Carmel Business Association. Carmel-by-the-Sea A Booklet Prepared for Those Who Desire to Learn More of Our World-Famed Village. Carmel, Ca.: Printed for the Carmel Business Assoc. by the Carmel Press, 1940s.
Carmel by-the-Sea A Community Devoted to the Art of Living. Carmel: s.n, 1940.
Carmel by the Sea, California Visitor's Guide, 1954. Carmel: Pacific Grove Press, 1954.
Carmel (Calif.). Municipal Code City-of-Carmel-by-the-Sea. Carmel, Calif.: [s.n.], 1957.
Carmel (Calif.). Planning & Zoning. Carmel-by-the-sea: [s.n.], 1968.
Clark, Donald Thomas. Monterey County Place Names A Geographical Dictionary.
Carmel Valley, Calif: Kestrel Press, 1991.
Comstock, Hugh W. Post-Adobe; Simplified Adobe Construction Combining a Rugged Timber Frame and Modern Stabilized Adobe. 1948.
Connell, Evan S. Notes from a Bottle Found on the Beach of Carmel. Viking Press, 1963.
Crandall, Chuck. They Chose to be Different. Chronicle Books, 1972. (720.9794 CRA) Gilliam, Harold and Ann. Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision. Salt Lake City:
Peregrine Smith Books, 1992.
Hale, Sharron Lee. A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery and Los Burros. Santa Cruz: Valley Publishers, 1980.
Hotelling, Neal. Pebble Beach Golf Links: The Official History. Michigan: Sleeping Bear Press, 1999.
Hudson, Monica. Images of America: Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing: 2006.
Killing, Vic. Carmel-by-the-Sea; California's Most Extraordinary Village: A Storybook Hamlet in the Forest. D'Angelo Publishing Company: 1967.
Livingston, Lawrence. Plan for the Conservation and Enhancement of Carmel-by-theSea and Environs. Publisher unknown, 1956.
Attachment 2
70 Magary, Alan. South of San Francisco: A Guide to the San Mateo Coast, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel, Big Sur, and Hearst Castle. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.
Manley, Lucia. Carmel-by-the-Sea. Dobrante: 1989.
Matthewson, Joanne. The Fairy Tale House of Carmel. Carmel: The Tuck Box, 1977.
McGlynn, Betty Hoag. Carmel Art Association A History. Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif:
Carmel Art Association, 1987.
Mudge, E. Leigh. Carmel-by-the-Sea. Carmel-by-the-Sea: Carmel Press, 1958.
Murphy, Michael J. Structures of the Period. Carmel-by-the-Sea: M.J. Murphy Inc.
Nesbitt, Philip. Carmel in Caricature. Monterey: W.T. Lee Co, 1930s.
R.L. Polk & Co. Polk City Directory: Monterey County, California. Livonia, MI: R.L. Polk & Co., (1947-1963).
Seavey, Kent. Carmel A History in Architecture. Images of America. Charleston SC:
Arcadia Pub, 2007.
Serraino, Pierluigi. NorCalMod: Icons of Northern California Modernism. San Francisco:
Chronicle Books, 2006.
Smith, Joseph. Carmel-by-the-Sea; Echoes of Its Early History, Its Traditions and Its Designs.: Carmel, Calif.: s.n. 1938.
Temple, Sydney, and Marguerite M. Temple. Carmel by-the-Sea From Aborigines to Coastal Commission. Monterey, Calif: Angel, 1987.
United States. U.S. Census of Housing, 1960. Carmel-by-the Sea, Calif. City Blocks.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1961.
Walker, Franklin. The Seacoast of Bohemia: An Account of Early Carmel. San Francisco: Book Club of America, 1966.
Wallis, Ada King. Celebrated Artists of the Carmel-Monterey Colony. The Western woman, v. 13, no. 2-3. Los Angeles, Calif: Ada King Wallis, 1950.
Whitcomb, Michael. Carmel – The Architectural Spirit. Carmel: Ridgewood Press, 1978.
White, Emil. Carmel-by-the-Sea: In Story and Pictures. Big Sur, 1958.
Journal and Magazine Articles
“15 AIA Award-Winning Custom Houses.” House and Home, vol. 17, no. 6 (1960): pp. 102-131.
Attachment 2
71 “40 Houses: Architectural Forum's Special House Issue, No. 14.” Architectural Forum, vol. 88 (1948): pp. 95-144.
“81 New Houses.” Architectural Forum, vol. 74 (1941): p. 244. “A Carmel, California House Unfolds: W.R. Yelland, Architect.” Architect and Engineer, vol. 151 (1942): pp. 24-25.
“A House of Seven Levels.” House and Garden, vol. 133 (1968): pp. [106]-[111]. “A Planning Lesson from Frank Lloyd Wright.” House and Home, vol. 5 (1954): pp. 98- 105.
“A Seemingly Artless Vacation House Gives Well Directed Views and Three-Way Exposure to Every Major Room.” Architectural Forum, vol. 91 (1949): pp. 80-82.
Adams, Gerald. “Carmel: Is Success Spoiling It?” San Francisco Examiner, California Living (12 November 1967).
“All Saints Church Grew With Carmel.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (23 March 1964). “All Saint's Episcopal Church, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.” Architect and Engineer, vol. 191 (1952): pp. 10-15.
“Americana.” Time (5 April 1948).
“Anti-Rooming House Law Upheld in Court Ruling” (19 May 1948). “Architects Saluted For Design.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (26 December 1966). “Attic on a Slab.” House and Home, vol. 4 (1953): pp. 76-79. “Bach by the Sea.” Time, vol. 50 (4 August 1947): p. 55. “Ban on Post Adobe Homes in Carmel.” Carmel Pine Cone (7 September 1972) “Beachcombing bonanza: Store with Curios Washed Up by the Sea.” Christian Science Monitor Magazine (11 June 1949): pp. 8-9.
Beck, Susan. “Carmel in ‘50s: Residents Fear LAization.’” Carmel Pine Cone (2 November 1989).
Bennett, Janey. “Work of Mark Mills: Structural Elegance and a Sense of Reverent Space.” Journal of the Taliesin Fellows, no. 10 (1993): pp. 18-29.
Brady, M.E. “New Cult of Sex and Anarchy.” Harper’s, vol. 194 (April 1947): pp. 312-
22. “Built Around A Pine Tree.” House Beautiful, vol. 83 (February 1941).
Attachment 2
72 Burke, Margo. “Compact Home Overlooks Carmel Bay.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (20 May 1972).
Burke, Margo. “It Seems Always To Have Been There.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (3 June 1972).
Burke, Margo. “’Relaxed’ Home in Carmel.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (30 September 1972).
“Businessmen in Carmel Oppose Power Poles.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (13 January 1966). “Butterfly House by Frank Wynkoop.” Architects & Architecture (1980).
Canfield, Clarke. “Maine town might vote to favor local flavor; Keeping out chain restaurants will be on ballot.” The Houston Chronicle (1 October 2005): p. 7. “Carmel…An Artist’s Village Grown Into A City of Contrasts.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (13 August 1957).
“Carmel Announces Annual Bach Festival.” Musical America, vol. 70 (June 1950): pp.
35. “Carmel Architecture Gets Wide Publicity.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (29 May 194_). “Carmel Foundation Maps Plans for Aged” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (17 November 1948). “Carmel High School, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.” Pencil Points, vol. 26 (1945): pp. [73]-86.
“Carmel Is Unique City Which Accepts Progress Only With A Struggle.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (date unknown).
“Carmel Landmark to be Moved to New Location.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (4 January 1957).
“Carmel Legends.” Carmel Pine Cone (5 February 1987).
“Carmel May Be First to Fly UN Flag.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (25 August 1960). “Carmel Now Has Chamber of Commerce” (1950).
“Carmel Presbyterian Church Completes 1st Decade.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (23 March 1964).
“Carmel Residents Listed In Volume” (16 November 1948). “Carmel Will Choose Own Kind of Progress.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (16 July Attachment 2
73 1949).
“Carmel’s Bach.” Newsweek, vol. 38 (30 July 1951): pp. 48. “Citizens Express Enthusiasm For Carmel Foundation” (10 December 1948). “City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Proposed Significant Building List.” Unpublished manuscripts from the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (13 February 1979).
“City to Abandon Intersection At Del Mar And Eighth” (21 January 1949).
Cole, David. “Carmel’s Oldest House is Still a Home.” Carmel Pine Cone (22 April 1976).
“Comfort and Background Without Excessive Cost: house of Dr. Rudolph von Urban, Carmel, Calif.” Architectural Record, vol. 104 (1948): pp. 116-118. “Construction Begins on Carmel Youth Center” (23 November 1949).
Della Cava, Marco R. “Charming-by-the-Sea.” USA Today (25 July 2003): p. 01D. “Downtown Center for an Unusual West Coast Town.” Architectural Record, vol. 131 (June 1962): pp. 166-69.
“Enthusiasm Runs High For Elderly People’s Home Plan” (November 1948).
Erickson, Molly. “Halfway There.” The Carmel Pine Cone (30 August 1990). “Family Circles.” Time (27 November 1944).
“First Jitters.” Time (22 December 1941).
“Four houses.” Progressive Architecture, vol. 31 (1950): pp. 51-69.
Fox, Christy. “Music Fills the Carmel Valley Air.” Los Angeles Times (27 June 1965).
Funchess-Jones, Elaine. “Charles Davis: The Aquarium Architect.” Pacific (July 1990).
Flynn, William. “Carmel Just A Gold-Plated Tourist Trap, Writes Bitter Correspondent for St. Louis Paper.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (20 September 1949).
Garrott, H. “California City Holds Fourteenth Bach Festival.” Musical America, vol. 71 (August 1951): p. 24.
Garrott, H. “Carmel Holds Bach Festival.” Musical America, vol. 69 (August 1949): p.
34. Gaston, Kay Baker. “The MacGowan Girls.” California History (Summer 1980): p. 117.
Gebhard, David, Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally Woodbridge.
Attachment 2
74 A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco & Northern California. Santa Barbara:
Peregrine Smith, Inc. (1973).
Gilman, Pete. “New Carmel Point House Has Many Novel Feature” (10 April 1952). “Green Belt Annexation Offered City.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (3 February 1975).
Harris, Sid. “Another Writer’s View of Carmel.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (4 September 1950).
Hauk, Steve. “Carmel Determined To Keep Its Charm.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (1 June 1970): 11D.
Hills, Nancy. “City Showed Foresight in Buying Sunset Center.” The Carmel Pine Cone (21 September 1989).
Horovitz, Bruce. “Study Took Two Years To Complete; To Go To City Council Soon.” Carmel Pine Cone (22 February 1979).
“House, Carmel, California.” Progressive Architecture, vol. 33 (1952): pp. 92-95. “Houses: House for Informal Living.” Architectural Record, vol. 103 (1948): pp. 118- 137.
“Houses: House for Mr. and Mrs. W.S. Chitarin.” Architectural Record, vol. 104 (1948):
pp. 82-134.
“How Architect and Owner Create the Personal House.” House and Garden, vol. 137 (1970): pp. 64-[75].
Howe, Kevin. “Coastal Commission Approves Carmel, Calif., Plan.” Monterey County Herald (16 October 2004): p. NA.
Howe, Kevin. “Landmark Buildings Designated in Carmel.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (4 April 1991).
Hudson, Jeff. “Carmel: A Town’s Identity and the Forces of Progress.” The Monterey County Herald, (20 February 1993): 5D.
“Huge School District Serves Carmel Area.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (23 March 1964).
Hulanicki, Alex. “Architect Leaves His Mark with Care.” Monterey County Herald (22 March 1993).
Hulse, Jerry. “The Little Village That Wouldn't Change Carmel Has Resisted `Progress' for 75 Years and Visitors Still Wish They Could Stay For Good.” Los Angeles Times (17 March 1991): p. 1.
Kendall, Raymond. “A Well-Tempered Bach Festival in Carmel-by-the-Sea.” Los Angeles Time (26 July 1964).
Attachment 2
75 Kuster, Ted. “Fifty Years War.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (10 February 1959). “Lawmakers ban new galleries.” Art Business News, v. 31 i12 (December 2004): p. 14(1).
Lindsey, Robert. “Carmel’s Charm Resists the Tide of Change.” New York Times (1 July 1984): p. A.14.
“Livin’ is Easy: The Robert Stanton Home.” Carmel Pacific Spectator Journal (June 1956).
Lloyd, Marjory. “The History of Carmel: 1542-1966.” Unpublished manuscript from the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (May 1966).
Loh, Jules. “Edward Durell Stone’s Search for Beauty.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (18 November 1973).
Martin, Bill. “Stock Designs Harmonize with Nature.” Carmel Pacific Spectator Journal (9 June 1950).
Miller, Harlan. “Carmel, As Seen By Visiting Iowan.” Des Moines Register (23 August 1950).
“Modern Style in Carmel Brings Cries of Anguish.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (9 September 1950).
Mukhija, Vinit and Donald Shoup. “Quantity versus quality in off-street parking requirements.” Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 72 i3 (Summer 2006):
p. 296(13).
“Music Lovers Flock to Carmel for Bach Event.” Los Angeles Times (14 July 1940). “Nevada Woman to Run for Senate.” New York Times (4 March 1918). “New Carmel City Hall is Opened.” (28 December 1950).
“New Character in Old Framework.” Architectural Record, vol. 100 (1946): pp. 103.
Norris, Barnard. “Carmel Up in Arms Over Mention of Any Such Thing” (14 December 1950).
Orth, Michael. “Ideality to Reality: The Founding of Carmel.” California Historical Society Quarterly (September 1969): pp. 195-210.
Pastier, John. “U.C. Santa Cruz: The Architecture.” AIA Journal (August 1979).
Peattie, Donald Culross. “Four of Our Prettiest Towns.” New York Times Magazine (12 Attachment 2
76 August 1962): pp. 12-13.
“Pine Inn at Carmel Recently Enlarged.” Los Angeles Times (21 June 1940).
Prine, Kay. “Carmel and World War II.” Unpublished manuscripts from the Unpublished manuscript from the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (date unknown).
“Proposed Carmel Significant Building List.” Carmel Pine Cone (22 February 1979).
Rasmussen, Lilian. “Hugh White Comstock: 1893-1950.” Unpublished manuscripts from the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (date unknown).
“Redwood Number.” Architect and Engineer, vol. 140 (1940): pp. [16]-48. “Recent work of Michael Goodman.” Architect and Engineer, vol. 139 (1939): pp. [16]- 40, 51.
Reynolds, Christopher. “Quaint as It Ever Was; Cute little Carmel resists change, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening in Pleasantville.” Los Angeles Times (13 June 1999): p. 1
Richardson, L. “Birthplace of Garden Ideas, Carmel-by-the-Sea.” Better Homes and Gardens, vol. 2 (January 1943): pp. 28-29.
Roseth, Brian, “A Brief History of Early Zoning Ordinances in Carmel-by-the-Sea.” Ryland, C.J. “Bank for Carmel by the Sea.” Architectural Concrete, vol. 6, no. 2 (1940):
pp. 24-25.
Samuels, L.K. Los Angeles Business Journal, v. 28, i41 (9 October 2006): p. 59(1).
Schilly, Barbara. “Points of Interest in Carmel.” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (date unknown).
Smith, Virginia. “You Can’t Improve on Simplicity.” Los Angeles Times (11 April 1948). “Some California Schools.” Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, vol. 57 (1950):
pp. 375-381.
Spratley, Louise. “Carmel: A Success Story.” West Vancouver Lions Gate Times (11 January 1963).
“Stanton to be Honored by Fellow Architects.” Carmel Pine Cone (24 August 1972).
Stegner, Wallace. “The California Tomorrow Plan.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 5. (February 1972): pp. 3-7.
Stephenson, Dorothy. “Carmel’s Architecture Both Interesting and Livable.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (1 June 1970).
Attachment 2
77 Stephenson, Dorothy. “’Dream’ Houses for the Common: ‘Dobies’ Move Out of the Luxury Class.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (5 March 1948).
Stephenson, Dorothy. “Hugh Comstock Influenced Carmel Architecture.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (8 September 1950).
Stephenson, Dorothy. “New House on Edge of Ocean at Carmel Point Draws Spectators.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (24 October 1951).
Stephenson, Dorothy. “Threat of Humanity Threatens to Engulf Carmel Village.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (3 May 1949).
Strickley, Andria. “Carmel Suffers An Identity Crisis As a Playground for Silicon Valley.” Preservation: the magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, vol. 52, no. 4 (July 2000): pp. 18-20.
Sutton, Horace. “Where the Longhairs Live.” Los Angeles Times (1962).
Tescher, Chris. “Architectural Integrity.” Carmel Pine Cone (5 July 1990). “The Bid Sur Saved.” Time (28 December 1962).
“The Bow Front Faces the Blue Pacific.” Architectural Record, vol. 104 (1948): pp. 100- 102.
“The Residence of Mrs. Esther Thatcher, Carmel: architect, Michael Goodman, interiors, Sawyer & Knowles.” California Arts and Architecture, vol. 57 (1940): pp. [28]-29. “The Second House.” Time (17 August 1962).
“The Unwanted.” Time (30 October 1950).
“This is Carmel 1955.” Carmel Pacific Spectator Journal (15 April 1955). “This is Carmel 1957.” Carmel Pacific Spectator Journal (September 1957). “This Site Slopes Up From The Road, So The House Climbs Instead of Descending.” Architectural Forum, vol. 88 (April 1948): p. 141.
Thompson, John. “Turn-of-the-Century Feminist: Anne Martin.” Carmel Life Online (2006). “Three weekend houses (Carmel, California).” Progressive Architecture, vol. 43 (1962):
pp. 120-[126].
“To Make a Two-Story House More Elegant, Accent the Vertical.” House and Home (February 1954): p. 124-9.
“Top-lighted school.” Architectural Forum, vol. 91 (1949): pp. 107-110.
Attachment 2
78 Turrentine, J. “Tradewinds-Inn, Asian tranquility soothes the soul on the California Coast.” Architectural Digest, vol. 61, issue 11 (2004): p. 280. “Two Peninsula Architects Honored By Invitation to Europe Exhibit.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (20 April 1951): 12.
“Vacation houses.” Architectural Forum, vol. 95 (1951): pp. 156-161. “Visitors Love Carmel.” Monterey Peninsula Herald (27 August 1948).
Wadsworth, Euel. “Carmel-by-the-Sea.” American Mercury, vol. 79 (December 1954):
p. 2829.
Waite, Elmont. “The Cities of America: Carmel, California.” The Saturday Evening Post (15 May 1948).
Wolf, Paul. “Report City City’s ‘Success Story.’” The Carmel Pine Cone (1 December 1994).
Maps and Ephemera
Ariss, Bruce. Carmel-by-the-Sea A Street Map of Carmel. California: s.n, 1950.
Carmel-by-the-Sea. Carmel, Calif.: A.W.V.S., 1944.
Carmel-by-the-Sea. Carmel, Calif: Carmel Realty Co, 1940s.
Mora, Joseph Jacinto. Carmel-by-the-Sea Past and Present. Monterey, Calif: Jo Mora Publications, 1942.
R.L. Polk & Co. Polk City Directory: Monterey County, California. Livonia, MI: R.L. Polk & Co., (1947-1963).
R.V. Vaughan Publications. Monterey Peninsula Informant map and guide. Street and Tourist Maps - Monterey Area. Monterey, Calif: R.V. Vaughan Publications, 1967.
Severance, H. D. City Maps of the Monterey Peninsula 4 Street Maps of Monterey, Carmel, Pacific Grove and Seaside. S.l: s.n, 1947.
Severance, H. D. Map of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Monterey County, California. [S.l.]: H.D. Severance, 1937.
Attachment 2
79 9.0 APPENDICES
This section contains supplemental information to the Context Statement. Reference to any specific property, place name, address or individual within the Appendices is not a determination of historical significance of a particular property at the present time, rather it is a reference to a historical contribution. Designation of a property as a historic resource is determined on an individual basis, after a survey and evaluation process.
9.1 Elected Officials of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Charter Members of the Board of Trustees and Elected Officials, 1916 A.P. Fraser, President
Peter Taylor
G.F. Beardsley
Eva K. DeSabla
D.W. Johnson
L.S. Slevin, Treasurer
J.E. Nichols, Clerk
President of the Board of Trustees, 1916-1928
A.P. Fraser, President, 1916-1920
Eva K. DeSabla, President, 1920 (resigned)
William Kibbler, President, 1920-1922 (appointed to replace DeSabla) William Maxwell, President, 1922 (resigned)
Perry Newberry, President, 1922-1924 (appointed to replace Maxwell) William Kibbler, President, 1924-26
John B. Jordan, President, 1926-1928
Mayors, 1926-1992
A.P. Fraser, 1916-1920
Eva DeSabla, 4/12-9/29/1920
William T. Kibbler, 1920-1922
William L. Maxwell, 4/10-5/29/1922
Perry Newberry, 1922-1924
William Kibbler, 1924-1926
John B. Jordan, 1926-1928
Ross E. Bonham, 1928-1932
Herbert Heron, 1930-1932 and 1938-1940
John C. Catlin, 1932-1934
James H. Thoburn, 1934-1936
Everett Smith, 1936-1938
Keith B. Evans, 1940-1942 (resigned)
Percy McCreery, 1942-1946
Frederick M. Godwin, 1946-1950
Allen Knight, 1950-1952
Horace D. Lyon, 1952-1958
John S. Chitwood, 1958-1960
Frank Putnam, 1960-1962
Attachment 2
80 Eben Whittlesey, 1962-1964
Herbert B. Blanks, 1964-1966
Steve Grant, 1966-1968
Bernard Laiolo, 1968-1972
Bernard Anderson, 1972-1976
Eugene Hammond, 3/2-9/7/1976
Gunnar Norberg, 1976-1980
Bernard Laiolo, first directly elected Mayor, 1980-1982 Charlotte Townsend, 1982-1986
Clint Eastwood, 1986-1988
Jean Grace, 1988-1992
Kennedy White, 1992-2000
Sue McCloud, 2000-
Members of the Board of Trustees, 1916-1950
A.P. Fraser, 1916-1920
Peter Taylor, 1916-1920
G.F. Beardsley, 1916-1918
Eva K. DeSabla, 1916-1920 (resigned)
D.W. Johnson, 1916-1918
William T. Kibbler, 1918-1926
Courtland J. Arne, 1918-1922
T.B. Reardon, 1920-1924
Fred Bechdolt, 1920 (resigned)
Michael J. Murphy, 1920-1922 (appointed to replace Bechdolt) George M. Dorwart, 1920-1922 (appointed to replace DeSabla) William Maxwell, 1922-1924
Helen Parkes, 1922, 1926
Perry Newberry, 1922-1924
John Dennis, 1924-1928
Henry Larouette, 1924-1928
C.O. Goold, 1924-1926
John B. Jordan, 1926-1934
George Wood, 1926-1930
Alfred K. Miller, 1926 (resigned)
Fenton P. Foster, 1926-1928 (appointed to replace Miller) Ross E. Bonham, 1928-1932
Vassamine Rockwell, 1928-1932
Lavon E. Gottfried, 1928-1930
Herbert Heron, 1930-1934 & 1938-1941 (resigned)
Clara Kellogg, 1930-1934
John Catlin, 1932-1936
Robert A. Norton, 1932-1936
Bernard Rowntree, 1934-1938 & 1944 (died)
James H. Thoburn, 1934-1938
Joseph A. Burge, 1934-1938
Everett Smith, 1936-1938
Gordon Campbell, 1938 (resigned)
Hazel Watrous, 1938-1940 (appointed to replace Campbell) Keith Evans, 1940-1942 (resigned)
Attachment 2
81 Frederick M. Godwin, 1940-1942 & 1946-1950
Arthur Hill, 1941-1942 (appointed to replace Heron)
Fred U. McIndoe, 1942-1943 (died)
L.L. Dewar, 1942-1944 (appointed to replace Evans)
Fred J. Mylar, 1943-1944 (appointed to replace McIndoe) & 1945 (appointed to replace Rowntree) (Resigned)
H.E. Hefling, 1944-1948
Allen Knight, 1944-1952
Charles M. Childers, 1945-1946 (appointed to replace Mylar) & 1946-1948 Donald M. Craig, 1946-1952
Andrew Martin, 1948-1952
Gene A. Ricketts, 1948-1952
Attachment 2
82 9.2 Members of the Arts and Crafts Club of Carmel
Founding Board, 1905
Elsie Allen, President
Mary Braley, Recording and Responding Secretary
Mrs. Frank Powers, Vice President
Louis Slevin, Treasurer
Second President, 1906
Josephine Foster
Fundraising Committee, 1906
Mary E. Hand
Fannie Yard
Dr. J.E. Beck
Carrie R. Sterling
Sidney Yard
William E. Wood
Arthur Vachell
Cedar Croft Staff, 1910
Sidney Yard, Director and dramatic reading
Helen Parkes, botany
Mary DeNeale Morgan, drawing and painting
Etta Tilton, pottery, china painting and art needlework Carrie Carrington, music
Museum of Yesteryear
Ida Johnson, Chairwoman and Curator
Civic Committee
Thomas Reardon
Dr. Alfred E. Burton
Jessie Arms Botke
Susan Creighton Porter
Charles Sumner Greene
9.3 Founding Members of the Forest Theater Society
Joseph and Mary Hand
Helen Parkes
George and Carrie Sterling
Lucia Lane
Maud Lyons
Stella Vincent
Attachment 2
83 Jessie Francis Short
George Boke
Virginia Smiley
Mary DeNeale Morgan
Fred and Clara Leidig
Saidee Van Bower
J.E. Beck
Thomas Reardon
Nellie Murphy
Ferdinand Burgdorff
Frederick Bechdolt
Helen Cooke
Alice MacGowan
Perry and Bertha Newberry
Herbert Heron
Attachment 2
84 9.4 Charter Members of the Carmel Free Library Association Edmund Arne
George Beardsley
Annie Gray
Mrs. F.H. Gray
Helen Jaquith
Annie Miller
Miss Parmele
Mrs. Franklin Powers
Franklin Powers
Attachment 2
85 9.5 Founding Board Members of the Carmel Art Association Pedro Lemos, President
Henry F. Dickenson, First Vice President
Josephine Culbertson, Second Vice President
Ida Maynard Curtis, Secretary
W. Seivery Smit, Treasurer
Sarah Deming
Homer Emmons
Jo Mora
George Seideneck
Edgar Alwyn Payne
Barney Segal
9.5.1 Artists Working in Carmel, 1940-1965
Martin Baer
Clancy Bates, sculptor
Dudley Carter, sculptor
John Catlin, sculptor
William Chase, painter
John Cunningham
Patricia Cunningham, painter
Ida Maynard Curtis, painter
Eldon Dedini, cartoonist
Linford Donovan, painter
Leslie Emery, painter
Nora Grabill
Armin Hansen, painter
Jimmy Hatlo, cartoonist
Edda M. Heath, painter
Austin James, sculptor
Charles Chapel Judson, painter
Hank Ketcham, cartoonist
Bill O’Malley, cartoonist
John O’Shea
Paul Kirtland Mays, landscape and mural painter
Alec Miller, sculptor
Frank Moore
Jo Mora, sculptor
Philip Nesbitt, illustrator
Lee Randolph
William Ritschel, painter
Catherine Seideneck, sculptor
George Seideneck, landscape painter
Celia Seymour
William Silva, painter
Howard Smith, painter
Vaughan Shoemaker, cartoonist
Alison Stilwell, painter
Doanld Teague, illustrator
Attachment 2
86 Edward Timmons
Brett Weston, photographer
Edward Weston, photographer
Alexander Weygers, sculptor
Clifton Williams
Attachment 2
87 9.6 Architects, Designers and Builders in Carmel
Architects
Frank Ashley
Carl Bensberg
Walter Burde
Thomas Church
William L. Cranston
Olaf Dahlstrand
Gardner Dailey
Thomas S. Elston
Albert Farr
Charles Sumner Greene
Albert Henry Hill
Robert Jones
Fred Keeble
Guy Koepp
Jon Konigshofer
Jack Kruse
Milt Latham
Frank Lloyd
Rowan Maiden
Bernard Maybeck
Clarence Mayhew
Julia Morgan
Mark Mills
Louis Mulgardt
Willis Polk
James Pruitt
Guy Rosebrook
C.J. Ryland
Marcel Sedletsky
Will V. Shaw
Edwin Snyder
Robert Stanton
Robert A. Stephenson
George Thomson
Helen Warren
George Whitcomb
George Willox
Frank Lloyd Wright
William Wurster
Frank Wynkoop
Designer/Builders
Miles Bain
Frederick Bigland
Ernest Bixler
Attachment 2
88 Richard Bixler
Daisy Bostick
Artie Bowen
Hugh Comstock
Delos Goldsmith
Lee Gottfried
Donald Hale
James Heisinger, Sr.
C.H. Lawrence
Meese & Briggs
M.J. Murphy
Percy Parkes
Frank Ruhl
A. C. Stoney
Hazel Watrous
George Mark Whitcomb
Attachment 2
89 9.7 Historical Chronology of Carmel
1542 Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo sails by Monterey Bay.
1595 California coast mapped by Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeno, who calls Monterey Bay “Bahia de San Pedro.”
1602 Sebastian Vizcaino also maps coast and names Monterey Bay after the viceroy of New Spain, names Point Pinos and “El Rio Carmelo.”
1769 Captain Gaspar de Portola and Franciscan padre Junipero Serra set out to establish a chain of missions and presidios in Alta California.
1770 On June 3rd Mass is celebrated by Father Sierra on the shores of Monterey Bay and Carmel Mission is founded.
1771 Father Sierra plants cross to designate site of Mission San Carlos Borromeo, the second of the missions. In August work begins on the first buildings, log structures with thatch roofs surrounded by a stockade.
1773 Father Francisco Palou joins Serra and begins building a larger church at Carmel Mission.
1784 Father Serra dies and is buried at the Carmel mission. 1793 Construction begins on new stone church which is completed in 1797. Manuel Estevan Ruiz, a Mexican stonemason, is the designer.
1803 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen, who had taken over from Father Serra as the head of the missions, dies. Decline of missions begins.
1822 Control of Alta California passes from Spain to Mexico. 1833 Secularization of the missions.
1835 Richard Henry Dana visits Monterey and records his impressions in Two Years Before the Mast.
1848 California ceded to the United States by Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 1849 The first Constitutional Convention is held in Monterey. 1850 California becomes the thirty-first state in the Union. Its first capital is San Jose. 1861 Mission San Carlos Borromeo described as a complete ruin. 1880 Southern Pacific Railroad opens resort hotel in Monterey, later called the Del Monte, and a mission restoration fund begun. Actual restoration not completed until fifty years later by Harry Downie, a San Francisco cabinetmaker.
Attachment 2
90 1888 Development rights of 324 acres of the Las Manzanitas Ranch, owned by Honoré Escolle, pass to Santiago Duckworth.
Santiago Duckworth files map of “Carmel City” at county seat in Salinas. Plans resort development and builds Hotel Carmel at the intersection of Junipero (then Broadway) and Ocean. Two hundred lots sold and some cottages built before the 1890s depression. 1892 Duckworth is joined in his venture by Mrs. Abbie J. Hunter founder of the Women’s Real Investment Company of San Francisco. Mrs. Hunter’s uncle-in-law, Delos Goldsmith, builds bath house in 1889 at the foot of Ocean Ave.
1902 James Franklin Devendorf purchases land in Carmel from agent Santiago Duckworth.
Frank Powers becomes his partner and the two formed the Carmel Development Company with Devendorf as the on-site manager. Hotel Carmleo moved four blocks down Ocean to present location and re-named the Pine Inn. 1903 Brochure, addressed to “the School Teachers of California and other Brain Workers at Indoor Employment” distributed by Devendorf in May. Pine Inn officially opens on July 4 th
.
1904 Stanford president David Starr Jordan builds at the northeast corner of Camino Real and 7 th. His assistant Vernon Kellogg also builds cottage. Camino Real just south of Ocean becomes known as “Professor’s Row.”
1905 Poet George Sterling moves to Carmel. His house becomes the nucleus of a literary colony.
Arts and Crafts Society organized.
1910 Forest Theater founded by Herbert Heron and Forest Theater Society formed. Open air facility opens July 9, 1910, with a production of “David.” 1912 Forest Theater improved with larger stage with dressing rooms beneath. Electricity installed a year later. Western Drama Society breaks away from the Forest Theater Society and also begins producing plays. Arts and Crafts Society becomes third producer.
1913 Permanent population 550 by unofficial count with several thousand summer visitors.
Devendorf issues another promotional brochure.
1914 Robinson and Una Jeffers arrive in Carmel from Monterey and begin building Tor House on Carmel Point.
1915 Carmel Highlands subdivided by Devendorf and Highlands Inn completed in 1917. 1916 Carmel incorporates.
1919 Three societies producing plays at the Forest Theater reunite. 1921 Bath house torn down.
Attachment 2
91 1922 City purchases Devendorf Park and the Sand Dunes from James Devendorf. 1923 Opening of the Bank of Carmel by State bank charter. 1927 Carmel Art Association organized.
1929 Residential character of Carmel-by-the-Sea proclaimed by ordinance. 1937 Highway 1 opened down the coast of California.
1940s Perry Newberry suggests building a fence around Carmel and charging a toll to enter. 1940 Carmel High School opened.
1941 Town experiences nightly blackouts during World War II. Carmelites rally to support troops through recycling programs, donations, and entertainment in the form of USO entertainment at Fort Ord.
1946 Monterey County Symphony founded, housed at Sunset Auditorium.
Village Corner constructed on NE corner of Dolores and 6th.
Hugh Comstock appointed to Planning Commission.
1947 Planning Commission delivers a statement of policy that outlines a strict adherence to “Carmel tradition,” from which there should be “no departure.” Home prices skyrocketed after war. Home on Casanova that sold for $8,500 in 1946 sold for $14,000 in 1947.
1948 Hugh Comstock launches “Dream Houses for the Common Man” project. 1948 Anti-rooming house law upheld in court.
Newspaper article claims anti-progress/modernization sentiments still strong. Carmel fought gas and electricity and in 1948 refuses to own its utilities. No numbers on homes or mail delivery. Community bulletin board used by all.
Buildings in commercial district could not exceed two stories. Bowling alleys, pool halls, or major industries not permitted in town.
1949 City purchases All Saints’ Church for use as a City Hall annex.
Walker House designed by FL Wright, constructed on N side of Scenic and Santa Lucia. 1949 Founded by Bing Crosby, the Carmel Youth Center, a recreational center for teenagers is established.
1949 Construction began on Carmel Youth Center, designed by Robert Jones.
Attachment 2
92 1950s City Council issued an ordinance stating that any Carmelite over 10 had to be clothed “from shoulder to knee.”
City made plans to purchase 600-feet-long beach strip Santa Lucia to the Walker House.
New post-War architectural development boom.
Mark Mills moved to Carmel from San Francisco (where he lived briefly after living at Taliesin West).
City employees sign non-Communist oath.
1950 Chamber of Commerce established (Carmel merchants participated in Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce). Residents opposed.
Carmel’s telephone central office building completed.
Carmel Foundation, a group dedicated to elderly and the maintenance of Town House, a social center for elderly, founded.
1950 Ground broken for new All Saints’ Church on White Cedar tract, which was purchased from Mrs. Margaret Hitchcock for $12,000. Church designed by Robert R. Jones. 1950 City Hall expands into adjacent former All Saints’ Church building. 1953 First worship service for Carmel Presbyterian Church held in Carmel Woman’s Club. 1954 No murders, no traffic fatalities, one assault, three burglaries.
Building inspector, Floyd Adams, authorized building permits for 30 new homes and three residential buildings. He also permitted 90 home remodels and 18 commercial remodels. Building expenditures totaled $770,765.
Carmel Ballet Academy Building, designed by Elston and Cranston, constructed on Mission between Seventh and 8th.
1954 Carmel Presbyterian Church formally organized with 70 charter members. 1955 One-hour-parking signs installed on Ocean Avenue.
1955 Forest Theater Workshop inaugurated.
New shopping center proposed at corner of Ocean and Junipero, which was at this time occupied by Murphy’s lumberyard and the San Carlos Canning Company. Property owned by Leslie Fenton.
1955 Newly constructed Carmel Presbyterian Church dedicated. 1956 Robinson Jeffers sells a portion of his property for subdivision. More is sold after his death in 1962.
Attachment 2
93 1956 Citizen’s committee recommended closing Ocean Avenue to traffic and discontinuing additional parking at beach for tourists.
City Council purchased parking lot across street from post office for $45,000 and Murphy Lumber Yard lot on Ocean for $117,000.
1958 City Council instituted an Arts Commission, which was particularly charged with operation and maintenance of the Forest Theater.
Forestry Commission instituted to conserve trees and guide reforestation. City Council embarks on monthly special tree tour meetings.
1959 State of California gifted half-block-long strip of Ocean Avenue Carpenter and Highway 1 to Carmel.
Carmel General Plan adopted.
Carmel Citizens’ Committee formed with membership of 600. 1962 First official Carmel Sand Castle contest held.
50 gift shops, 20 art galleries, 24 restaurants, 50+ hotels/motels.
Shell Oil Station, designed by Burde, Shaw, and Associates, constructed on SE corner of San Carlos and 4th.
1964 Citizens approve a $575,000 bond measure to purchase Sunset Center and its two-block site.
1965 Sunset Center purchased by the City.
1965 Wells Fargo Bank constructed on E side of San Carlos between Ocean and 7th.
Attachment 2
94 9.8 Who’s Who in Carmel*
Elsie Allen – Founding president of the Arts and Crafts Club of Carmel, Allen was a former editor of Harper’s magazine and retired faculty member of Wellesley College.
Mary Austin – Born on September 9, 1868 in Carlinville, Illinois, Austin was a prolific writer who published some thirty-two volumes in addition to approximately two hundred articles in periodicals. Austin moved to a ranch near Bakersfield with her family when her father died in 1888. Married to Stafford Wallace Austin in 189, she gave birth to a daughter the following year who was later found to be mentally retarded. She separated from her husband and moved to Carmel in 1906. Unable to afford the construction of a house on the lot she had purchased, she rented a cottage and later stayed in the Pine Inn. San Francisco architect Louis Mulgardt designed a studio platform around the limbs on an oak on her North Lincoln property. Austin called it her wick-i-up and spent many house there writing about nature and women’s rights. In 1908, thinking herself hopelessly ill, she went to Italy to study prayer and mysticism with the Blue Nuns. Her book Christ in Italy was a product of her experience there. In 1912 she returned to Carmel and finally built a cottage beside her tree house. In 1924 she established herself in Santa Fe where she fought for the preservation and rehabilitation of Indian and Spanish arts and handicrafts.
Leonard Bacon – Bacon moved to Carmel in the 1920s. He wrote the satirical verse “Guinea Fowl”, “Lost Buffalo” and others for Harper’s Weekly.
Raymond Stannard Baker (AKA David Grayson) – Journalist, Pulitzer Prize winning biographer and essayist, Baker was born in Lansing, Michigan on April 17, 1870. From 1892 to 1897 he was a reporter for the Chicago Record. He moved to New York with his wife and children in 1898 to work for McClure’s Magazine of which he served as associate editor until 1906. Baker then joined in the purchase of American Magazine, of which he was one of the editors until 1915. He was asked by Woodrow Wilson to edit his papers. Baker received the Pulitzer Prize for biography in 1940 for Woodrow Wilson: Life and Letters. He died in 1946.
Frederick Ritchie Bechdolt – Born on July 27, 1874 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania where he received his formal education, Bechdolt later went from placer mining in the Klondike, to cow punching, to rubbing shoulders with criminals at San Quentin and Folsom. When he first arrived in Carmel in 1907, he rented a cottage in the Eighty Acres until he met and married Adele Hare.
His novels include When the West Was Won, The Hard Rock Man, Takes of Oldtimers and 9009 in collaboration with James Hopper. He also wrote for various newspapers including the Seattle Star and Los Angeles Times. In addition to being a prolific writer, Bechdolt served as postmaster, city council member and police commissioner. He died in 1950.
William Rose Benet – Poet and novelist, Benet was born on February 2, 1886. He was on the staff of Century Magazine from 1911 to 1918. From 1919 and 1920 Benet was assistant editor of the Nation’s Business, and went from there to the Literary Review of the * NOTE: The purpose of this appendix is to provide a biographical information on historic figures in Carmel’s history, especially the creative people from all disciplines who shaped Carmel’s character. It is in no way intended as a complete list, but rather a synopsis of information collected during the preparation of this report. Exclusion from this appendix does not diminish the significance of any individual historic person.
Attachment 2
95 New York Evening Post, from which the Saturday Review of Literature grew. In 1942, he received the Pulitzer Prize for The Dust Which Is God, an autobiographical verse narrative. Benet shared a cottage in Carmel with his former Yale classmate Sinclair Lewis.
Geraldine Bonner – Bonner moved to Carmel after the San Francisco earthquake. She was a writer for the San Francisco Argonaut and author or The Pioneer and The Emigrant Trail.
Daisy Bostick – Daisy Fox Desmond Bostick first came to Carmel from San Jose as a guest of the Newberrys in 1910. She moved to the village permanently in 1918, pursuing a variety of activities including managing the Hotel Carmel with her husband Lou Desmond and writing a column for the Pine Cone. An acute observer of life in Carmel, she co-authored Carmel at Work and Play with Dorothea Castelhun in 1925.
Arthur (Artie) Bowen – Born in Sotoville in January 1887, Bowen moved to Carmel from San Jose. He built a cottage for himself on the east side of Casanova between Ninth and Tenth where he resided until his marriage in 1906. He worked for Devendorf for six years and later went into contracting and remodeling. He died in 1969.
Van Wyck Brooks – Literary historian and novelist, Brooks arrived in Carmel for a short period in 1911. He was the author of The World of H.G. Wells and America’s Coming of Age. Although he was critical of the lifestyle of the bohemians in Carmel, he returned for extended visits during the 1930s and 1940s.
Davenport Bromfield – In April of 1888 W.C. Little and Bromfield were commissioned to survey Carmel City for Santiago Duckworth. Bromfield, Little’s apprentice, ended up doing most of the work while living in a small cottage he built for himself on the east side of Carpenter Street between Second and Third.
Ferdinand Burgdorff – Born on November 7, 1881 in Cleveland, Ohio. Burgdorff first came to Carmel in 1908 to visit his friend and fellow Bohemian Club member, Charles Rollo Peters. He soon returned and rented a small portion of the kitchen belonging to the Arts and Crafts Club, which he used as his first studio while often swapping notes with Sidney Yard. He later built a home on Boronda Road in Pebble Beach. Burgdorff died in 1975.
Argyll Campbell – Born on December 2, 1892 in San Jose, Campbell was the city attorney and responsible for drawing many of Carmel’s first zoning laws and ordinances. He is best remembered for writing Carmel’s “Magna Carta”: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is hereby determined to be primarily, essentially, and predominately a residential city wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed in the future to be subordinated to its residential character.
Dorothea Castelhun – Castelhun moved to Carmel from Massachusetts during the 1920s. She published a the series of stories for girls, The Penelope Books, and co-authored Carmel at Work and Play with Daisy Bostick.
Father Angelo Casanova – Casanova, a priest at San Carlos Church, was responsible for the partial restoration of the Carmel Mission in 1882.
Lena Cherry – Cherry was a poet and artist who moved to Carmel in 1920 with her first husband M.I.T. professor, Dr. Alfred E. Burton. Six years later she left him and their three children for inventor Carl Cherry. They purchased Delos Goldsmith’s house which was constructed between Attachment 2
96 1892 and 1894. After her husband died, Cherry created the Carl Cherry Foundation and remodeled their house into a gallery and theater.
Hugh Comstock – Hugh Comstock developed the Fairy Tale style of architecture with which Carmel has become closely identified. Born in Evanston, Illinois in 1893, Comstock moved to Santa Rosa with his family in 1907. In 1924, he came to Carmel to visit his sister and met and married Mayotta Brown. The two decided to remain in Carmel as Mayotta had a successful doll making business. Comstock’s career as a designer-builder began when his wife asked him to build a cottage for her dolls. The “Doll’s House” became the first of many Fairy Tale style cottages he would design and build. Comstock’s interest in architecture eventually changed, however, to the development of the post-adobe system of construction.
Josephine Culbertson – Culbertson came to Carmel in 1906 with her friend and companion, Ida Johnson. Soon they opened a studio to display their art and built a home at Lincoln and Seventh, known as “Gray Gables.” They helped organize the Carmel Art Association, of which Culbertson was the founding vice-president. In addition to their artistic endeavors, they established The Dickens Club, a local boys club.
John Cunningham – Cunningham originally appeared in Carmel in 1926 with a cast of amateur actors from Berkeley. He stayed on for a few months painting sets for the Forest Theater. A decade alter he returned with his wife, Pat, and set up permanent residence. In 1939, the Cunninghams bought the Carmel Art Institute from Armin Hansen and Paul and Kit Whitman.
Pat Cunningham – Cunningham, an oil painter and muralist, was the first woman president of the California Art Association. She and her husband, John, bought the Carmel Art Institute from Armin Hansen and Paul and Kit Whitman in 1939.
Dene Denny – born in Callahan, California, Denny acquired a degree from the University of California at Berkeley. She moved to Carmel in 1924 with her companion, Hazel Watrous. They first built a studio on Dolores near First, which Watrous also designed. From 1927 and 1928 they leased the Golden Bough Playhouse from Edward Kuster and presented eighteen plays. They formed the Denny-Watrous Gallery in 1928 which sponsored concerts and art exhibitions. They also co-founded the Bach Festival in 1935.
Eva K. DeSabla – DeSabla was first elected to public office as a City Trustee October 31, 1916 when Carmel-by-the-Sea incorporated. She was reelected April 12, 1920 and appointed president, but resigned from office September 29, 1920. She came to Carmel from Marysville, where she was known as Eva K. Couvileau.
Frank Devendorf – Born April 6, 1856, Devendorf left his native town of Lowell, Michigan at sixteen to join his mother who lived in San Jose. He later established himself in the real estate business there and in Stockton. In 1902 he acquired Carmel City from Santiago Duckworth and the following year established the Carmel Development Company with Frank Powers. He set the stage for the development of Carmel-by-the-Sea and became its unofficial mayor. He and his wife Lillian had four daughters Edwina, Marion, Myrtle and Lillian.
Paul Dougherty – An artist who achieved fame as a seascapist, Dougherty was a National Academician who settled in Carmel Highlands in 1928. He served as president of the Carmel Art Association in 1940.
Attachment 2
97 Harry Downie – Downie was a cabinetmaker from San Francisco. He was commissioned by Monsignor Philip G. Scher of San Carlos Church to restore the Carmel Mission in 1931. He died March 10, 1980 and was buried along side the mission.
Santiago Duckworth – In 1888, Santiago J. Duckworth purchased 324 acres of land from Honoré Escolle and filed a subdivision map for Carmel City. The area was surveyed by W.C. Little and generally bounded by Monte Verde on the west, Forest Road on the east Twelfth Avenue on the south and First Avenue on the north. Duckworth, already established in the real estate business in Monterey, planned on developing Carmel City as a summer resort for Catholics, akin to the Methodist retreat already established in Pacific Grove. He opened the Hotel Carmelo on the northeast corner of Ocean Avenue and Broadway (Junipero) in 1889.
Louise Norton Drummage – A native of Illinois, Louise came to California in 1897 to work at the Agnew State Hospital in San Jose. While taking a holiday in Pacific Grove in 1899, she met and later married Melvin Norton, proprietor of the Cash Package Grocery. The couple first visited nearby Carmel in June 1903 where they bought property and established the village’s first restaurant. They built a house at Seventh and San Carlos, which was later moved to Ninth and San Carlos. In 1906, Louise opened a baker, and later built the Tel and Tel Building, constructed by Percy Parkes, which was razed in 1957. She later married William T. Drummage.
William T. Drummage – Drummage was sent to Carmel in 1892 as the resident agent for Abbie Jane Hunter. He and his mother moved from San Jose to Carmel in 1898 to a house he built on the lot bounded by San Carlos, Mission and Fourth streets. In 1899, Abbie Jane Hunter sold Drummage a portion of her Carmel holdings. He was Carmel’s first plumber. He later married the widow Louise Norton.
Amos Eagle – A landscape artist, Engle moved to Carmel during the 1920s.
Nora May French – A gifted poet and protégé of George Sterling, French came to Carmel in 1907. Sterling built a cabin for her in the Eighty Acres so she would have a place to write. She later committed Suicide.
Delos Goldsmith – Born in Painsville, Ohio on September 3, 1828, Goldsmith moved to San Francisco at nineteen where he worked as a carpenter. He moved to Carmel in 1888 and began constructing homes. He was the uncle of Wesley Hunter, husband of Abbie Jane Hunter.
Lee Gottfried – A builder responsible for numerous homes and commercial buildings, alone and as half of the partnership of Gottfried and Hale, Lee Gottfried was active in village life, helping to organize the Abalone League of softball teams and the building and loan society.
Eunice Gray – Gray moved to Carmel during the 1920s and lived in one of the first beach cottages, “The Barnacle.” She wrote Cross Trails and Chaparral.
Charles Sumner Greene – Greene, along with his brother Henry Mather Greene, established the architectural firm of Greene and Greene in Pasadena. Together the brothers developed the Craftsman style of architecture into a high art. When D.L. James engaged Greene in 1914 to design a home on a rocky bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean, Charles Greene left Pasadena and settled in Carmel. Retiring in Carmel about 1916, he built his own home and studio on Lincoln Street. Greene was a member of the Civic Committee of the Arts and Crafts Club and in 1921 designed the War Memorial Arch at San Carlos and Ocean Avenue. His daughter Bettie built stables on Junipero and Fifth streets which were razed in 1958.
Attachment 2
98 Arnold Genthe – Prussian Arnold Genthe had originally intended to become a teacher in his homeland. He came to Carmel via San Francisco, where he became a member of the Bohemian Club and a fledgling photographer, not long after his friend George Sterling. He built a redwood home on Camino Real near Eleventh and continued to develop his skill and his reputation as a portrait and landscape photographer. While living in Carmel, he took his first color photographs.
In San Francisco in 1911, he displayed one of the first exhibitions of color photographs in the United States.
Armin Carl Hansen – Born in San Francisco on October 23, 1886, Hansen studied art at the California School of Design and later in Stuttgart, Germany. He was a painter and etcher who was noted for his portraits of Spanish and Portuguese fisherman of the Monterey Bay. A National Academician, he was an organizer of the Carmel Art Association—of which he was later president—and the Carmel Art Institute. He died April 23, 1957.
Ella Reid Harrison – Ella Reid Harrison can be considered the most generous supporter of Carmel’s library. Harrison bequeathed a large portion of her estate including bonds, land, books and furniture to the city on the condition that they be used to build a public library in memory of her late husband.
Herbert Heron – Heron was born in 1883 in New Jersey. He had been a professional actor with the Belasco and Morasco Stock Company in Los Angeles and first visited Carmel in July of 1908.
Returned one year later, Heron built a home at Guadalupe and Mountain View. The following year he formed the Forest Theater Society. Heron also opened the first genuine book shop in 1918 in the Eighty Acres. It was later moved to the Seven Arts Building on the corner of Lincoln and Ocean which he built in 1925, and sold in 1940. In later years he served on the city council and as mayor from 1930 to 1934.
James Hopper – Hopper was born in Paris on July 23, 1876. His first book, Caybigan, was published in 1906. He taught school in the Philippines for a while, but returned to the United States to dedicate himself to writing. He wrote more than four hundred short stories and several novels for popular magazines such as Collier’s and The Saturday Evening Post. He moved to Carmel permanently after the San Francisco earthquake in 1906. First renting a cottage on Dolores and Ninth, he later moved into George Sterling’s house. After it burnt down, he built a new home on the same site. His first wife, Mattie, was particularly active in raising funds for the development of Devendorf Park. In 1938, Hopper married Elayne Lawson of Monterey, and died in 1956. His daughter Janie married actor Richard Boone and Herb Vial.
Abbie Jane Hunter – Hunter founded the Women’s Real Estate and Investment Company in 1892.
She acquired partial interest in the development of Carmel City and built the Carmel Bathhouse.
She is credited with coining the name Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Robinson Jeffers – Jeffers was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He studied various fields including forestry and medicine before deciding to become a poet. Initially considered to have an unpromising career, his genius blossomed during the 1920s. His principal work, Roan Stallion, Tamar and Other Poems, was published in 1925. Jeffers and his wife, Una, began renting a house on Monte Verde near Ocean in 1914. Several years later they purchased land on Carmel Point and hired Michael J. Murphy to build a house. Constructed of native granite, they called it “Tor House” because the treeless, wind swept lot facing the ocean reminded them of the tors in England. Observing the stone masons during the construction, Jeffers later built “Hawk Tower.” Attachment 2
99 David Starr Jordan – The first president of Stanford University, Jordan built a house at the northeast corner of Camino Real and Seventh in 1905. That section of the street later became known as “Professor’s Row.” Jordan was also the author of Blood of the Nation, The Higher Sacrifice and The Strength of Being Clean.
William Keith – California’s best known landscape artist, Keith was born in Aberdeenshire, Scotland on November 21, 1838. he was a prolific artist, however, 2,000 of his paintings, sketches and studies were destroyed in the San Francisco fire of 1906. He died April 13, 1911.
Harry Lafler – Literary editor of the Argonaut, Lafler moved to the Carmel area after the San Francisco earthquake. He actually lived down the coast most of the time and wrote for local papers. He also worked on the publication of poems by Nora May French after her death.
Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen – The building at Mission San Carlos de Borromeo was begun in 1793 under the direction of Father Lasuen.
Sinclair Lewis – The first American to win the Nobel Prize for literature in 1930, twenty-three year old Lewis joined the MacGowan sisters in Carmel in 1908 to act as their secretary and collaborator. The three had met at Helicon Hall, a utopian writer’s colony in New Jersey established by Upton Sinclair. For a little over a year Lewis lived in a house on the beach near the MacGowan house; that spring he shared his modest quarters with friend William Rose Benet.
He worked off and on as a reporter before becoming a novelist. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1926 but refused it saying he did not believe in prizes. His principal works include: Elmer Gantry, Main Street, Babbit and Arrowsmith.
W.C. Little – In April of 1888 W.C. Little and Davenport Bromfield were commissioned to survey Carmel City for Santiago Duckworth.
Grace and Alice MacGowan – The MacGowan sisters moved to Carmel in 1908 to join the literary colony. They had already achieved wide popular success with their novels, short stories, essays and poems. They bought a two-story, shingled house located on a cliff above the beach at what came to be known as “Cooke’s Cove.” They were active in the Forest Theater Society from its founding in the spring of 1910.
Xavier Martinez – Martinez was born in Guadalajara, Mexico on February 7, 1874. He moved to San Francisco in 1893 to study art and in 1895 went to Europe for six more years of study.
Martinez returned to San Francisco where he taught at the California School of Arts and Crafts.
Most of his impressionist paintings are of the Piedmont hills where he lived; however, he spent summers teaching at the Arts and Crafts Club School and made frequent trips to Carmel to visit friends and sketch. He died January 13, 1943. His house at Carmelo and Sixteenth was occupied by his wife and daughter until 1989.
Laura Maxwell – Maxwell was born in Carson City, Nevada on October 13, 1887. She moved to Carmel permanently in 1918 and opened her first studio at Carmelo and Santa Lucia. She died August 7, 1967.
Joseph Mora – Sculptor, painter and writer, Mora was born in Uruguay and came to the United States as a child. He studied art in New York and Boston. After World War I, he moved to Carmel, purchasing a full block at San Carlos and First where he built his home and studio. Soon after his arrival he was commissioned to do the Serra Cenotaph for the Carmel mission which was completed and dedicated in 1924. Shortly afterward he sold his property in town and moved to Attachment 2
100
Sunridge Road in Pebble Beach. Other notable works by Mora include a monument to Cervantes at Golden Gate Park, the Bret Harte Memorial at the Bohemian Club, and the Memorial Fountain at the Salinas County Courthouse.
Mary DeNeale Morgan – Born in San Francisco in 1868, DeNeale Morgan attended the California School of Design from 1888 to 1890. She later exhibited her art throughout the United States. She visited Carmel briefly in 1903 with her family who helped run the Pine Inn for a little more than a month for Frank Devendorf. Morgan returned the following year and occupied a cottage on Monte Verde near the Pine Inn. Six years later she established her permanent home and studio in the former Sidney Yard studio on Lincoln near Seventh. An avid painter in tempera and oils, active in the support of the Forest Theater and All Saints Church, and one of the founders of the Carmel Art Association, she died in October 1948.
Michael J. Murphy – Born June 26, 1885 in Minden, Utah, Murphy first came to Carmel in 1902.
Two years later Frank Devendorf hired him to do the building for the Carmel Development Company. Murphy went on to become the most prolific designer-builder in the history of Carmel, with the Pine Inn, Highlands Inn, La Playa Hotel, Sundial Lodge, Tor House, Harrison Memorial Library, and numerous houses to his credit. In 1924 he established M.J. Murphy Inc., which sold building supplies, did rock crushing and concrete work and operated a lumber mill and cabinet shop located between San Carlos and Mission.
M.M. Murphy – Murphy moved to Carmel during the 1920s and lived at Twelfth and Casanova.
He was an author, paleontologist and Navajo Indian Reservation official.
Perry Newberry – Perry Newberry came to Carmel with his wife, Bertha, in 1910. He was formerly on the art staff of the San Francisco Examiner. He became the assistant editor of the Pine Cone and later its owner until he sold it in 1935. He successfully ran for the Board of Trustees in 1938 and fought to preserve the unique and rural quality of Carmel.
Helen Parkes – Helen Parkes was one of the multi-faceted women who pepper the early history of Carmel. Her accomplishments include stints on the city council and the first planning commission, service as assistant postmistress, botany instructor at Cedar Croft, and reader of the Christian Science Church. She was one of the first members of the Forest Theater Society, and wrote and produced one of its plays, The Columbine. In many of her activities she was joined by her life long friend, Stella Vincent.
Earl Percy Parkes – One of the early builders of Carmel, Parkes counted among his commissions the Seven Arts Building erected for Herbert Heron, the Corner Cupboard or Drummage’s Drivein Market, and Monte Verde Inn.
Ralph Pearson – Pearson, a noted etcher, moved to Carmel from New Mexico during the 1920s.
Charles Rollo Peters – Born in San Francisco on April 10, 1862, Peters left the insurance business to become an artist in 1885. Following five years of study in San Francisco and Paris, he settled on the Monterey Peninsula. Peter’s home was a gathering place for other artists when he was not working. He died in 1928.
Frank Powers – Generally credited as one of the founders of Carmel, Powers and James Franklin Devendorf became partners in the Carmel Development Company in 1903. An attorney, Powers loved nature and the arts. He maintained the old Murphy property on San Antonio as a vacation home for his family.
Attachment 2
101
Jane Gallatin Powers – Married to Frank Powers, Jane Powers was a painter and a founding member of the Arts and Crafts Club. She was the daughter of one of California’s wealthiest industrialists, Albert Gallatin, and the sister-in-law of Ernest Seton Thompson.
Ira Remsen – An artist, Ira Remsen was a New Yorker who had studied painting in Paris. His studio on Dolores Street became the permanent home for the Carmel Art Association in 1933, five years after the artist himself had committed suicide. During his residency in Carmel (on the Highlands), Remsen was active in the Arts and Crafts Club, the Carmel Art Association, and the Forest Theater.
William Ritschel – Marine landscape artist Ritschel was born in Nuremberg, Bavaria in 1864. He came to United States in 1895 and settled in New York City. Having later visited Carmel, he returned in 1918 to build his “Castle” in the Highlands with the help of a Spanish stone mason.
Ritschel was a founder the Carmel Art Association and a National Academician. His second wife was Elanora Havel.
Dan Rudhyar – Musician and philosopher, Rudhyar moved to Carmel during the 1920s.
Frederick Preston Search – An accomplished cellist and composer, Search and his wife established their home on the corner of Thirteenth and Monte Verde in 1914. From 1920 to 1933 he directed the orchestra at the Del Monte Hotel. Later he lived on Jamesburg Road in the Carmel Valley.
Catherine Comstock Seideneck – Seideneck was the daughter of Nellie Comstock, the patron of the Carmel Art Institute, and the sister of Hugh Comstock. She taught leather work at the School of Fine Arts at the University of California at Berkeley and later at the Carmel Arts and Crafts Summer School.
George Seideneck – Seideneck was born in Czechoslovakia in 1885. He moved to Chicago as a young man where he studied at the Art Institute and later became a commercial illustrator. Upon moving to California, Seideneck was a long time staff artist with the coastal laboratories of the Carnage Institute as well as photographer and artist of landscapes and portraits. He belonged to the group which formed the Carmel Art Association and became its first president. His other cultural activities included the Carmel Music Society. Seideneck designed the walls and corners of Devendorf Park. He and his wife Catherine opened their studio in the Studio Building on Ocean Avenue August 17, 1922 and built their home in the Carmel Valley.
Father Junipero Serra – Serra was born in Petra on the Isle of Mallorca on November 24, 1713.
He entered the Order of Saint Francis at a young age. At thirty-six, he was sent to Mexico where he was a missionary for nineteen y ears before being sent to California to establish a chain of missions. He arrived on the shores of the Monterey Bay in 1770 with the Portola exhibition and established the Carmel Mission. Serra went on to establish the seven more missions and died on August 28, 1784.
William Posey Silva – An artist, Silva built the Carmelita Gallery on San Antonio north of Ocean Avenue.
Louis Slevin – An avid photographer, Slevin held the first of many posts in Carmel. A man of many facets, Slevin was a shopkeeper, postmaster, city treasurer, writer, and stamp collector, Attachment 2
102
collector of rare books, and maritime historian. Ranging from 1899 to 1935, Slevin’s photographs provide important documentation of the changes in the Monterey Bay area.
Robert Stanton – Carmel architect Robert Stanton was the designer of many notable buildings in the Monterey and Santa Cruz area. A native of Torrance, California, Stanton worked for the architect Wallace Neff as a traveling superintendent during the early 1930s. In 1934, he moved to Carmel which he had developed a liking for during his honeymoon at the Highland Inn twelve years earlier. His first commission in the area was the Salinas County Courthouse in 1935. He also designed some sixteen hospitals and forty schools.
Lincoln Steffens – Political writer and social critic, Steffens was born on April 6, 1866 in San Francisco. He received a Ph.D. from the University of California. He became a “muckraking” reporter and held several editorial positions with magazines including McClure’s Magazine and American Magazine. He and his wife, Ella Winter, moved into a cottage on San Antonio near ocean during the 1920s where he wrote his autobiography and edited the Pacific Weekly.
George Sterling – Poet George Sterling came to California in 1890 from Sag Harbor Long Island.
He studied for the priesthood for three years, then left to work for his uncle, Frank Havens, as an insurance Agent, he married Carrie Rand and settled in Piedmont. His friend, Ambrose Bierce, helped him publish his first collection of poems in 1903. Jack London introduced him to Mary Austin who in turn introduced him to Carmel in the summer of 1905. He built a house in the Eighty Acres on Torres between Tenth and Eleventh. Sterling committed suicide in 1926.
Saidee Van Brower – Saidee Van Brower was first elected city clerk in 1920 and won every bid for reelection thereafter. A dance instructor in Berkeley, Van Brower was one of the many artistic-minded people who moved to Carmel in 1907. She performed in the Forest Theater productions as well as directed the corps de ballet.
Stella Vincent – Like her close friend Helen Parkes, Stella Vincent was prominent in several aspects of village life. Librarian from 1911 until 1915, she was assistant postmistress during the tenure of I.E. Payne and assumed the principal post in 1918, serving until 1929. She was one of the founding members of the Forest Theater Society, was an officer of the Bank of Carmel established in 1923, and was an early member of the Christian Science Church.
Grace Wallace – Wallace moved to Carmel during the 1920s and lived at “Wee Gables” on Camino Real near Thirteenth. She was known for her plays Sun Gazers and Poorest of the Poor.
Hazel Watrous – Watrous was a supervisor for the Alameda school system. She moved to Carmel in 1924 with her companions Dene Denny, who she met at Berkeley. They first built a studio on North Dolores, which Watrous also designed. From 1927 and 1928 they leased the Golden Bough Playhouse from Edward Kuster and presented eighteen plays. They formed the Denny Watrous Gallery in 1928 which sponsored concerts and art exhibitions. They also cofounded the Back Festival in 1935. In addition to being active in drama, music and art, they designed thirty-six houses in Carmel. Watrous also served on the city council.
Florence Wells – Wells came to Carmel in 1908. She was one time president of San Francisco Women’s Press Club. Wells owned and built the first house on the Point, “The Driftwood.” Edward Weston – Nationally recognized photographer. Weston moved to Carmel in 1929 and established a small studio to support his children. In 1932 Weston, along with Ansel Adams, was one of the seven founding members of the F/64 Club which promoted straight photography as a true art form. Weston is best known for his interpretations of the natural environment (Point Attachment 2
103
Lobos, Big Sur, Carmel Valley and the Southwest) and for his insightful portraiture. In 1937 he relocated to a small cabin built by his son above Wild Cat Creek in Big Sur.
George W. Whitcomb – Born in 1898, George Whitcomb was one of the builders who shaped early Carmel. Like many of his contemporaries in Carmel, he was not formally trained as an architect; rather, he had been an instructor in mechanical drawing and manual training in Minnesota before coming to Carmel. His first local project was the Hagemeyer studio and home, now the Forest Lodge on Mountain View, in the 1920s.
Paul and Kit Whitman – The Whitmans helped found the Carmel Art Institute in 1937.
Michael Williams – One time city editor of the San Francisco Examiner. Williams moved to Carmel after the San Francisco earthquake. He was noted for his collaboration with Upton Sinclair on two books in 1908 as well as his own books, The Little Flower of Carmel and The Little Brother Francis of Assisi.
Harry Leon Wilson – Author of The Spenders and The Lions of the Lord and contributing editor of the Puck in New York, Wilson was one of the first writers to move to Carmel along with George Sterling. His home, known as “Ocean Home,” was located near Sterling’s in the Eighty Acres.
Fannie Yard – The wife of Artist Sidney Yard, she was the director of Cedar Croft, the Arts and Crafts Club Summer School.
Attachment 2
104
9.9 Biographical Information on Architects Working in Carmel between 1940 and 1965 Miles Bain - Designer/builder Miles Bain is best known for building Frank Lloyd Wright’s Walker House and the Nathaniel Owings House. Bain arrived to Carmel in the 1920s to work as an estimator for contractor George Mark Whitcomb.118 In the 1930s, Bain earned his own contractor license and constructed a number of houses in Carmel. After WWII, Bain and Whitcomb partnered up again to work for Bechtel Corporation, building oil-pumping stations in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return to Carmel, Bain received building commissions for the residences of Frank Lloyd Wright, Nathaniel Owings, Ansel Adams, and Neil Weston. Bain’s Carmel office was listed in 1963 City Directories.
Carl Bensberg - An architect, is shown in City Directories as residing in Carmel from 1947 through 1963.
Ernest and Richard Bixler - Ernest Bixler (1898-1978) was a prominent builder/contractor in Carmel in the 1940s and 1950s. Bixler was introduced to the contracting business from his father and was trained as a carpenter in Oakland.119 He began working as a builder in Carmel and Pebble Beach in 1940 while serving as Carmel’s Postmaster. After WWII, Bixler served on Carmel’s Planning Commission at a time when the community’s zoning standards were in a state of flux. He retired from contracting in 1966. His own residence in Carmel is a hipped roof, California Ranch style building. Bixler is listed in City Directories as residing in Carmel at the southwest corner of Eleventh Avenue and Junipero from 1947 to 1963.
Burde, Shaw & Associates – The prolific, award-winning local firm was headed up by Will V.
Shaw, FAIA and Walter Burde, FAIA.
Thomas Church - One of the leading American Modernist landscape architects active from the 1930s to the 1970s, Thomas Church is known for his pioneering Modern garden designs that were appropriated to the local environment and climate. His design approach influenced the next generation of landscape architects, including Garrett Eckbo, Robert Royston, Lawrence Halprin, Theodore Osmundson, and Douglas Baylis, acknowledged as pioneers of the “California Style” of landscape design.120 Church was educated at the University of California and Harvard, where he became fascinated with issues of California’s climate and outdoor living. 121 By 1930 Church had established his own practice in San Francisco, the neoclassical style was the prevailing approach in landscape and city planning design. Church’s unique approach towards unifying building and landscape with particular attention towards climate context and lifestyle gave birth to Modern landscape design and planning. Church and Wurster, of Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, were close friends and collaborated on many house and garden projects throughout their careers.122
Elston and Cranston - The architectural firm of Elston and Cranston made significant contributions to the post-WWII architectural character of Carmel with their Modernist residential
118 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Mary D. Crile House, 2. 119 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Ernest Bixler House, 2. 120 Corbett, 19.
121 Marc Treib, editor. Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1992, 169.
122 Corbett, 12.
Attachment 2
105
work that reflect the Bay Area regionalist styles popular during their time.123 Born in Manila, Philippines and educated in the U.S., William L. Cranston (1918-1986) received his architectural degree from Princeton University.124 After World War II, Cranston arrived to Carmel and worked for developer Frank Lloyd designing speculative housing. In 1948, Cranston partnered with Thomas S. Elston, a fellow speculative housing designer. Cranston was President of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and a member of the Carmel Valley Master Plan Committee.125 The firm is also known for their school designs in the region. Their design for the Carmel Middle School won the Northern California AIA Merit Award in 1963.126 Examples of Cranston’s work in Carmel include the L. L. Spillers Guest Cottage and the house for Dr. and Mrs. Chester Magee.127 Cranston is listed in City Directories as residing in Carmel from 1947 to 1963.
Olaf Dahlstrand - An active participant in Carmel’s community, having served on both the planning commission and city council. One of Dahlstrand’s most notable works in Carmel is the 1964 Wells Fargo Bank building, greatly influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright’s “organic” design concepts.
Gardner Dailey – Daily was educated at the University of California, Berkeley, Stanford University, and Heald’s College of Engineering. Dailey established his practice in San Francisco in 1926, embracing many of the stylistic tenets of the Bay Area traditions exemplified in his design of the Miller House in Carmel. One of the leading architects in the region at that time, Dailey reviewed building plans for Samuel Morse and the Del Monte Corporation of Pebble Beach.128 His work was featured in House and Home in February 1954 in which the Dailey’s three design guidelines, verticality, rhythm and outdoor enclosure, were upheld as the lessons to make “any house more livable.”129 Dailey is not listed as a resident of Carmel according to City Directories from 1947 to 1963.
Roger and Lee Gottfried- Roger Gottfried, an architect, is listed as a resident in Carmel City Directories from 1947 through 1963.
Albert Henry Hill - (1913-1984) is a prominent figure in California architectural history for his contributions towards the emergence of the Second Bay Tradition style, which combined elements of the International Style with regional and vernacular influences.130 Born in England and educated at University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard University, Hill studied under Bauhaus proponents, Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer.131 Hill worked with John Ekin
123 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, L. L. Spillers Guest Cottage, 2.
124 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, L. L. Spillers Guest Cottage, 2.
125 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, L. L. Spillers Guest Cottage,, 3.
126 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, L. L. Spillers Guest Cottage, 3.
127 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Dr. & Mrs. Chester Magee, 2.
128 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Gardner A. Dailey House,
2. 129 House & Home, February 1954, 124-129.
130 Dave Weinstein, “Flamboyant modernism: Henry Hill’s stellar taste and love for the arts is reflected in the homes he designed,” in San Francisco Chronicle, 11 June 2005. 131 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Henry Hill House, 2.
Attachment 2
106
Dinwiddie and Eric Mendelssohn in San Francisco in the late 1940s prior to establishing his private practice in Carmel and San Francisco. His partnership with architect Jack Kruse produced a number of “weekend houses” in Carmel, characterized by sharp and angular forms, use of traditional materials, and integration of the house into its local setting.132 The partnership lasted until Hill’s death in 1984.133 Hill resided in Carmel from 1971, designing numerous homes throughout the region and served on Carmel’s planning commission.134 Some of Hill’s other works in Carmel include the Howard Nieman House and the residence at Casanova and Ninth.
Robert Jones – architect of the Carmel Youth Center circa 1949, is listed as a resident in Carmel City Directories from 1947 to 1963.
Jon Konigshofer – began in the office of local designer, M.J. Murphy, a practitioner of the more traditional styles popular in Carmel during the first half of the twentieth century.135 Konigshofer was an adherent of Frank Lloyd Wright and applied Wright’s philosophies to the houses he designed in Carmel. Through the use of inexpensive materials and effective budgeting, Konigshofer eventually became known for the minimalism and affordability of his designs, and is regarded as one of the foremost pioneers of Modernism in Carmel. The Monterey Peninsula Herald described Konigshofer – along with M.J. Murphy and Hugh Comstock – as having “influenced house design [in Carmel] more than any other.” Similar to Frank Lloyd Wright and Hugh Comstock, Konigshofer was neither licensed nor degreed in architecture, yet his buildings, according to the Herald, “attracted as much comment and praise in the architectural world as those designed by many a high ranking degreed architect.”136 Jon Konigshofer’s buildings include the Robert Buckner House (1947), the house at Thirteenth and Scenic (Kip Silvey), the house at Santa Lucia and Casanova (E.S. Hopkins), and the Sand and Sea development.
Jack Kruse - Formed a partnership with prominent Carmel architect Albert Henry Hill in 1948 after having worked together in the San Francisco office of influential European Modernist architect, Eric Mendelssohn. Hill was known to have been the principal designer and Kruse the engineer.137 His partnership with architect Henry Hill produced a number of residences in Carmel, characterized by sharp and angular forms, use of traditional materials, and integration of the house into its local setting.138 The partnership lasted until Hill’s death in 1984.139 Frank Lloyd - Local builder Lloyd and his family arrived in Carmel in 1911 at which time his family bought a block of property along San Carlos Street. Lloyd was educated at McGill University in Montreal, Canada where he received his Bachelor of Arts. Upon returning to Carmel in 1934, Lloyd decided to permanently settle there and built a house on his family’s property. Lloyd held various jobs throughout the 1930s and 1940s from fisherman to writer for local newspapers. He constructed 12 houses in Carmel after WWII, some designed by himself, and others designed by the architectural firm of Elston and Cranston. An active member of the community, Lloyd was a member of the Carmel Citizens Committee, an environmentalist, and elected official to the Carmel City Council.140
132 Progressive Architecture, “Three Weekend Houses,” August 1962, 120-125. 133 Progressive Architecture, “Three Weekend Houses,” August 1962, 120-125. 134 Monica Hudson, Images of America: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Arcadia Publishing, 2006, 122. 135 “Modern Style in Carmel Brings Cries of Anguish.”
136 “Carmel’s Architecture Both Interesting and Livable.” 137 Monica Hudson, Images of America: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Arcadia Publishing, 2006, 123. 138 Progressive Architecture, “Three Weekend Houses,” August 1962, 120-125. 139 Progressive Architecture, “Three Weekend Houses,” August 1962, 120-125.. 140 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Frank Lloyd House, 3.
Attachment 2
107
Rowan Maiden – An architect and student of Frank Lloyd Wright, Maiden completed the design for Nepenthe Restaurant in Big Sur just before his untimely death.
Clarence Mayhew - Born in 1907, Mayhew was educated at the University of California, Berkeley.141 He was employed in the San Francisco office of prominent early twentieth century architects, Miller and Pflueger, before opening his own private practice in 1934. Some of his most significant work was designed from 1934-1942. Some of his inspirations derived from the traditional craftsmanship of Japanese architecture, which led him to write the article, “The Japanese Influence,” for the 1949 catalogue of the “Domestic Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Region” exhibit.142 Mayhew retired in 1955.143
Mark Mills - A native of Arizona, Mills completed his BS in architectural engineering at the University of Colorado prior to moving to working in the offices of Frank Lloyd Wright as a Taliesin Fellow from 1944-1948.144 As a Taliesin Fellow, Mills worked on such projects as the Johnson Wax Building in Wisconsin. Mills eventually moved to San Francisco to work for the firm of Anshen + Allen. Other pioneering works of Modernism include his dome house in Cave Creek, Arizona designed with architect Paolo Soleri and the Eichler homes for Anshen + Allen architects in San Francisco in 1950. Mills’ design for the Marcia Mills House and Fairfield House in Carmel demonstrates the Wrightian influences in its use of local building materials an, abstract plan and landscape setting. His sculptural design of a residence for an artist in Carmel, featuring intersecting barrel vaults and a sprayed Gunite exterior, was widely published and praised in 1972. Mills is listed as a resident of Carmel in 1963 City Directories.
Guy Rosebrook - Trained as an architect in various firms in San Francisco before obtaining licensure, Rosebrook worked for many years as the supervising architect of Standard Oil of New Jersey before returning to California during the Depression. In 1940, he moved to Salinas, where he designed Moderne style commercial buildings. One of his more notable works was a Spanish Revival style house for Maria Antonio Field on Highway 68. Many of Rosebrooks’ residential designs in Carmel are extant, though have been altered.145 Marcel Sedletsky - Known for a design aesthetic that reflected his Modernist European training and exposure to the forceful Modernism of Le Corbusier, as well as the effects of the natural environment that characterized the Craftsmen and Bay Area Traditions. Born in Russia, Sedletsky lived most of his life in Monterey, California and Mexico.146 In addition to his practice, Sedletsky played an important role in the architectural department at Cal-Poly, San Luis Obispo, and helped to establish the university’s reputation as a top architectural school on the West Coast.147 His design for the Esther M. Hill House in Carmel is the only known example of Sedletsky’s work in Carmel, and a representative example of the Third Bay Region Style.
Edwin Snyder - Born in Stockton, California, Edwin Lewis Snyder (1888-1969) was educated at the University of California, Berkeley and the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris. Prior to establishing
141 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Helen I. Proctor House, 2. 142 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Helen I. Proctor House, 2. 143 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Helen I. Proctor House, 2. 144 NorCalMod, 282.
145 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Frances C. Johnson House, 2.
146 http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0625/next_week.html, accessed 28 March 2008. 147 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Esther M. Hill House, 2.
Attachment 2
108
his own firm in Berkeley, Snyder worked in the offices of Day and Weeks, then one of the prominent San Francisco firms of the early twentieth-century, and the large real estate firm of Mason-McDuffie designing period revival homes. Snyder represented that group of architects who continued the traditional as opposed to modernist trends in design,148 as is evidenced in his Monterey Colonial Revival style design for the Spinning Wheel Restaurant in Carmel.
Robert Stanton - Trained as a contractor, Stanton arrived to Carmel in 1925. He was trained in the southern California office of architect Wallace Neff before returning to Carmel in 1936 to set up his own practice, housed in a Tudor Revival style French Norman chalet.149 Stanton had a profound influence in the region, training a generation of local architects. He helped establish the Monterey Bay Chapter of the American Institute of Architects in the 1950s, of which he was the first fellow.150 His many other community activities included serving as board member and president of the Monterey Peninsula Community Chest, president of the Monterey History and Art Association, the Monterey County Symphony Association, and the Monterey Peninsula Museum of Art.151 One of Stanton’s notable works in Carmel includes the Church of the Wayfarer on Lincoln and his own residence. Stanton is listed as residing in Carmel according to 1963 City Directories.
Robert A. Stephenson - In addition to having designed homes in Carmel including his own residence at 8th and Forest, Stephenson was an active member of the community, having served time on the Carmel Planning Commission and the City Council.152 George Thomson - Prior to forming his partnership with Joe Wythe, George Thomson worked in the offices of influential modernists Frank Lloyd Wright and Bruce Goff.153 Helen Warren - Although not an architect or designer by profession, Helen Warren’s design for her own house in Carmel illustrates the tradition of women working in the architectural profession in post-World War II Carmel.154 Most were not designers but real estate entrepreneurs and builders, such as Dene Denny and Hazel Watrous, contractors who designed approximately thirty residences in Carmel in the 1920s.155 Although not much information is available on Warren’s contribution to the architectural character of Carmel, her work is reflective of the times and demonstrates knowledge of using vernacular materials in the contemporary design traditions.
George Whitcomb – An architect, Whitcomb is listed in City Directories as a resident of Carmel from 1947 to 1963.
George Willox – An architect, Willox is listed in City Directories as a resident of Carmel from 1947 to 1963.
148 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Spinning Wheel Restaurant, 2.
149 Monica Hudson, Images of America: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Arcadia Publishing, 2006, 84. 150 Monica Hudson, Images of America: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Arcadia Publishing, 2006, 84. 151 “Stanton to be honored by fellow architects,” in The Pine Cone, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., 24 August 1972.
152 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Robert A. Stephenson House, 2.
153 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Norman Rial House, 2. 154 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Helen T. Warren House,
2. 155 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Helen T. Warren House,
2. Attachment 2
109
Frank Lloyd Wright - Considered one of the founding father of Modernism, Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959)156 has influenced generations of architects through his early Prairie Style houses, exemplified by the Robie House in Chicago, and later with his design philosophy of “organic” architecture, exemplified by Fallingwater in Bear Run, Pennsylvania. Wright’s extensive body of work included a number of building types, including schools, museums, offices, and hotels. In addition to these, Wright was also known for his design of interior features including furniture and stained glass windows. Other high-profile works throughout the U.S. include the Johnson Wax Headquarters building, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. The Walker House in Carmel is a representative example of Wright’s concept of “organic” architecture, with its use of native wood and stone materials, window patterns and careful siting.157 William Wurster - Born in Stockton, California, William Wurster (1895-1973) has been widely recognized as the father of “Everyday Modernism,” utilizing the vernacular architectural forms and materials of the California landscape in novel ways, particularly his residential designs in the 1930s to the 1950s.158 Educated at the University of California, Berkeley, Wurster began his career in the New York office of Delano and Aldrich, and subsequently in the San Francisco office of John Reid. He founded his own practice in 1924, and was later joined by Theodore Bernardi in 1934 and Donn Emmons in 1945. In addition to his practice, Wurster taught at MIT and the University of California, Berkeley. Wurster returned to California in 1950 and held the post of Dean of Architecture at U.C. Berkeley until 1963, where he is most well known for combining the architecture, landscape architecture and city and regional planning departments to create the College of Environmental Design. William Wurster, Theodore Bernardi, and Donn Emmons were named Fellows of the AIA and Wurster received the coveted AIA Gold Medal Award for lifetime achievement in 1969. The Dianthe Miller House, Nelson Nowell House, and Albert Merchant House in Carmel are representative examples of Wurster’s design aesthetic, mixing natural materials and new technologies. The Nelson Nowell House was featured in the First Museum Exhibition of Domestic Architecture of the San Francisco Bay region held at the San Francisco Museum of Art in 1946.159
Frank Wynkoop - Born in Denver, Colorado,160 Frank Wynkoop is known primarily for his school and public building designs and in the mid-twentieth century, had established offices throughout California, including San Carlos, San Francisco, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Carmel.
Wynkoop’s best known work in Carmel was his sea house on Carmel Point. At the time of its construction in 1955, the building was the subject of much controversy with its U-shaped plan, lack of chimney and flue, and inverted, butterfly-shaped roof.161
156 http://www.franklloydwright.org/index.cfm?section=research&action=display&id=27, accessed 28 March 2008.
157 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Mrs. Clinton Walker House, 4.
158 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Helen Nelson Nowell House, 3-4.
159 Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Helen Nelson Nowell House, 3-4.
160https://digital.lib.washington.edu/php/architect/record.phtml?type=architect&architectid=410&showall= 0&lname=Wynkoop&lcity=&lstateprov=&lcountry=&bionote=&award=&family=&nationality=United+St ates&birthdate=&deathdate=; accessed 31 March 2008.
161 Pete Gilman, “New Carmel Point House Has Many Novel Features,” 10 April 1952.
Attachment 2
110
9.10 Decision-Making Criteria
Section 17.32.040 of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes the eligibility criteria for listing on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Of particular importance is Section 17.32.040.D, which addresses the criteria for properties that qualify under California Register Criterion 3 only. For consistency between the Historic Context Statement and the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Section 17.32.040 shall serve as the primary decisionmaking criteria when evaluating the eligibility of individual properties for the Inventory of Historic Resources. The information contained in the Significance sections (2.4.3, 3.4.3, 4.5.3,
5.6.3, and 6.5.3) at the end of each Theme is provided to supplement the decision-making criteria found in the Preservation Ordinance.
Attachment 2
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Prepared For
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
By
Teresa Grimes and Leslie Heumann
Leslie Heumann and Associates
September 1994
Revised By
Glory Anne Laffey
Archives & Architecture
May 31, 1996
Adopted January 7, 1997
Updated By
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Adopted by City Council September 9, 2008
Certified by the California Coastal Commission November 12, 2008 Updated By
PAST Consultants, LLC
Adopted by City Council xx, xx, 2023
Attachment 3
2 The activity which is the subject of this Historic Context Statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to:
Director, Equal Opportunity Program
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127
Attachment 3
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
0.0 PREAMBLE ..........................................................................................................................................5
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................5
1.1 The Historic Context Statement..................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Location and Boundaries of Carmel-by-the-Sea............................................................................ 6
1.3 Community Character and Values................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Overview of Themes...................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Gender and Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 PREHISTORY AND HISPANIC SETTLEMENT (1542-1846) ..........................................................8
2.1 The Original Inhabitants................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Early European Exploration........................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Hispanic Settlement ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Associated Property Types .......................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Identification ......................................................................................................................11
2.4.2 Description .........................................................................................................................11
2.4.3 Significance........................................................................................................................12
3.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (1846-1986).....................................................................................13
3.1 Early Agriculture and Industry .................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Ranching and Farming .......................................................................................................13
3.1.2 Whaling and Fishing Industries..........................................................................................14
3.1.3 Extractive Industries...........................................................................................................14
3.2 Commerce and Tourism............................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Real Estate..........................................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Business..............................................................................................................................20
3.2.3 Tourism ..............................................................................................................................25
3.3 Transportation.............................................................................................................................. 28
3.4 Associated Resource Types......................................................................................................... 29
3.4.1 Identification ......................................................................................................................29
3.4.2 Description .........................................................................................................................29
3.4.3 Significance........................................................................................................................31
4.0 GOVERNMENT, CIVIC AND SOCIAL (1903-1986).......................................................................31
4.1 Civic Development and Incorporation......................................................................................... 31
4.2 Public Services............................................................................................................................. 37
4.2.1 Communication ..................................................................................................................37
4.2.2 Utilities...............................................................................................................................38
4.2.3 Healthcare...........................................................................................................................39
4.2.4 Fire and Police Departments..............................................................................................39
4.3 Educational and Religious Institutions........................................................................................ 40
4.3.1 Schools...............................................................................................................................40
4.3.2 Libraries .............................................................................................................................41
4.3.3 Religious Institutions..........................................................................................................42
4.4 Social and Recreational Institutions ............................................................................................ 43
4.5 Associated Resource Types......................................................................................................... 45
4.5.1 Identification ......................................................................................................................45
4.5.2 Description .........................................................................................................................45
4.5.3 Significance........................................................................................................................46 Attachment 3
4 5.0 ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN CARMEL (1888-1986)..................................................46
5.1 Environmental and Cultural Influences on Architecture ............................................................. 46
5.2 Geographic Development and Expansion.................................................................................... 48
5.3 Builders and Architects................................................................................................................ 50
5.4 Architectural Styles...................................................................................................................... 52
5.4.1 A Visual Presentation of Architectural Styles: 1935 - 1986 ...............................................58
5.5 Public and Domestic Landscaping............................................................................................... 68
5.6 Associated Resource Types......................................................................................................... 69
5.6.1 Identification ......................................................................................................................69
5.6.2 Description .........................................................................................................................69
5.6.3 Historic Significance and Integrity.....................................................................................70
6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ART AND CULTURE (1904-1986)...............................................................73
6.1 Arts and Crafts Movement........................................................................................................... 73
6.2 Artist and Writer Colony ............................................................................................................. 74
6.2.1 Artists........................................................................................................................................ 74
6.2.2 Literature ............................................................................................................................76
6.2.3 Drama and Theater.............................................................................................................78
6.2.4 Music..................................................................................................................................79
6.3 Academia and Science ................................................................................................................. 80
6.4 Influence of Women .................................................................................................................... 81
6.5 Associated Resource Types......................................................................................................... 82
6.5.1 Identification ......................................................................................................................82
6.5.2 Description .........................................................................................................................82
6.5.3 Significance........................................................................................................................83
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................................................83 Books and Reports.............................................................................................................................. 83 Newspaper, Journal and Magazine Articles........................................................................................ 86 Maps, Ephemera and Unpublished Manuscripts ................................................................................ 95
9.0 APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................................96
9.1 Elected Officials of Carmel-by-the-Sea....................................................................................... 96
9.2 Members of the Arts and Crafts Club of Carmel......................................................................... 98
9.3 Founding Members of the Forest Theater Society..................................................................... 100
9.4 Charter Members of the Carmel Free Library Association........................................................ 100
9.5 Founding Board Members of the Carmel Art Association ........................................................ 100
9.5.1 Artists Working in Carmel, 1940-1986............................................................................101
9.6 Notable Architects, Designers and Builders in Carmel, 1940-1986 .......................................... 101
9.7 Historical Chronology of Carmel .............................................................................................. 102
9.8 Who’s Who in Carmel ............................................................................................................... 109
9.9 Biographical Information on Architects Working in Carmel between 1940 and 1986 ............. 119
9.10 Decision-Making Criteria ........................................................................................................ 130 Attachment 3
5 0.0 PREAMBLE
Between 1997 and 2008, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea utilized a Historic Context Statement that was adopted on 7 January 1997. It is a well-researched document that was carried out to professional standards and it will continue to be used by the City in conjunction with the updated material that follows.
The themes outlined in the 1997 Historic Context Statement convey Carmel’s early development and the influences that shaped the City until 1940. In association with the thematic history, the 1997 Historic Context Statement identifies associated resource types and significance.
In 2008, tThe 1997 Historic Context Statement whas been updated by Architectural Resources Group of San Francisco (ARG) to extend and incorporate the 25-year period, 1940 to-1965. In accordance with National Register Bulletin 24, theis updated document, like the 1997 version, covereds a broad pattern of historical development in this community. This document expands on those early patterns of the development of the City that continued through the 1940-1965 period. In some cases, but not all, the themes of the first half of the 20th century covered in the 1997 document are relevant through 1965. To update the Historic Context Statement, ARG’s methodology has been as follows: undertookake extensive documentary research and some fieldwork to review resources that related to the development of the City between 1940 and 1965,; and conducted research at local libraries, archives and repositories. Typically, relevant permits would be researched as part of the process; however, Bbuilding and new construction permits from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the period 1940-1965 were not available for theis project.
Based on research and fieldwork, ARG developed applicable contexts relating to the 1940 to 1965 period.
Rewriting the 1997 Historic Context Statement was not part of the scope of theis update, though minor edits for clarity were made. The 1997 Historic Resources Survey and updated information relating to the 1940-1965 period is presented here as one volume.
The 2022 update by PAST Consultants, LLC, was grant-funded by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The update expands the existing document’s historical narrative and thematic structure to cover significant events and architectural styles for the time period 1966 to 1986. Because several architectural styles began prior to 1966, the architectural development chapter has been expanded with a presentation of architectural styles from 1935 to 1986, and includes photographs of typical buildings, lists of character defining features and examples of significant or listed buildings. Unless otherwise noted, all photographs were taken by PAST Consultants, LLC, in 2022. Appendices were also updated, including the timeline up to 1986, and numerous architect biographies were added. Like the previous updates, the 2022 update was intended to expand the document within its existing format, in a cohesive manner.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Historic Context Statement
A historic context statement is a technical document containing specific sections mandated by the Secretary of the Interior in National Register Bulletin 16. The Bulletin defines a historic context as “a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place, and time.” Historic context is linked with tangible historic resources through the concept of property type. A property type is a “grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics.” A historic context statement is one of many tools used by municipalities as part of a comprehensive preservation program. Its purpose is to provide a framework for identifying historic resources, determining their relative significance, and applying the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Historic Context Statement is to be used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Attachment 3
6 policies regarding historic preservation and the Preservation Ordinance found in Municipal Code chapter
17.32 to identify historic resources and is not a stand-alone document.
Throughout the Historic Context Statement specific place names, properties and individuals are included to clarify historical patterns and provide richer detail. Examples are included solely to illustrate physical and associative characteristics of each theme and/or property type. The specific reference to an existing property within the Historic Context Statement is not a determination of historic significance at the present time, rather it signifies that the property contributes to a particular historical theme. Designation of a property as a historic resource is determined on an individual basis following a survey and evaluation process and ultimately reflects a judgment by the City that the property is significant.
The Context Statement is not meant to be all-inclusive, and exclusion from this report is not intended to diminish the significance of any individual historic resource or person.
1.2 Location and Boundaries of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Carmel-by-the-Sea is located on the Monterey Peninsula. It is approximately one square mile in area and is generally bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Highway One to the east, the community of Pebble Beach to the north, and the Carmel River to the south.
1.3 Community Character and Values
When established in 1902, development in Carmel was greatly influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement. Much of the unique character of Carmel-by-the-Sea results from this Arts and Crafts influence coupled with an appreciation of the City’s natural environment. Elements of the natural environment such as topography, vegetation and climate, shaped the human response to the built environment. As the community developed, efforts were made to adapt the man-made elements to the underlying natural elements. In the residential districts, roads are typically narrow and curve and undulate to follow the topography and make room for trees. In the commercial districts, sidewalks curve and are frequently interrupted by trees and mini-parks. Most shops and businesses are built to face open sidewalks and interior or exterior courtyards in acknowledgment of the mild weather. The use of open space encourages pedestrian exploration and movement. Architectural design includes construction with natural materials, pleasant open spaces, and abundant landscaping.
Over the years, there has been a conscious effort to maintain the village-like characteristics of the town.
For example, there are no house numbers, residential sidewalks, parking meters, streetlights, or traffic signals. Houses are small and blend into their surroundings. Gardens are informal, making use of natural vegetation. Trees are greatly revered and given precedence over building expansion and the movement of traffic.
Attachment 3
7 1.4 Overview of Themes
Each chapter of this report is organized by a theme, derived from a broad set of associated events that helped shape the history of Carmel. Each theme spans a particular period; however, at any given point in time, events contributing to more than one theme may be at work. Consequently, time periods for each theme may overlap. The starting and ending dates of thematic periods are usually determined by key historical events.
The development of Carmel-by-the-Sea can be organized into five broad themes: Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement (1542-1846); Economic Development (1846-19865); Government, Civic and Social Institutions (1903-19865); Architectural Development (1903-19865); and the Development of Arts and Culture (1904-19865). From 1542 through 1846, the story of Carmel was not separated from the surrounding region and revolved around the Native American inhabitants, European exploration, and Spanish and Mexican colonization. California’s transformation to an American state after 1846 was characterized by the changes in the economy that led to the development of the village of Carmel and the rise of business and tourism in the area. Following Carmel-by-the-Sea’s development in 1902 and incorporation in 1916, a number of government, civic and social institutions were established. The role of the Arts and Crafts movement permeates both the built environment and the cultural life of the town. The influx of artists and writers after 1905 set the stage for the development of an artists colony and the arts and culture have played a pivotal role in the identity of Carmel ever since.
1.5 Gender and Ethnicity
Women have been critical to the history of Carmel in terms of the development of architecture, cultural institutions and community activities. Beginning in 1889, Abbie Jane Hunter opened the first hotel in Carmel. In 1892 she formed the Women’s Real Estate and Investment Company to help stimulate early land sales. She was followed in 1902 by Jane Powers, an accomplished painter, who worked with her husband Frank Powers to make Carmel-by-the-Sea a center for people of artistic temperament. She helped organize the Arts and Crafts Club in 1905 with several other ladies already involved in the arts.
After the San Francisco 1906 earthquake, she encouraged many of her artistic friends to move to Carmel.
These individuals were the vanguard of notable women who greatly influenced the character of Carmel.
Ethnic minorities also helped to shape the city’s past. The ethnic history of Carmel can be traced back some 12,000 years to the Native American inhabitants of the region, discussed in the second chapter of this report. In the recent past, nNon-White ethnic groups played a variety of roles in the society including that of laborers, fisherman, small business owners, firemen, and artists. Of course, the ethnic history of Carmel can be traced back to the Native American inhabitants of the region, the Ohlone Indians discussed in the second chapter of this report. The Ohlones played a pivotal role in the mission system by providing labor, including the construction of buildings which still stand. What marks they may have made independently on the landscape, however, were probably erased by successive waves of immigrants to the area, beginning with the Spanish. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Ohlone culture ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group due to acculturation and disease.
According to the 1910 conscensus, about 90 percent of people living in Carmel were American born, with most migrating from other parts of California and others arriving from a variety of states in the East or Midwest. The population also encompassed a relatively small number of foreign-born immigrants from Asian and European countries including China, Japan, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Germany, Norway, and Spain. Some of the first property sold by the Carmel Development Company was sold to Mrs. E.A.
Foster, an African-American woman from Monroe, Michigan. She purchased two lots on Dolores and ten lots on the south side of Ocean Avenue between San Carlos and Mission. In 1903 Roland and Emma Henderson, an African-American couple from San Jose, opened a restaurant in the old carpenter shop on Attachment 3
8 Dolores Street. Pon Sing opened the second restaurant in Carmel, which was also the town’s first Chinese restaurant. He later became the cook at the Pine Inn, which opened in 1903. One of Carmel’s many artists, Ling Fu Yang, was also of Chinese ancestry. Pon Lung Chung served with the Carmel Fire Department and in 1931 was reportedly the only fireman of Chinese ancestry in the United States.
In 1960, Carmel had a total population of 4,580 inhabitants, consisting of a significantly higher ratio of women to men, with the majority of the population ranging in age from forty to seventy-five and older.
Carmel was racially homogenous, 99% of the population was Caucasian,1and 83% of the population being of “native” versus of “foreign” parentage.2 Only half of the population were employed and worked in various occupations ranging from sales and clerical workers, office managers, and craftsmen to clerical and sales workers.
3 The main industries included wholesale and retail trade, finance, personal services, professional services, and public administration.4 54% of the housing units in Carmel were ownerd occupied and consisted of an average of five rooms, while the remaining 46% of the housing units were renter-occupied and consisted of an average of three-and-a-half rooms.5 Ethnic and gender contributions are considered integral elements that overlay all the themes discussed below. Where known, significant contributions by non-white groups and women will be discussed; however, the absence of specific gender or ethnic references does not preclude the importance that these demographic groups may have played in the development of the community.
2.0 PREHISTORY AND HISPANIC SETTLEMENT (1542-1846)
2.1 The Original Inhabitants
The history of Carmel begins in the millenniacenturies preceding the “discovery” of California by Europeans, when there were some 300,000 Native Americans throughout the territory that later becamein the state of California. These early inhabitants were divided into more than 100 tribes which typically shared cultural, linguistic, dress, housing, and other traits according to the regions of California in which they lived: southern, central (where Carmel is located), northwestern, or northeastern. The indigenous peoples of Carmel werethe Costanoans, the Coast people, given the name Costanoans by John Wesley Powell. They are also sometimes referred to as the Ohlones, more specifically the Rumsen or Rumsien.
The Native Americans foraged for seeds and nuts, hunted small animals, and fished from boats.
Archaeological evidence has placed Ohlone settlements near the present mission and at the mouth of San Jose Creek. Villages were made up of ten to twelve rounded dwellings of tule grass lashed to willow poles, each with a central fire pit. Other structures included sweat houses used for purification in times of illness and before a hunt.
2.2 Early European Exploration
The Ohlones may have come into contact with Europeans as early as 1542, when the Spanish explorer, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, journeyed to Alta California.6 Contact with the Ohlones was first reported in 1602 by Sebastian Vizcaino, who had been commissioned to map the coast of Alta California. On December 16, 1602, Vizcaino, along with two hundred men and a few Carmelite friars, landed in
1 U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census of Housing: 1960, City Blocks, 1. 2 U. S. Department of Commerce, Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, 6-395. 3 U. S. Department of Commerce, Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, 6-395. 4 U. S. Department of Commerce, Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, 6-395. 5 U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census of Housing: 1960, City Blocks, 1. 6 Cabrillo was actually of Portuguese descent, but acting on the orders of the Spanish viceroy of Mexico.
Attachment 3
9 Monterey Bay. The friars found the area to be almost identical to Mount Carmel and the hills of Galilee and persuaded Vizcaino to call the river through the area Rio Carmelo and the rounded mountain above it Mount Carmel. After surveying the area for three weeks, the group continued to sail north and eventually returned to Mexico to report on their expedition.
2.3 Hispanic Settlement
Despite the sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish explorations of Alta California, occupation and settlement did not begin until the eighteenth century. Fearful that the Russians or the English might try to expand their territory in North America, the king of Spain ordered Gaspar de Portola to set out on an overland expedition from San Diego in 1769 to establish missions, presidios, and pueblos. He was accompanieds on his journey by Franciscan friars led by Father Junipero Serra. Father Serra was born in Petra on the Isle of Mallorca on November 24, 1713. He entered the Order of Saint Francis at a young age. At thirty-six he was sent to Mexico where he was a missionary for nineteen years before journeying to Alta California to establish the chain of missions.7 The missions played two critical roles in the occupation process: the pacification of the Native Americans through conversion and Hispanicization and the establishment of an agricultural base. The first of the missions was founded in San Diego on July 16, 1769. In 1770, the group arrived in Monterey Bay and on June 3 the Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel and the Royal Presidio were dedicated where San Carlos Church stands today in the City of Monterey. A year later the mission was moved five miles south to a more fertile area near the Rio Carmelo. A cross was erected, and work began on the first mud-plastered wooden buildings. By 1772 Serra could thus describe the mission:
A stockade of rough timbers, thick and high, with ravelins in the corners, is something more than seventy varas long and forty-three wide, and is closed at night with a key, although it is not secure because of the lack of nails. The main house is seventy varas wide and fifty long. It is divided into six rooms, all with doors and locks. The walls are constructed of rough timbers plastered over with mud, both inside and out. Those of the principal rooms are whitewashed with lime. One of the rooms serves provisionally for a church. Near this building, on the outside, is the guardhouse or barracks for the soldiers; and adjoining it, their kitchen. All is enclosed in the stockade. All of these buildings have flat roofs of clay and mud, and for the most of them a kitchen has been made. There are various little houses for the Indians, with straw or hay roofs. Attention was later given to a small garden, which is near at hand, but for want of a gardener, it has made little progress.8
For the rest of his life, Father Serra used Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel as the headquarters from which he established seven more missions.9 In ecclesiastical terms it became the most important of the missions.
Gradually, tNative American tribes, including the Ohlone (Rumsen, Sargentaruc, and Ensen tribes) and Esselen peoples as well as neighboring tribes were subjugated by the missionaries and required to
7 The word “mission” applies not only to a church, but the entire individual settlement. The Franciscans followed, in general, the routine of deciding upon a likely spot for a settlement (good land, fresh water, native population, and strategic position), blessing the site, planting a cross, and erection of an open air structure for services. A small chapel, house for the missionaries, house for the female natives, soldier’s dwellings, guard house and kitchen were then built. These early buildings were usually constructed of adobe with tule roofs. Later, a larger church, larger living quarter and store houses were built of brick or stone. 8 James Ladd Delkin, Monterey Peninsula, p. 156-157.
9 With the establishment of a mission in Sonoma in 1823, the chain totaled twenty-one and was linked by the El Camino Real.
Attachment 3
10 converted to Christianity and incorporated into mission life. Indeed, those who accepted were baptisedm became the de facto labor force in as much as neophytes were not permitted to leave the mission. As enslaved laborers, they raised livestock, cultivated crops, and constructed buildings; harsh conditions and lack of immunity to European diseases caused illness and death.They were trained to perform a variety of tasks at the mission including raising livestock, cultivating crops, and building construction. By 19783 the mission was self-sufficient and supported a population of 700.10 Construction of the church at Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel near the Carmel River was begun in 1793. Dedication took place in 1797 under the direction of Father Lasuén, who took over as “padre presidente” after Serra died on August 28, 1784. Unlike most of the missions in the chain, which were designed by padres, Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel was designed by a stone mason, Manuel Estevan Ruiz, who was brought from Mexico. Ruiz also built San Carlos Church in Monterey, which was erected at the same time. The chief material was native brown sandstone, with mortar and plaster obtained from abalone shells. The simple nave plan is 150 feet by 29 feet, measured on the inside, with walls 5 feet thick. Firmly buttressed, the building is surmounted by two belfries, one of which is approached by an outside stairway. Typical of mission churches, the design of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel is rooted in the architectural traditions of Spain and Mexico, although the constraints of the locale and climate, and the locally available materials and skills necessitated certain adaptations. The construction of other buildings—school, dormitories, shops, and granaries—preceded until 1815, when the completion of the mission quadrangle was celebrated with thanksgiving services.
By the 1820s, the lagging economy of the area began to change and increase due to the altered administrative policies of the new Mexican government. Two of these policies had important local ramifications. The first was the legalization of trade with foreign ships in the ports of San Francisco and Monterey. The traders exchanged tea, coffee, spices, clothing, leather goods, etc., for tallow and hides.
Under the stimulus of this commerce, coastal settlements became lively trade centers.
The second change in policy to have far-reaching effects in California was the secularization of the missions and the establishment of large, private land grants. During Spanish rule the relationship between the missions and provincial government of Alta California became increasingly tense as the Franciscans were pressured into giving up control over their land and neophytes. Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821 removed trade restrictions that up until then had been imposed on the missions. Open trade allowed the missions to increase their productivity, thereby becoming a supply source for the settlers and travelers along El Camino Real, the road which linked the missions. The Franciscans amassed a great deal of economic as well as spiritual power. However, disputes soon arose between the Franciscans and Mexican government over debts to the missions, taxes, and authority over the neophytes. In 1822 Mexico’s legislature finally mandated the formal secularization of the missions. The Franciscans were replaced, missions were converted to parish churches, and land holdings redistributed. During this time, the Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel was essentially abandoned, and San Carlos Church became the principal local place of Catholic worship.
With the change of governmental control from Spain to Mexico in 1822 and the secularization of the missions, new land utilization and ownership patterns began to evolve. In 1824, Mexico passed a law for the settlement of vacant lands in an effort to stimulate further colonization. Any citizenMen, whether foreign or native, could select a tract of unoccupied land so long as it was a specific distance away from the lands held by the missions, pueblos, and Indians. The grantee petitioned the governor for a specific tract, which after investigation and if there were no objections, was granted. The grantee was responsible for building a house and keeping a minimum of 100 head of cattle.
10 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, p. 46.
Attachment 3
11 A number of ranchos were created around Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel. The area along the coast south of the Rio Carmelo was Rancho San Jose y Sur Chiquito. It was granted to Teodoro Gonzalez in 1835 and re-granted to Marcelino Escobar in 1835. Another grant resulted in Rancho El Pescadero, located to the north of the mission and including Del Monte Forest, Cypress Point and the present-day community of Pebble Beach. It was granted to Fabian Barreto in 1836. Rancho El Potrero de San Carlos, also on the south side of the Carmel River, consisted of 4,307 acres that had been used by the mission as a pasture. It was granted to Fructuoso del Real in 1837. Rancho Cañada de la Segunda was granted to Lazaro Soto in 1839 and encompassed land east of the mission to Cañada de la Segunda.
Overseeing the immense acreage and herds of cattle, the California ranchero and his vaqueros spent many hours on horseback, the favored form of transportation. Cattle, allowed to range freely, were rounded up twice a year during a rodeo—in the spring to brand the calves and again during the late summer for slaughter. The rodeo was often an occasion for socializing with the neighboring rancho families. With fiesta and fandango; the rodeo festivities often lasted a week or more.
In the early years of the province, the slaughter, or matanza, was solely for domestic needs. Cattle supplied beef to be eaten fresh or dried for future use; hides for shoes, lariats and outerwear; and tallow for candles and soap. During the period of Mexican rule the matanza became more systematic and extensive. Hides were carefully stripped from the carcasses and the tallow was rendered for domestic use and for export. In trade, the tallow brought six cents per pound, from 75 to 100 pounds were obtained from each carcass. Hides brought from one dollar to $2.50 a piece, becoming known as “California bank notes.” The hide and tallow economy was fostered by foreign merchants who were settling in California during this period. Monterey merchant Thomas Larkin actively encouraged the rancho economy and exploited local resources by purchasing or taking in trade rancho products in exchange for manufactured goods brought by American and English trading ships.
2.4 Associated Property Types
2.4.1 Identification
There are few extant properties associated with the Native American culture or early European exploration and settlement of Carmel. Property types associated with this theme may include:
Aarcheological sites
Mmission structures and objects
Rrancho hacienda buildings and features
2.4.2 Description
Archaeological Sites
Two Ohlone Tribal villages were apparently located near Carmel and remain as culturally important sites to various native tribes.: one near the mission and the other nhear the mouth of San Jose Creek (outside of the city boundaries). Specific natural features of these locations also may hold strong associations and cultural meaning for the Ohlone people.
Mission Structures and Objects
Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel is designated as a California Registered Historic Landmark and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It is significant as an excellent restored and reconstructed example of a California mission, which has the added importance of having been founded Attachment 3
12 by Father Junipero Serra in 1770, and having served as the headquarters from which he directed the administration of the expanding mission system until his death.
The mission as it exists today is a fusion of an early building plus its early restorations with twentieth century structures sympathetic to the Mission style of architecture. Only parts of the mission church remain as originally built in the late eighteenth or even nineteenth century, while the remainder of the mission quadrangle and the nearby buildings are of more recent construction. The mission gradually fell into a state of disrepair after its secularization in 1833. During the 1880s the mission was maintained and altered in a piecemeal fashion. Early restoration efforts included the construction of the peaked roof which replaced the original tile, vaulted roof.
In 1931, San Francisco cabinetmaker Harry Downie was commissioned by Monsignor Philip G. Scher of San Carlos Church to restore the mission. Under Downie’s supervision, the tile roof was restored, three steps to the original altar rail were changed to one, and radiant heating was placed under a new tile floor which replaced the original burnt tile. Many of the original statues and works of art were returned.
Restoration of the mission school was undertaken in 1945.
Rancho Haciendas
A number of Mexican ranchos were granted in the sphere of influence of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Although no known hacienda sites are known to have existed in or near Carmel, it is possible that rancho activities associated with the coastal resources or shipping activities were located in the vicinity. A rancho hacienda was typically a small, self-sufficient village that, in addition to the main residence, could also include auxiliary residences for vaqueros and Indian labor, kitchen, privies, granary, ovens, wells, spring house, blacksmith shop, tanning vats, trash deposits, corrals, and gardens and orchards. Most of the building materials would have also been manufactured on site; however, some may have been “borrowed” from San Carlos Mission which had been abandoned after secularization. Barrow pits for the making of adobe bricks and kilns for firing roof and floor tiles would have been located nearby.
2.4.3 Significance
Archaeological sites associated with the Native American, Mission, and Rancho periods that retain integrity may qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria D because they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory of history. The State Office of Historic Preservation or the Archaeological Information Center should be contacted regarding known archaeological sites in the area; exact locations of sites are protected information.
As the headquarters for the California missions, any resources associated with Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel have a high degree of significance despite of low levels of integrity due to deterioration and subsequent restoration. According to the National Register nomination form, only the mission church is listed. Related resources which may qualify for listing on the National Register under Criterion C include a statue of Serra and a cenotaph by Joseph Mora, as they “represent the work of a master and possess high artistic values.” The statue was dedicated during the Serra Pageant in 1922, but is located outside of the city boundaries at the foot of Serra Road in the Carmel Woods neighborhood.
The cenotaph was dedicated to the memory of Serra in 1924 and is located in the mission church.
There also may be other standing and archaeological features associated with mission activities at and/or near the current mission compound. The old pear orchard adobe was occupied by Christiano Machado, which later served as the Mission Tea Room and more recently as a residence. Archaeological features may include building foundations, tanning vats, olive presses, blacksmith shops, canals and other water features, grain mills, etc. The archaeological remains of mission and rancho resources would be Attachment 3
13 important in furthering a more complete understanding and interpretation of the development of the Hispanic frontier.
3.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (1846-19865)
3.1 Early Agriculture and Industry
3.1.1 Ranching and Farming
In May 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico and shortly thereafter the Americans raised the flag in Monterey. In 1848, the United States acquired the Mexican province of California in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Closely following the annexation of California by the United States, the discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills precipitated a sudden influx of population to the State and accelerated California’s statehood. After California was admitted into the Union as the thirty-first state in 1850, increasing numbers of European settlers made their homes in the Carmel area. The U.S. Board of Land Commissioners was created to confirm the Spanish and Mexican land grants. During this time, many ranchos began to break up as Mexican families lost control over their land in court to other claimants because titles were unclear. Others were forced to sell off portions of land to European settlers to help pay taxes and legal fees incurred during the confirmation process.
A similar pattern of land segmentation emerged in the Carmel area. A small section of the once extensive lands of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel, most of which were sold by the Mexican government, was returned to the church. On February 19, 1853, Joseph Sadoc Alemany, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Monterey, petitioned the U.S. Board of Land Commissioners for the return to the Church of a portion of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel including the buildings and surrounding land. The grant was confirmed on December 18, 1855, and a patent was issued on October 19, 1859 for nine acres. On some maps these lands are shown as Rancho Mission Carmel. Honoré Escolle, a French immigrant, gained control over the land to the north of the mission which he called Rancho Manzanitas. His land included the area from present-day Junipero Avenue to Monte Verde Street. In 1860, John Martin acquired a large parcel of land between Escolle’s property on the north and the mission on the south. It encompassed the land between present-day Twelfth and Santa Lucia Avenues and continued west to the shoreline to include Carmel Point. It is believed that John and Anna Murphy settled on land west of Escolle about 1846. Because of unsettled land titles, it was not until 1875 that Murphy received a deed for ninety acres of land along the shoreline. The Rancho Cañada de la Segunda passed through numerous owners until acquired in 1869 by Mrs. Dominga Doni de Atherton, wife of Faxon Dean Atherton, and mother of Gertrude Atherton. William Hatton became Mrs. Atherton’s ranch manager in 1888, later purchasing the western portion in 1892.
Land use during the early American period was primarily cattle ranching and dairies. William Hatton managed several dairying operations in Carmel Valley. Most of the farms and ranches in the area practiced general farming, raising livestock and poultry, producing butter and eggs, planting orchards and vineyards, and growing a variety of field crops. What was not consumed by the family was sold locally or shipped to San Francisco.
The earliest surviving example of a nineteenth19th Ccentury ranch house in Carmel is the Murphy-Powers Residence and Barn/Studio, located on a beach front parcel west of San Antonio Avenue. The farm house dates back to 1846 when John Murphy and his family settled the property. John Murphy’s title to 90 acres, including this property, was confirmed in 1875. The house and barn may predate 1875; evidence has been found to support construction as early as 1846.
Attachment 3
14 During the twentieth century, the property changed hands several times and underwent several alterations.
In 1904 the buildings and property were sold to Frank Powers, president of the Carmel Development Company. Powers, with his wife Jane, reportedly made improvements to the house. At the same time, they turned the old pine log barn into a studio for Jane, an accomplished artist. In 1920 James and Maud MacKenzie moved into the ranch house and stuccoed the board and batten exterior. The barn/studio property was later subdivided and incorporated into a new house for Herbert and Luella Chapman.
3.1.2 Whaling and Fishing Industries
During the mid-nineteenth century, the abundant marine life of Monterey Bay attracted Chinese, Portuguese, and Japanese fishermean to the area. Possibly as early as 1851, a Chinese fishing village was located on a level terrace above the cove at Point Lobos, now called Whalers Cove. Byut 1860 six Chinese fishermean lived in thea small village, and were joined in 1862 by Portuguese whalers. The two groups shared the cove until the Chinese left in the 1870s. Located at this site was a stone quay from which the Chinese could ship their catch as well as pull their boats out of the water when necessary.
Leasing land from David Jacks, there were also Chinese fishing villages located at Pescadero Point and at Stillwater Cove (now Pebble Beach Golf Course) as early as 1868. In 1880, Jacks sold his Pescadero ranch to the Pacific Improvement Company, who opened a scenic drive along the coast in 1881. Within a year of the drive’s construction, the Chinese at Pescadero opened a roadside stand where they sold polished shells and souvenirs to the parade of tourists. In 1888, J.W. Collins noted the village for the U.S.
Fish Commission:
At Pescadero, on Carmel Bay, is another Chinese fishing camp, settled in 1868, and [it] has a resident population of some 30 fishermean; it is picturesquely situated on a road that skirts the shore, and is within easy reach of the fishing grounds on Carmel Bay.
Numbers dwindled at the Pescadero fishing village until it was abandoned about 1912.11 Whalers Cove near Point Lobos became the focal point of the Portuguese whaling industry in 1862.
Whalers Knoll was the area from which whales were sighted. The captured whales were brought to Whalers Cove to be “flenced.” The Portuguese built residences on the south side of the cove. Antonio Victorine, a native of the Azores and a whaler by trade, came to the Point Lobos whaling station in 1863.
In additional to whaling, he also established a dairy near the mouth of San Jose Creek. The Victorine family stayed in the area, marrying into other local families, with many members of the extended family taking an active role in the development of the region.
Around 1880, the availability of less expensive kerosene for lighting supplanted whale oil, which began the demise of the Carmelo Bay Whaling Company. Some Portuguese whalers returned in 1897 to join the Japanese in a whaling venture operating for a short period under the name Japanese Whaling Company.
In 1896, Gennosuke Kodani, a Japanese marine biologist, arrived from Japan and began an abalone fishing business at Point Lobos. In 1898, Mr. Alexander M. Allan purchased Point Lobos for a business investment and residence. Kodani and Allan established and operated an abalone fishery in 1898 and constructed an abalone cannery in 1902. This partnership continued until 1930. After the abalone cannery was shut down, Japanese divers continued to harvest abalone until shortly before World War II.12
3.1.3 Extractive Industries
11 Sandy Lydon, Chinese Gold: The Chinese in the Monterey Bay Region, pp. 138-139 12 Pt. Lobos State Reserve, The Whaler Cabin and Whaling State Museum.
Attachment 3
15 Although very little in the way of heavy industry took place in the village of Carmel, there were a number of mining ventures that took place at various locations around Carmel Bay. Point Lobos was also the scene of several extractive industries. As early as 1854, granite was quarried from a nearby rock outcropping. About 35 men were employed in the extraction. The granite was shipped from the stone quay in Whalers Cove. The rock was used in the construction of the Old Monterey Jail, U.S. Mint in San Francisco, and in the Mare Island shipyard.
In 1863, the San Carlos Gold and Silver Mining Company was formed by local citizens. Several abandoned mine shafts have also been discovered on John Martin’s ranch near Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel.
In 1874, low-grade coal was discovered and brought from Malpaso Canyon in the Carmel Valley to Coal Chute point by four horse wagon teams. A narrow gauge, horse-drawn railroad was built by the Chinese in the valley in 1878. The low-grade coal was never found in enough volume to be a very successful operation, and the mining efforts were abandoned in 1901. In an attempt to recoup losses, the Carmel Land and Coal Company subdivided property near Point Lobos, selling lots for $50 or less.
Sand and gravel from Carmel Bay beaches were also exploited. Surveyor George Tolman’s 1872 field notes note that the “large drift of white sand” on Carmel Beach was “much used by painters and glass blowers.” In 1888 sand deposits were mined at Pebble Beach. The sand brought $2.50 per cubic yard.
Dr. Walton Saunders signed an agreement with the San Francisco and Pacific Glass Works for the purchase of 89 acres west of Monte Verde Street between the lands of Murphy on the north and Martin on the south. In 1899, Alexander Allan laid narrow-gauge railroad tracks from San Jose Beach to the Coal Bunker at Point Lobos for transporting sand to ships. In 1901, Ann Murphy leased 37 acres of her Carmel Beach ranch to E.B. Lindauer of San Francisco. According to the terms of the lease, Lindauer could haul away at least 500 tons of “pure white sand” annually, paying Ann 20 cents per ton removed.
Sand was to be removed by steamship or railway.13 Point Lobos sand pits again went into operation during World War II when the Monterey Sand Company sent sand to the Navy Shipyards in the San Francisco area. In the 1920s, gravel was quarried at the “Pit” near Point Lobos and trucked to San Jose Beach and crushed for construction use.
After Carmel-by-the-Sea was established the only industrial activities within or near the village boundaries were associated with the building industry. The Plaza Fuel company produced brick and in 1925 Albert and Emma Otey became the owners of the Carmel Thermotite Company in partnership with Ella Maugh. Thermotite was a type of interlocking concrete building block invented by H.E. Clauser and Floyd Bohnett in Campbell in the early 1920s. Clauser and Bohnett produced the machines and molds for the blocks which they sold as franchises throughout the country.14 In Carmel, Thermotite was distributed from a small factory building on Santa Fe and Third streets from 1922 to 1931. The structure still stands today. The Seven Arts Building at Lincoln and Ocean streets and the Flanders Mansion were built of the Thermotite hollow concrete block system.
3.2 Business Commerce and Tourism
3.2.1 Real Estate
13 Kirstie Wilde, History of the Murphy-Powers-Comstock Barn/Studio, p. 9. 14 Eugene Sawyer, History of Santa Clara County, California, p. 1403.
Attachment 3
16 In 1888, Santiago J. Duckworth purchased 324 acres of land from Honoré Escolle and filed a subdivision map for Carmel City.15 Surveyed by W.C. Little and Davenport Bromfield, Carmel City was generally bounded by Monte Verde Street on the west, Monterey and Carpenter Streets on the east, Twelfth Avenue on the south, and First Avenue on the north. Ocean Avenue divided the area into north and south while Broadway (now Junipero) bisected it into east and west. Duckworth, already established in the real estate business in Monterey, planned to develop Carmel City as a summer resort for Catholics, akin to the Methodist retreat already established in Pacific Grove. Considering the number of tourists the mission had been attracting since its first restoration, the idea seemed to have merit. In July 1888 the sale of lots began. Corner lots were sold for $25, inside lots for $20 or more and business lots sold for $50. An advertising brochure highlighted the advantages of the lots for commercial purposes, access to the Southern Pacific train station in Pebble Beach, and the soon to be completed road to Monterey over Carmel Hill.
In the first few years, development of Carmel City seemed to be advancing as planned. Cottages were built and businesses established. Duckworth opened the Hotel Carmelo on the northeast corner of Ocean Avenue and Broadway (Junipero) in 1889.16 Abbie Jane Hunter, with her uncle, Delos Goldsmith, as builder, was responsible for the creation of one of the first important businesses in Carmel, a bathhouse.
Located at the foot of Ocean Avenue, the Carmel Bathhouse also opened in 1889. It was eventually sold to the City of Carmel in 1921, which in turn sold it in 1929 to Mrs. W.C. Mann who dismantled it.
By the early 1890s, however, Duckworth’s plans began to collapse as the boom of the 1880s quickly turned into the depression of the 1890s. He turned to Abbie Jane Hunter for assistance, and for a short time business seemed to regain its momentum. Hunter was an unusual woman for the era, having formed the Women’s Real Estate and Investment Company in January 1892. In April of that year she sent William T. Dummage to Carmel as her resident agent. By 1895, the company had sold some three hundred lots in Carmel, mostly in what is now the business district. Sales soon declined, however, and Hunter was forced to disinvest as well.
In 1902 James F. Devendorf took over the unsold land from Duckworth with the financial backing of San Francisco lawyer Frank H. Powers and the two formed the Carmel Development Company with an office at the northwest corner of Ocean and San Carlos. Devendorf, who was the on-site manager, is generally credited with shaping the development of early Carmel. Originally from Michigan, he went to San Jose in 1874 to be with his mother who had relocated there some years earlier. With a love for the land and experience as a salesman, Devendorf joined in the booming California real estate market and came to own extensive property in San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Alviso, and Stockton. Unlike other real estate developers, he was not interested in land speculation; his passion was for building communities. When Duckworth approached him about exchanging land in Carmel for part of his holdings elsewhere, Devendorf was intrigued by the idea, having visited Carmel on vacation with his family in the early 1890s. Envisioning the opportunity to build a community that enhanced the natural environment, he made the exchange and filed a map of Carmel-by-the-Sea with the County Recorder in 1902. The new tract was a re-subdivision of most of Carmel City west of Broadway, now renamed Junipero Avenue.
Soon thereafter Devendorf built a cottage for himself at Lincoln and Sixth (now demolished). His family continued to live in Oakland where he would join them on weekends.
15 Gilliam and Gilliam state on page 61 of their book, Creating Carmel, that Duckworth purchased 324 acres from Escolle, a prosperous Frenchman.
16 There is some disagreement as to whether Duckworth or Hunter built the Hotel Carmelo. Sharron Lee Hale states on page 11 of her book, A Tribute to Yesterday, that Hotel Carmelo was established by Hunter with Goldsmith as builder. Apparently Duckworth and Hunter were partners, and Goldsmith was the builder.
Attachment 3
17 Frank Powers shared Devendorf’s love for nature and commitment to the development of Carmel, but he had more of a financial stake in its success. Like Duckworth, Powers was certain that the Southern Pacific Railway extension from Pacific Grove would be built. The fact that the rail link to Carmel never came to fruition, of course, probably allowed the natural character of the town to be maintained. Powers and his wife, socialite and oil painter Jane Gallatin, remodeled the old Murphy ranch house as a family home for his family and artist studio for his socialite wife Jane Gallatin. Powers also maintained his social ties and legal practice in San Francisco.
Initially, lot sales in Carmel-by-the-Sea were slow. A $500 cottage was easily secured with a $5 or $10 deposit, or $6 per month to rent. By 1905 there were seventy-five residents, several stores, a restaurant, a school and hotel. After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, however, lots sold more vigorously as displaced San Franciscans looked for a new place to live. By 1913 there were approximately 550 permanent residents and thousands of summer visitors.
The majority of lots sold by the Carmel Development Company included restrictive liquor clauses in the deeds. Buyers were not permitted to sell, exchange, or give away ‘intoxicating liquor’ and faced repossession if found in breach of the conditions. Many early residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea were attracted to the village because of temperance-inspired attitudes and policies. The restrictive deed provisions remained in place until the post-Prohibition era, when challenged in court.
By 1940 Carmel had experienced growth but still maintained an intimate population of 2,837 citizens.17 By this time, the village composition had matured into a population of middle-aged residents and retirees, many of whom had roots in Carmel’s pioneer years. Carmel’s small size allowed the charming idiosyncrasies that defined village character through the 1930s to continue into the early 1940s, including the lack of street addresses, a telephone service without a dial system, and the use of a community bulletin board that served as a social gathering place.18 Still, the autonomy and utopian nature of Carmel, so embraced and promoted by the community at large, did little to protect the village from the events that would shape the entire country in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
In 1937, after eighteen years of construction, California State Route 1 was connected between San Simeon and Carmel.19 Few events have had a greater impact on the Carmel’s character. The completion of this segment allowed traffic to flow easily from Southern California to Carmel. Tucked into the southernmost corner of the Monterey Peninsula and virtually inaccessible from the south throughout its history, Carmel’s status as a tourist destination was undoubtedly solidified by the connection of this great coastal highway.
The carefree days of Carmel were brought to a halt on December 7, 1941, when Japanese planes attacked the United States Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into World War II. Immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor, fears of a coastal invasion sent the country into a panic. After the announcement of the draft, 418 Carmelites signed up for duty.20 Under orders from the Army commandant at the Monterey Presidio, the entire village of Carmel was evacuated for a day and subsequently forced under a cloak of darkness during mandatory blackouts during the first few weeks of the war. Residents installed blackout shades and painted the headlights of their vehicles while sentries took up posts on the beach. Local citizens volunteered to watch for enemy planes. Firemen were taught
17 “This is Carmel 1957.”
18 “This is Carmel 1957.”
19 Carmel Business Association. Carmel-by-the-Sea A Booklet Prepared for Those Who Desire to Learn More of Our World-Famed Village. Carmel, Ca.: Printed for the Carmel Business Assoc. by the Carmel Press, 1940s.
20 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea: From Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987.
Attachment 3
18 how to deal with incendiary bombs, should they be dropped on the village. Carmel became home to 200 navy men who were stationed at the Aviation Pre-Flight School in Monterey’s Old Del Monte Hotel, which had been appropriated by the Navy (it is now the Naval Postgraduate School).21 The Manzanita Club at Dolores near Eighth Avenue (later the American Legion Hall/Post No 5126) was transformed into a United Service Organization (USO) Club and was popular with men from both Fort Ord and the Naval School. The Pine Inn on Ocean Avenue between Lincoln and Monte Verde dedicated one of its rooms as a relief station for officers.22
Carmel’s experience during and after World War II was intensified by its proximity to Fort Ord and the U.S. Naval Postgraduate and Army Language Schools in Monterey. The post-war years in Carmel witnessed a surge in population that would have a profound impact on the village’s character.
Servicemen attracted to Carmel’s charm during recreational leaves returned to settle as permanent residents at war’s end. Officers stationedbased at the nearby bases were equally inclined to retire in Carmel.23 In 1948 a former serviceman reported at least sixty retired officers were living in Carmel, including Admiral Richmond K. Turner. General Joseph W. Stilwell lived in Carmel until his death in 1946.24 An additional demographic of younger, non-military residents hoping to open businesses tipped the scales. The sheer volume and composition of this new wave of residents, coupled with a postDepression economic cushion resulting in a sudden influx of tourism, affected Carmel in ways heretofore unseen.
By 1943, Carmel’s population was estimated to exceed 4,000 and included a smattering of homes in unincorporated areas.25 In 1948 approximately 5,000 lived in the village, and by the next year the crush of people had resulted in population-related problems so powerful they threatened to “engulf Carmel Village,” according to the Monterey Peninsula Herald.26 Around this time, the Planning Commission introduced a statement of policy that defined a collective resolution against anything that could be construed as a threat to Carmel tradition:
Because of the inevitable period of growth and expansion which lies ahead; the Planning Commission…believes in…what has come to be known as the Carmel tradition, a tradition from which there should be no departure…The people of Carmel do not desire the kind of progress that would disturb or alter the atmosphere and unique charms of Carmel…27
Essentially, this was a reaffirmation of Carmel’s Magna Carta, a set of laws written into ordinance in the 1920s that codified Carmel’s desire to maintain its residential character.
It is often said that isolationism was the theme of the 1950s, an understandable reaction to the growth and change that defined the 1940s. In 1956 a citizens’ committee set about closing Ocean Avenue to traffic and bar parking at the beach in an effort to stave the swelling tide of tourists.28 One droll solution, proposed by City Councilman Francis Whitaker, suggested changing all streets to one-way streets that led
21 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea: From Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987. 22 Kay Prine, “Carmel and World War II,” Unpublished manuscripts from the Unpublished manuscript from the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library (date unknown). 23 “This is Carmel 1957.”
24 Elmont Waite, “The Cities of America: Carmel, California,” The Saturday Evening Post, 15 May 1948. 25 “This is Carmel 1957.”
26 Dorothy Stephenson. “Threat of Humanity Threatens to Engulf Carmel Village.” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 1948.
27 Elmont Waite, “The Cities of America: Carmel, California,” The Saturday Evening Post, 15 May 1948. 28 Susan Beck, “Carmel in ‘50s: residents feat ‘LAization’,” Carmel Pine Cone, 2 November 1989.
Attachment 3
19 out of town.29 Both ideas are evidence that the anti-growth platform of the 1920s was persisting nearly three decades later. By 1957, Carmel had reached a population of 5,500 within its incorporated boundaries.30 The town had grown large enough to boast five bars and three art galleries, yet there was still no mail service within the village limits. The community bulletin board had become less of a gathering place and more of a tourist attraction for weekenders seeking vestiges of Carmel’s earlier years.31 Though growing in population, Carmel did everything in its power to maintain its small-town character, going so far as passing an ordinance that disallowed short pants within village limits.
However, “It [was] all right to be half naked on the beach,” Mayor Horace Lyon reassured.32 In 1956 Lewis Livingston, Jr., a planning consultant hired by the City, submitted the Plan for the Conservation and Enhancement of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Environs. In the report, Livingston, in conjunction with a “Citizens Committee” of fifty Carmelites, defined the objective of the Plan as a guide to “preserve the primarily residential character of the community.” As such, the Plan called for the following changes: the removal of tourist accommodations from the residential districts; the prevention of development that would be “inharmonious with the present character of Carmel”; the preservation of green space surrounding the community; the realignment of Highway 1 to Junipero Avenue; the addition of parking spaces downtown; and the addition of recreational facilities. The Central District Plan’s most controversial recommendation called for “closing Ocean Avenue from Junipero Avenue to Monte Verde Street and Mission, San Carlos, Dolores, and Lincoln Streets between Sixth and Seventh Avenues to automobile traffic in order to create park-like pedestrian malls.”33 Livingston’s Plan caused much consternation among citizens, and the document was lambasted. After several revisions, the plan was adopted on 28 May 1957.
The plan also warned: “Carmel’s tourist trade can only be expected to expand. Constant vigilance will be necessary to prevent inappropriate commercialization of the area’s tourist attractions.” At that time, there were still a few empty water-front lots left to sell. In the late 1950s, most large land holdings in Carmel were owned by descendentsdescendants of pioneer families. These decedents included Tom Doud, a cattle rancher from Monterey; Mary Goold, a descendent of the Carmel Mission Machado family and the widow of former councilman and livery stable operator Charles Goold; Robert and Fred Leidig; and the estate of Mary Dummage.34
Due to the post-war flood of new residents wanting to settle in Carmel, real estate costs reached unforeseen peaks in the mid to late 1940s. In 1945 a two-bedroom house on Casanova sold for $4,000.
The same house sold for $8,500 in 1946 and $14,000 a year later. In 1948 the most expensive home listed in the Pine Cone Cymbal was $45,000.35 In 1957 the average price of a home was $20,000; empty inland lots sold for an average of $3,500 and lots on the coast were listed for $9,000.36 The swelling of the number of real estate agents working in Carmel from 10 in 1947 to 31 in 1963 serves as a good indicator of the success of the real estate business in the immediate post-war era.37 The Carmel Board of Realtors was located on Sixth near Lincoln Avenues at this time.
29 “Carmel…An Artist’s Village Grown Into a City of Contrasts,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 13 August 1957. 30 “This is Carmel 1957.”
31 “This is Carmel 1957.”
32 “Carmel in ‘50s: residents feat ‘LAization’.”
33 Lawrence Livingston, Plan for the Conservation and Enhancement of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Environs, 1956. 34 “This is Carmel 1957.”
35 Elmont Waite, “The Cities of America: Carmel, California,” The Saturday Evening Post, 15 May 1948. 36 “This is Carmel 1957.”
37 Polk City Directory.
Attachment 3
20 Real estate, specifically the types of commercial and residential development that would be permitted in Carmel, became the topic of discussion in the 1970s as the City worked to update their general plan.
While population did not change dramatically from 1960 (4,351) to 1970 (4,525), the typical fight between keeping Carmel residential versus the threat of tourism and commercial overdevelopment continued. The 1970 census data indicated 2,820 housing units, with merely 23 listed as vacant or seasonal. Demand for Carmel real estate as a secondary or vacation residence was not yet significant. 38 3.2.2 Ocean Avenue Business DistrictBusiness
Carmel’s business “district” as it exists today began during the first decade of the twentieth century when the Hotel Carmelo was moved and as the Pine Inn was expanded. Commercial services which catered to residents and increasingly to tourists eventually lined both sides of Ocean Avenue between Junipero and Monte Verde and the blocks to either side between Fifth and Eighth Avenues. The commercial climate of the village was relaxed and informal, a characteristic that was also reflected in the architecture of the business district. In order to maintain the unique character of the downtown business district, in 1931 the city council passed an ordinance preventing the use of “neon” and other types of electric signage within the city.
One of the first entrepreneurial businessmen to settle in Carmel was Louis Slevin, who arrived with his mother in 1902. Slevin opened the first general merchandise store, served as the first official postmaster, first express agent, and first city treasurer. Slevin was also an avid photographer whose pictures document much of Monterey County during the early part of the century.
In the 1920s and 30s, art galleries became a focal point of the business district. While many artists had established studios in the village, the only gallery was the clubhouse of the Arts and Crafts Club on Casanova between Eighth and Ninth, at the current location of the Golden Bough Theatre. In 1927 the Carmel Art Association was formed, and the somewhat exclusive membership paid dues of one dollar per month to the association which would provide exhibition space, hire a curator, and make sales. Their first gallery was rented space in the Seven Arts Building at Lincoln and Ocean. The association purchased the former studio of artist and poet Ira Remsen Building on the west side of Dolores Street in 1933.4 The buildingwhich was expanded in 19379 and updated in the 1960s and continues to accommodate the Carmel Art Association today.
39 Hazel Watrous and Dene Denny formed the Denny-Watrous Gallery in 1928 which sponsored concerts and art exhibitions in the Tudor building on the east side of Dolores between Ocean and Seventh. Through these and other galleries, the work of local artists found its way into the private and museum art collections all over the world.
By the 1940s, Carmel had very few businesses that catered solely to local residents, such as pharmacies, hardware stores, and medical offices. The Ocean Avenue Business Districtdowntown area contained more shops dedicated to tourists than residents. Typical throughout the entire country, business slowed or closed completely during World War II. The businesses that catered solely to tourists were hit the hardest. Nonetheless, Carmel was resilient, and recovered quickly, aided by the Carmel Business Association based in City Hall.
The 1951 city directory provides evidence of a commercial district laden with industries dedicated to tourism. There were nine hotels and twenty-one restaurants, such as Blue Bird and Carmel Restaurant on Ocean Avenue and The Tuck Box still active on Dolores. Nineteen clothiers, such as Bandbox and The Hour Glass on Ocean Avenue, and Viennese in the Seven Arts Court building, sold mostly high-end
38 “Carmel-by-the-Sea Population 1920 – 2020,” Carmel Pine Cone, 6/3/2022, 26A; 1970 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1970 Census of Population and Housing.
39 Carmel Art Association: History. https://carmelart.org/history/, accessed 7/27/22.
Attachment 3
21 clothes. Seventeen gift shops pedaled themed knick knacks; there was Wee Bit of Scandinavia on Sixth, The Burlwood Shop on Ocean Avenue, and Denslow’s on Lincoln. The Carmel Art Shop on Ocean, The House That Jack Built on Dolores and Sixth, and Village Jewelers all specialized in jewelry. The Gardener’s Friend sold horticultural supplies on Fifth Avenue near Mission. Only a single art gallery was listed: the Carmel Art Association gallery on Dolores between Fifth and Sixth. The Carmel Dairy, an institution in Carmel since 1932, closed after World War II and the space was subsequently leased for use as a soda fountain. In 1953 Italian grocer Joe Bileci moved his Mediterranean Market from San Carlos Street to the Carmel Dairy building on the Ocean Avenue. In the early 1950s, rents for downtown shops and offices – monopolized by a small handful of families – ranged from $100 to $450.40 In 1956, the city directory shows a jump in the number of motels to twenty-six, in addition to eight hotels and various guest houses. Seven additional restaurants appeared, including Birgit & Dagmar and Gene & Parvin’s on Dolores. There were twenty-three gift shops, up from seventeen in 1951. The largest increase in business fell under the clothier category: thirty-five clothiers were listed, under such whimsical names as Bib ‘n Tucker on Ocean, and The Best from Britain on Lincoln. Two art galleries joined the Carmel Art Association: Artists Guild of America, Inc. on Monte Verde and Morgan M.
DeNeale Studio on Lincoln. And five artists listed themselves in the city directory, including Mrs. Joyce C. Nielsen on San Carlos, John O’Shea on Vista and Ling Fu Yang on Dolores.41 Two large-scale commercial development projects in the 1950s, markedly out of proportion to the existing buildings downtownin the Ocean Avenue Business District, sparked one of Carmel’s strongest anti-development movements in history. Carmelites opposed the Jade Tree Motel on Junipero AvenueStreet for both its height and massing. Sited on a slope, the Motel’s five stories appeared to rise above the two-story height limit; though, due to the unique nature of the topography, the building was not in violation of the limits. The second controversial project was Carmel Plaza on Ocean Avenue.
Undisputedly the largest commercial development in Carmel up to that point, the shopping center covered an entire block and was three stories in height.42
By 1963, city directories showed the number of hotels and motels had increased to forty-six. There were thirty-two restaurants, an increase of eleven from 1951.43 The Village Corner, still in existence today, appeared on Dolores and Sixth, in addition to Anzel’s Café on Ocean and The Little Swiss Café on Sixth.
Gift shops, thirty in all, were often styled with Asian and Scandinavian themes, contributing to the village’s fantastical international feel, which was very much a construct of the business community.
Examples of this include Kjell of Norway and The Little Shanghai Shop on Dolores and Kon-Tiki Imports on Ocean. Thirteen art galleries appeared between 1956 and 1963, including The Louvrette Gallery on Lincoln and Zantman Galleries on Sixth. Comparatively, Monterey had three galleries and Pacific Grove had one. In addition to galleries, eight artists were listed. The Gardener’s Friend was still supporting the gardening community on Fifth Avenue. Continuing along a historical trend, there were fifty clothiers listed in the directory, an increase of thirty-one in twelve years. Carmel appeared to have more shops selling clothes than either Monterey or Pacific Grove.44 The Shell-by-the-Sea gas station at San Carlos and Fifth, constructed in 1963-64, is a remarkable example of a utilitarian building whose design blended well with the existing architectural fabric of Carmel. An industrial take on the Bay Region style so popular in Carmel from the 1940s through the 1960s, the station is softened by skylights in the roof over the service area and wood trellises over the gas pumps and
40 Polk City Directory.
41 Ibid.
42 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 43 Polk City Directory.
44 Polk City Directory.
Attachment 3
22 corner signage. The uniqueness and sensitivity of the design was the successful result of the Carmel Planning Commission’s insistence that a “manufactured service station” would never be built in Carmel.45 Designed by local firm, Burde, Shaw & Associates, the Shell-by-the-Sea gas station garnered an award from the Governor’s Design Awards Jury in 1966 as California’s best example in the Service Facilities category.
In 1950, a group of thirty-three merchants formed a local chapter of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, which became the Carmel Business Association. Understanding how some Carmelites would balk at the idea of promoting business in the village, the group announced, “We have assured Carmel that we have no designs on their traditional ‘Way of Life.’”46 Nonetheless, as one newspaper reported, “almost everybody in Carmel rose in righteous wrath” against the formation of the chapter.47 Yet, despite the aggressive opposition, the Business Association persevered and existed through at least the 1960s. The group’s first chairman was Robert Wallace.
In the early 1940s, a City Council with a majority of Carmelites from the “artistic element” voted to abolish parking on the median of Ocean Avenue. Nationally renowned landscape architect Thomas Church redesigned the median with stone walls, shrubs, and flowers.48 Parking has long been a troublesome issue in the downtown core. People who worked downtown often parked their cars on nearby residential streets, which resulted in loss of parking for residents. Consensus was reached that parking meters were out of the question, so, in 1955, a one-hour parking zone was delineated around the Ocean Avenue Business Districtdowntown area. In 1957 a newspaper complained, “With little room to park in the business district and the ever-present threat of a ticket…visitors are increasingly discouraged from shopping [downtown].”49
3.2.2.1 Downtown Architectural Development: 1965 – 1986 The downtown business district (Ocean Avenue between Junipero and Monte Verde and the blocks to either side between Fifth and Eighth Avenues) received minimal architectural development during the 1960s, with the exception of infill development along the streets adjacent to Ocean Avenue. 50 Two
modernist architectural additions to the commercial core arrived in the form of banks. In 1965, Olaf Dahlstrand completed his Organic-style design for the Wells Fargo Bank on the east side of San Carlos Street, between Ocean and Seventh Avenues. In 1972, the firm of Burde Shaw and Associates completed the design for the Northern California Savings and Loan Building, a commercial example of the firm’s Bay Region Modern design.
45 “Architects Saluted for Design,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 26 December 1966. 46 “Carmel Now Has Chamber of Commerce,” Source provided by the Henry Meade Williams Local History Department at the Harrison Memorial Library, 1950.
47 Barnard Norris, “Carmel Up in Arms Over Mention of Any Such Thing,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 14 December 1950.
48 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 49 “This is Carmel 1957.”
50 The “Downtown Conservation District” was adopted with the 2004 Zoning Code update to provide protections to Ocean Avenue and the commercial properties that surround the corridor; see City Municipal Code 17.20.260.
Attachment 3
23 Wells Fargo Bank (1965) by Olof Dahlstrand on San Carlos Street, between Ocean and Seventh Avenues.
Northern California Savings & Loan Building (1972) by Burde Shaw & Associates, SW Dolores Street and Seventh Avenue.
Perhaps the largest project of the time period was the expansion of Carmel Plaza. The original 40,000 square foot design by Olof Dahlstrand, constructed in 1962, was substantially enlarged in 1974 with 70,000 square feet of additional retail space and significant changes in circulation, fenestration and exterior materials.
51 The development met with much controversy among Carmelites who considered it out of scale and character with the City’s existing commercial architecture, with the Carmel Pine Cone noting that it “stirred a lot of interest among local residents and merchants.”52 Residents and civic leaders grew increasingly concerned with the type and extent of commercial development in the business district, which culminated in a four-month moratorium on all new commercial building construction, winning a 4- 1 vote in 1973. Planning Commissioner Ted Fehring said the Carmel Plaza expansion (approved in 1973 and completed in 1974) ‘triggered’ the moratorium.53 The moratorium is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.1. Civic Development and Incorporation.
51 “Carmel Plaza Grand Opening,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5/16/1974, p.46. 52 “What Happened in 1973,” Carmel Pine Cone, 12/27/1973. 53 “’Motels are not a dirty word to me,” Carmel Pine Cone, 12/27/1973, p.3.
Attachment 3
24 Carmel Plaza (1962) by Olof Dahlstrand, SW of Ocean Avenue and Junipero Street.
The site was substantially enlarged in 1974.
In 1976, local residents concerned with overdevelopment secured a preservation victory when the local preservation group Old Carmel, led by former Carmel Pine Cone editor Frank Lloyd and his wife and “unofficial historian,” Marjory, saved the threatened Village Corner restaurant. The restaurant was a favorite meeting place for Carmelites and continues to operate today. 54 Village Corner (1946) restaurant by Hugh Comstock, NE Dolores Street and Sixth Avenue.
In 1980, the Nielsen Brothers Market building was developed under the new commercial building ordinance. Designed by Olaf Dahlstrand, the 9,000 square foot market is located at San Carlos Street and Seventh Avenue. The architect was careful to avoid creating a massive structure by placing the parking underground. The upper floor was designed as office space. The market remains a favorite of locals today.
54 Gilliam, Harold and Ann, Creating Carmel, 205.
Attachment 3
25 Nielsen Brothers Market (1980) by Olof Dahlstrand, NE San Carlos Street and Seventh Avenue.
3.2.3 Tourism
In 1902 when Carmel City was taken over by Frank H. Powers and John Franklin Devendorf, one of their first projects was to move the Hotel Carmelo, of which they had also taken possession, closer to the beach. The two-story, wood-frame structure was partially dismantled and rolled down Ocean Avenue on logs to Monte Verde Street where it became the core of the Pine Inn. Completed in 1903, the Pine Inn included a campground with tents to accommodate the overflow of customers during the summer months.
With the depression over by this time, the two men began to promote the town, which they called Carmelby-the-Sea, as a family-oriented community encouraging people with artistic temperament.
While Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmel continued to attract sightseers from around the country, Devendorf and Powers kept rates low at the Pine Inn in hopes of attracting visitors from San Francisco or the inland valleys who might buy lots and build homes. While lots did sell, a significant number of early buyers were not interested in making Carmel their permanent home. Rather, many of the first lots in Carmel were developed as weekend cottages or summer homes by professors from Bay Area universities, particularly Stanford University and the University of California.
The emerging popularity of the automobile in the 1920s further enabled the public to indulge its zeal for travel. While the Pine Inn remained the grande dame of hotels in Carmel, several others soon joined it to keep up with the burgeoning tourist trade. The Carmel Development Company applied the same formula for success in the Carmel Highlands as it did in Carmel-by-the-Sea: they built a resort hotel as the hub for a housing development. Located south of Point Lobos, well outside of the city boundaries, the Highlands Inn became a favorite destination for honeymooners after it opened in 1917. The La Playa Hotel was also started in 1911.
It was not by happenstance that Carmel became renowned as an artistic enclave. The community character that continues to define Carmel was pre-determined by its founders. California historian, Kevin Starr, writes: “Shrewdly, [Frank Powers and J.F. Devendorf (the developers of Carmel)] realized that if they brought the right people into Carmel, they could establish a tone, a style, that would become selfreflecting and self-perpetuating.”55 Thus, it is easy to understand why the events that unfolded in the
55 Kevin Starr, The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s, 1997.
Attachment 3
26 1940s and subsequent decades had such a powerful impact on Carmel. For the first time in its history, Carmel experienced a sudden increase in new residents and tourists, fundamental shifts in demographics, and the arrival of a real estate industry bent on exploiting the uniqueness of the village for profit. By midcentury, a great schism developed between the old guard, composed of older pioneers and what was left of the artistic and utopian set, and a new crop of younger, business-minded residents that moved to Carmel with the intention of setting up shop. Thus, the debate over change was born – a debate so fervid and enduring that it would define the second half of the twentieth century.
The changes that Carmelites fought so desperately to stave off are changes that would have affected Carmel’s architectural traditions. Carmel’s world-renowned “quaintness,” the characteristic that has distinguished the village throughout its history, is often attributed to a distinctive, “storybook" style of architecture embodied in Hugh Comstock’s Tuck Box of 1927. The novelty of this style and its accompanying charms proved irresistible to visitors, and Carmel became a tourist destination, drawing legions of onlookers from around the world and creating the need for an infrastructure that would support them. Almost immediately, native Carmelites resisted not only the influx of visitors, but fought fiercely against the encroachment of architectural styles that were not in keeping with the quaintness of the more vernacular or storybook styles – Modernism in particular. Additionally, the fight against progress was in large part a debate against commercialization – a struggle that spans the history of Carmel from the antiprogress mayoral campaign of Perry Newberry in the 1920s to the present. To this day, Carmel continues to balance the tension between the conflicting goals of protecting the village’s identity and the promotion of local business, which is largely geared toward tourists.
By the 1950s, Carmelites had developed a complex relationship with tourists. Residents were openly disdainful of the problems caused by the extra number of visitors, yet equally aware that tourism was an economic boon for the village. In 1952, according to the City Clerk’s office, sales tax returns netted Carmel ten dollars in tax per capita – six dollars higher than the state average. The disparity was attributed to tourism, and it was estimated that five-sixths of tax was paid by visitors, while the rest was paid by residents.56 In 1957 shop keepers estimated that fifty percent of their sales were made by tourists.57
I. Magnin & Company, a luxury department store, opened in the Carmel Plaza in 1960. The appearance of this high-fashion outlet, along with a growing number of art galleries (thirteen in 1963) and gift shops (thirty in 1963), is illustrative of a change in tourist demographic. Whereas the tourist of the first half of the twentieth century traveled to Carmel to partake in passive enjoyment of the natural and cultural scenery, the tourist of the latter half of the century traveled to Carmel to shop.
The growth of the tourist trade in Carmel saw the need for an architectural infrastructure that would support it, particularly lodging. City directories delineate patterns of growth and help show the number and type of businesses that were located in a place at a given time. Between 1947 and 1963, multiple hotels were listed in city directories for Carmel. Guest houses were first listed in the mid- 1950s. Though not comprehensive, the following lists offer examples of the hotels that were located in Carmel during a given period.58
The following hotels and guest houses appeared in the 1947 city directory:
Carmel Inn on San Carlos between Sixth and Eighth ;
Colonial Inn on San Antonio between Twelfth and Thirteenth; Green Lantern Hotel Cottages on Casaonova and Sixth;
56 “This is Carmel 1957.”
57 “This is Carmel 1957.”
58 Polk City Directory.
Attachment 3
27 La Playa Hotel on Eighth and Camino Real;
La Ribera Hotel on Lincoln and Sixth;
Lobos Lodge on Ocean between Monte Verde and Casanova; McPhillips Hotel on San Carlos near Fifth;
Pine Inn on Ocean between Lincoln and Monte Verde;
Sea View Inn on Camino Real between Eleventh and Twelfth; Williams Hotel on Ocean and Dolores.59
The following hotels and guest houses first appeared in the 1952 and 1956 city directories:
Beverly Terrace Lodge on San Carlos and Fourth (1952); Cypress West Hotel on Lincoln and Sixth (1952);
Dolores Lodge on Dolores near Eighth (1952);
Hide-a-Way Inn on Junipero (1952);
Lobos Lodge on Ocean between Monte Verde and Casanova (1952); Torres Inn Hotel on Ocean and Torres (1952);
Anchorage Guest House on Carmelo near Twelfth (1956); Edgemere Guest House on San Antonio near Thirteenth (1956); Happy Hills Guest House on San Antonio near Thirteenth (1956); Schwerin Guests on Carmelo near Twelfth (1956);
The Homestead on Lincoln near Eighth (1956);
Rosita Apartment Hotel Fourth and Torres (1956);
Tally Ho Inn on Monte Verde near Sixth (1956).60
The following hotels and guest houses appeared in the 1960 and 1963 city directories:
Green Pastures Guest House on Santa Lucia near San Antonio (1960); The Stonehouse Guest House on Eighth near Casanova (1960); The Rider Apartment Hotel on Lincoln near Fifth (1960); The Stonehouse on Eighth and Monte Verde (1960);
Wayside Inn on Mission and Sixth (1960);
Argonaut Guest House on Monte Verde near Ninth (1963); Whispering Pines on Monte Verde near Ninth (1963).61
Vacationing, tourism, and a recreational tradition were established in the area in the 1890s when the Hotel Del Monte in Monterey was established. Recreation, specifically the sport of golf, has a long tradition on the Monterey Peninsula. The Del Monte Golf Course in Monterey, immediately a popular tourist destination, opened shortly thereafter as a nine-hole course in 1897. The area surrounding the City of Carmel is host to many historic, challenging, and internationally known golf courses. The Pebble Beach Golf Links opened in 1919. The Pebble Beach Resorts includes The Links at Spanish Bay (1987), Spyglass Hill (1966) and the Peter Hay Golf Course (1957). The Monterey area courses have been the sites of many invitational and championship tournaments.
While no golf facilities exist within the boundaries of the City of Carmel, the golfing tradition continues to draw tourists to the area and remains a popular activity for residents. The sport of golf has played a major role in the development of early tourism and recreation on the Monterey peninsula.62
59 Polk City Directory.
60 Polk City Directory.
61 Polk City Directory.
Attachment 3
28 3.2.3.1 Developments in Tourism: 1965 – 1986
A contingent of Carmelites became increasingly vocal about the negative impacts of tourism in the postwar period and midcentury era. The 1970s was a decade of city planning proposals and numerous planning commission hearings on how to balance the needs of city residents with the increasing commercial and tourist pressure. A 1973 Carmel Pine Cone article noted that “The tourist has been the subject of endless debate in Carmel since his dollars began to flow into a once sleepy little village. There is little that goes on in Carmel which doesn’t take the tourist into account since he literally supports many businesses which thrive here.”63
With tourism continuing to rise in the 1970s, the city government prioritized the threats from tourism and commercialism in its discussions regarding updating the 1959 General Plan. The 1973 commercial building moratorium and subsequent 1974 building control ordinance was one such step. The emergency ordinance banned the construction of new hotels and motels, prohibited commercial shop additions to apartment units, reduced the maximum size of commercial buildings from 10,000 to 8,000 square feet and limited the height of structures to 30 feet and a two-story maximum.64 In a similar vein, the Planning Commission, led by the efforts of Albert Henry Hill, proposed a four-month ban on new restaurants in 1974. Local newspapers noted that Carmel had too many restaurants, “with nearly one restaurant seat for every man, woman and child living in the city.” 53 restaurants were within the city limits in 1974, combining for a total of 3,060 restaurant seats. Noting the geometric proliferation of restaurants, Albert Henry Hill stated: “Sixty persons to each restaurant in Carmel to me is ludicrous.”65 Despite the moratoriums and the various studies conducted, various issues delayed the General Plan update, which was not passed until December of 1983 and was officially adopted in 1984.
Demographics tell the story of considerable commercial growth in Carmel in the 1970s and 1980s. Retail sales were approximately $21.5 million in 1970, and up to $100 million by 1985. Over two million tourists came to Carmel per year during this time period, contributing to the rising demand for new retail stores in the commercial business district. By 1980, the City boasted a population of 4,707, yet there were 900 retail and service businesses, about one for every four residents. Over 50 motels were crammed into the city limits, totaling over 940 rooms. As stated previously, the number of restaurants approached 60, invoking the emergency ordinances of the 1970s.66
3.3 Transportation
From the Spanish period, there were threewo routes between the Mission and Monterey. The more direct main trail, described by surveyor George Tolman in 1872 as “the old road” from the Mission to Monterey, passed over Carmel Hill and crossed the peninsula. By 1872, there was also a “wagon road” that roughly followed the route of the state highway. Another route was known as the beach trail. In 1888 Mexican and Chinese laborers were brought in to cut trees and clean the streets. Old ranch roads were the main routes through the wilderness in early Carmel, with Ocean Avenue serving as a secondary street to Broadway (now Junipero).
62 All information in these two paragraphs is summarized from the book Pebble Beach Golf Links: The Official History by Neal Hotelling,
63 “Merchants See Tourism as Mixed Blessing,” Carmel Pine Cone, 8/30/73. 64 “Rewriting Effort Begins on Zoning,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 8/2/73. “Planners Open Study in Carmel,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 7/20/73.
65 “Moratorium Proposed on New Restaurants,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 11/21/74. 66 Statistics quoted from Temple, Sydney, Carmel-by-the-Sea: From Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987, 201.
Attachment 3
29 In 1888 the Southern Pacific Railroad surveyed a route west of the Monterey depot through Pacific Grove and around the point to the sand deposits, and for a time rumors flew that the line would be extended to the Carmel Valley and the coal deposits there. By July 1889 the SP line reached the sand deposits where it stopped, and despite periodic proposals to extend the line to Carmel, it never went farther, which dampened the prospects of Duckworth and other investors in Carmel City during the 1890s. Powers and Devendorf still had expectations the railroad would be extended to Carmel at the time they made their investments in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
During this period, the Monterey Development Company provided tours of the mission by horse and wagon. In the early 1900s, the Coffey Brothers had a livery stable in Carmel and provided hired rigs for sightseers. They also ran stages to and from Monterey from the stage stop in front of the Hotel Carmelo.
The Carmel Development Company also ran stages to pick up visitors and prospective buyers from Monterey and the Del Monte LodgeHotel. Joseph Hitchcock worked for Devendorf as a surrey driver.
From 1911 to 1916, he drove a four-horse stage from the train depot in Monterey to Carmel. In 1912 Charles Goold took delivery of two sixteen-passenger buses, eventually busying out the Coffey and Hitchcock operations. Additional bus services continued to expand until replaced by the Greyhound service and Joe’s Taxi in 1930.
With the increased popularity of automobile travel, blacksmith shops, except for The Forge in the Forest which lasted until 1964, and livery stables gave way to gasoline stations and auto service facilities.
Determined to maintain the rural appearance of the village, early residents and city fathers resisted paving city streets. The Carmel-Monterey Highway was paved in 1916, and Ocean Avenue was paved in 1922.
3.4 Associated Resource Types
3.4.1 Identification
Properties associated with the context of Economic Development (1846-19865) include:
1. Properties associated with agriculture and industry
Ranch houses and farm buildings
Fishing, Whaling, and Extractive Industries
2. Properties associated with business and tourism
Commercial Buildings
Hotels, Inns and Boarding Houses
Seasonal Homes
3. Properties associated with transportation
Gasoline/service stations
3.4.2 Description
Properties associated with agriculture and industry
Ranch Houses and Farm Buildings. Few resources remain in Carmel that are associated with the area’s early agricultural history. This resource type includes ranch houses, barns, other outbuildings, water towers and windmills. As the oldest remaining residential structures in Carmel and due to their association with the rancho period of Carmel’s history as well as their connection with Ffrank and Jane Powers, the Murphy-Powers residence and Barn/Studio have been designated as landmarks under Carmel’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Other ranches in Carmel’s sphere of influence include the Martin’s Mission Ranch, the Hatton Ranch, the Victorine Ranch behind the Bay School at San Jose Creek, and Palo Corona, today the Fish Ranch.
Attachment 3
30 Fishing, Whaling and Extractive Industries. Although not located in the City of Carmel, there is a residence built by Chinese fishermean at Whalers Cove, which houses the Whaling Station museum at Point Lobos State Park. It is unlikely that any resources associated with the fishing industry in Carmel Bay are located in the City of Carmel.
Likewise, few if any resources associated with quarrying and mining activities in the area would be located within the boundaries or the sphere of influence of Carmel. Little is known of the silver mining activities near Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo. Evidence of mine shafts have been discovered. It is therefore possible that there may be some subsurface evidence of silver mining activities in the vicinity of the Mission and in the Walker Tract near Junipero Avenue and Rio Road.67 The brick kilns of the Plaza Fuel Company and buildings associated with the Thermotite concrete block operation still exist near Santa Fe and Third, but are no longer in operation. If further research and study does not reveal the existence of resources associated with local industrial activities, they might be considered as significant.
Properties Associated with Business and Tourism
Commercial Bbuildings. Most of the historic commercial buildings (those built prior to 1940) are located on Ocean Avenue and Sixth and Seventh Avenues between Mission and Monte Verde Streets. They consist primarily of two story reinforced concrete and wood frame buildings in a variety of architectural styles with retail and/or gallery space on the ground floor and office space and artist’s studios on the upper floors.
Hotels, Inns, and Boarding Houses. Tourist accommodations have played an important role in the economic development of Carmel since the days of the Hotel Carmelo and Carmel City. In fact, a business census of the community in 1956 listed forty-six such establishments. Builtding during all periods of Carmel’s development, hotels, inns, and lodges reflect a wide range of architectural preferences.
Many times older structures were remodeled to serve as inns. Built in 1929, The Cypress Inn, formerly called La Ribera Hotel was built specifically for the purpose of lodging. Oakland architects Blain and Olsen were responsible for its Spanish Colonial Revival design, highlighted by a lavish stucco entry, tower, generous use of tile, and a flower-strewn patio.
On the other hand, the La Playa Hotel began in 1903 as the home and studio of Chris Jorgensen and was converted to hotel use after the tragic drowning of Mrs. Angela Ghiradelli Jorgensen in 1911. The house was designed around a two story stone tower with gable-roofed wings extending west and south. In 1921 more rooms were added, but in 1924 it was almost completely destroyed by a fire. The Godwins, who had also been associated with the Pine Inn, rebuilt the hotel, retaining some of the original stonework, and added 30 rooms in 1925. Subsequent additions increased the room count substantially. This hotel is now listed by the National Trust as a Historic Hotel of America.
Likewise, the Holiday House was originally the home of Stanford professorion Guido Marx. Built in 1905, it was sold to Basilicio Jesena who converted it into the Holiday Inn in 1926. It was renamed the Holiday House in 1929 when it was taken over by Isabel and Mary Smith. The Sea View Inn at Camino Real and Twelfth, built in 1905, was owned and run by the Stout sisters.
67 Sharron Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, p. 119
Attachment 3
31 Many of the local residents opened their homes during the summer season for boarders, such as professor Vernon Kellogg on Casanova between Ninth and Tenth streets. Some residents added guest cottages to accommodate extended family and summer visitors. Many of these homes later were expanded to become full-time inns, as were Edgemere Cottages and the Green Lantern.
Seasonal Homes. Carmel’s identity as a vacation or part-time destination originated in the Carmel City era and continued past World War II into the present. A substantial percentage of homes in Carmel are still only occupied or rented for part of the year. In most ways, these houses are indistinguishable from year-round homes, except perhaps for an increased tendency towards informality, simplicity and outdoor orientation leftover from the early days.
Properties associated with transportation
Resources associated with pre-automobile transportation activities would include early trails and roads, blacksmith shops, livery stables, and stages stops. The Mission Trail exists in part from the Carmel Mission north, probably to old Highway 1. Oliver Road is the old road to Carmel Valley. This resource category would include the Forge in the Forest, and the stage stop at the Goold Building at San Carlos between Ocean and Sixth. Charles Goold also owned a garage at the southeast corner of Ocean and San Carlos which later became the Standard Oil Station and is now a clothing store.
With the advent of the automobile, associated resources would include early service stations, garages, car dealerships, taxi companies, and bus depots, such as the first depot built by Jon Konigshofer on the northwest corner of Junipero and Sixth. Existing resources include the Texaco (now Shell) Station at the corner of San Carlos and Fifth, the Richfield station on the southwest corner of Seventh and San Carlos, and Miller Harris’ Shell station. Levinson’s Automobile Agency was located at Dick Bruhn’s on the southeast corner of San Carlos and Ocean. Until 1970, a Volkswagen showroom and sales agency was located at the corner of Fourth and Mission Streets.
3.4.3 Significance
Due to their relative scarcity, any properties associated with the agricultural and industrial economy would be considered significant resources. Agricultural resources usually existed in complexes of several types of functionally related structures. Generally the more pivotal buildings in the complex such as barns and farmhouses would have a greater significance than sheds and other ancillary resources.
Properties associated with business and tourism exist in abundance throughout Carmel. Significant examples should retain a high degree of integrity. Significance would be enhanced by association with prominent members of the business community and with specific businesses or business types that were pivotal in the town’s economic development.
Due to relative scarcity and the importance in representing the continuum of development within this context, pre-automobile transportation resources would have a high degree of significance. Due to the prevalence of adaptive reuse, there would be a lower level of integrity expected for these resources.
Significance of resources within this context would be enhanced by association with individuals that played important roles in the development of the Carmel business community or promoted tourism in the area.
4.0 GOVERNMENT, CIVIC AND SOCIAL (1903-19865)
4.1 Civic Development and Incorporation
Attachment 3
32 In addition to assisting with the early formation of community and cultural institutions, James Devendorf also acted as the unofficial mayor, resolving disputes between residents. Ultimately, however, he could not create the kinds of ordinances or regulations necessary to control development or shape public improvements. A group in favor of cityhood circulated a petition for incorporation in October 1916. The County Board of Supervisors approved the petition and scheduled an election for October 26. There were 199 votes cast with 113 in favor and 86 against. At the same time, the first Bboard of Trustees was elected. There were five members in the total with two holding two-year terms and three holding the four y ear terms. The Bboard then elected a president to a two-year term. The charter members included A.P.
Fraser, president, Peter Taylor, G.F. Beardsley, E.K. DeSabla and D.W. Johnson. In addition, Louis Slevin was elected treasurer and J.E. Nichols was elected as clerk. In 1920 Saidee Van Brower was elected City Clerk. Serving until 1942, she started and kept the only city building records. The position of City Clerk became elevated to City Administrator when Hugh Bayliss was promoted in 1968. In 1978 the system was slightly modified when the office of Mayor was changed to a publicly elected position.
William Askew, Sr. was superintendent of Public Works for thirty years. Also employed by the city, William Askew, Jr. also served as the superintendent of Public Works for thirty years.
In 1917, the first official City Hall was located in the Philip Wilson Building on the northwest corner of Ocean and Dolores. In 1927, City Hall was located upstairs in the Oakes-Mitchell Buildings on the west side of Dolores between Ocean and Seventh. It moved again in 1946 to the old All Saints Episcopal Church on the east side of Monte Verde between Ocean and Seventh. The Department of Public Works was located in the little green building on the southwest corner of Mission and Seventh with the Police Station. In 1966, the new Public Works/Police Station, designed by Burde, Shaw & Associates and located on the east side of Junipero between Fourth and Fifth, was dedicated.
From the beginning there has been general agreement among Carmel residents for slow growth and preservation of the residential character of the village. One of the first city ordinances prohibited the cutting down of trees on public land. Determined to keep the rural setting, residents also fought the introduction of paved streets, mail delivery, and electricity. Public improvements and development continued, but not without controversy. Even the paving of Ocean Avenue, which did not occur until 1922, was so hotly debated that the issue had to be resolved in court. Another battle raged over the development of the Dunes, a stretch of the beach at the foot of Ocean Avenue. A resort hotel planned for the site was defeated when a group of residents successfully persuaded Devendorf to sell the land to the city for $15,000. Citizens voted four to one in favor of its purchase.
Another hot issue was the bathhouse on Carmel beach. The bathhouse, constructed in 1889 for Women’s Real Estate Company by Delos Goldsmith, served Carmel with dressing rooms and towels, had a tea room, and served as a meeting place and a site for wedding receptions. The City of Carmel purchased the building in the 1920s. However, the cost of upkeep and the potential for lawsuits should someone drown while using the life rope which extended from the bathhouse to the ocean, led many to question ownership of the property. The bathhouse was sold in 1929, and later demolished.
Battle lines over such issues were usually drawn between the art and business factions in the community.
Perry Newberry became one of the central leaders of the art faction. Newberry had come to Carmel in 1910. Formerly on the art staff of the San Francisco Examiner, he became the assistant editor of the Carmel Pine Cone and later its owner until he sold it in 1935. He was first inspired to run for public office in response to a proposal to construct a city hall, an idea he opposed. He successfully ran for the Board of Trustees in 1922 and fought to preserve the unique and rural quality of Carmel. He promised voters:
Attachment 3
33 Believing that what 9,999 towns out of 10,000 want is just what Carmel shouldn’t have, I am a candidate for trustee on the platform, DON’T BOOST. I am making a spirited campaign to win by asking those who disagree to vote against me.
DON’T VOTE FOR PERRY NEWBERRY:
If you hope to see Carmel become a city.
If you want its growth boosted.
If you desire its commercial success.
If concrete street pavements represent your civic ambitions.
If you think a glass factory is of greater importance than a sand dune, or a millionaire than an artist, or a mansion than a little brown cottage.
If you truly want Carmel to become a boosting, hustling, wide-awake, lively metropolis, DON’T VOTE FOR PERRY NEWPERRY.
In an effort to control the postwar building boom, Carmel re-established a new Planning Commission in 1946. The newly re-organized Commission was comprised of Bert Heron, former City Council member and mayor; Hugh Comstock, architect; Clara Kellogg, city trustee and co-creator of Devendorf Park; and Florence Josselyn, wife of Talbert Josselyn, a writer for the Saturday Evening Post. 68 All members were
either part of the artistic element or were avid supporters of it. This group of individuals was responsible for codifying some of Carmel’s most recognized planning restrictions, including bans against billboards, electric signs, and displays over sidewalks; requirements for off-street parking at motels; a two-story building height limit and appropriate setback; a restriction against sidewalks in the residential districts; and the most notorious of all, an ordinance requiring a signed waiver for anyone wearing high-heeled shoes. In 1954 the Commission hired San Francisco planner Lawrence Livingston, Jr. to author a city plan, which he submitted in 1956. Highly controversial, the plan made such suggestions as eliminating vehicular traffic on Ocean Avenue to create space for an open-air pedestrian mall.69 After a series of revisions, the Carmel General Plan was adopted in 19597.
Throughout the history of the village, Carmelites have appreciated the urban forest and sought to preserve it. In 1945 a gentleman denied a request to cut down his tree sent a poem to the Monterey Peninsula Herald: “I asked them to cut down that tree; I was prepared for ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’; they answered me in one word – ‘nuts.’”70 Carmel formally declared its respect for local trees in the establishment of a forestry commission in 1958. Driven by the determination of council-member Gunnar Norberg, the Forest Commission took the responsibility of the City’s trees from the City Council and placed it in the hands of a forester. The city’s first forester, Robert Tate, was quoted as saying, “Without the trees, the city would be little different from many other coastal villages in California.”71 Carmel’s urban forest took a toll on city sidewalks, as tree roots damaged asphalt and pavers. On October 9, 1963, in an effort to curb injury claims, the City Council decided to make it illegal to wear high heels without obtaining a special permit and signing a waiver of legal claims.
4.1.1 Civic Policy Development: 1965 - 1986
68 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 69 Harold and Ann Gilliam, Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision, 1992. 70 Steve Hauk, “Carmel Determined to Keep its Charm,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 1 June 1970. 71 “Carmel Determined to Keep its Charm.”
Attachment 3
34 City government officials and residents continued their concern with the commercial and tourist pressures on the small village in the forest. Planning policy regulations were aimed at updating the 1959 General Plan, and various emergency building moratoriums, curbs on commercial and residential development, and measures to handle the massive influx of nonpermanent residents were implemented with much wrangling among citizens and city officials.
After winning the highest number of votes in the 1968 City Council election, businessman and pragmatist Barney Laiolo became the City’s appointed mayor. That same year, there was an influx of hippies seeking to expand the Summer of Love to Carmel’s quiet streets; many occupied Devendorf Park, the beachside sand dunes, and the downtown business district, and some solicited tourists and residents for money.
Laiolo did not favor violent police intrusion, but police did quietly address illegal mischief. On July 31, 1968, the City passed a controversial emergency ordinance that regulated the use of public property. The State Supreme Court rescinded the ordinance in 1971, with the Carmel Pine Cone declaring, “sitting on the grass is legal now.”72
In the 1970s, planning policy aimed to control commercial development and new restaurant construction in the downtown and the construction of large homes in residential zone. As previously described, the commercial building moratorium approved on July 24, 1973 was meant to address “the needs of permanent residents in relation to the needs of the mushrooming commercial district.” It was the first building moratorium enacted by the City since its 1916 incorporation. The moratorium was proposed by planning commissioner Albert Henry Hill, who identified an alarming new trend of out-of-town business capital placing pressure on the little village. Indirectly referring to the proposed size and scale of expanded Carmel Plaza, Hill stated that the new business interests’ intent was to “buy up, tear down, rebuild – and make it big to pay.” Hill was backed by fiery councilmember Gunnar Norberg, who warned of “far more serious things that appear on the horizon, huge enterprises coming from outside to remake Carmel block by block.”73
The moratorium was extended to give the City time to perform studies to determine the best solutions to excessive commercialization, and work on amended development standards. 74 In December 1973, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt an ordinance to amend the general regulations for commercial buildings, amend uses within commercial zones, and change the height definitions for commercial structures; the City Council voted to officially adopt the building control ordinance in March 1974.
75 Norberg cast the singular dissenting vote because he did not consider the building controls strict enough. The ordinance was aimed at insuring adequate open space, limiting maximum commercial building size and height, and encouraging second-story apartment uses. 76 Residential development was another issue of the 1970s, when Carmelites began to express concern about Carmel losing its historic and stylistic character. In 1972, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to discuss a residential design ordinance and the implementation of design controls to residential properties, which heretofore only applied to the commercial district. Then-councilmember Barney Laiolo disagreed with the request noting, “It’s pretty hard to control people’s taste. One man
72 Gualtieri, Kathryn and Lynn A. Momboisse, A Village in the Pine Forest: Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2016, 11. 73 “Carmel Votes 4-Month Building Moratorium,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 7/25/73. “Rewriting Effort Begins on Zoning,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 8/2/1973.
74 “Carmel Votes 4-Month Building Moratorium,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 7/25/73; “Rewriting Effort Begins on Zoning,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 8/2/73; “Building moratorium extended eight months,” Carmel Pine Cone, 11/15/1973, p.33.
75 “Planners adopt altered commercial restraints,” Carmel Pine Cone, 12/20/1973, p.10; “Council adopts building control law,” Carmel Pine Cone, 03/21/1974.
76 “Planners adopt altered commercial restraints,” Carmel Pine Cone, 12/20/1973, p.10; “Council adopts building control law,” Carmel Pine Cone, 03/21/1974.
Attachment 3
35 might want a flat-top roof, another might like a peaked roof.” Councilmember Olaf Dahlstrand, former head of the Planning Commission, agreed, stating, “You can’t legislate beauty. One of the dangers (of design control) is that something really good that’s ahead of its time might not get approved.” Finally, City Councilmember Gunnar Norberg convinced the City Attorney to draft an ordinance that would “prevent gross intrusions against the residential character of the village, and that would take into account the complex policing job that might be created.” 77 In 1978, City Councilmember and former mayor Bernard Anderson voted against a proposed moratorium on the new construction of two-story homes in the residential district.78 These matters would not be resolved until the adoption of the 1984 General Plan.
Additional ordinances were proposed throughout the 1970s – all aimed at keeping Carmel “Carmel.” In 1974, with planning commissioner Albert Henry Hill noting “sixty persons to each restaurant in Carmel to me is ludicrous,” the City Council passed an emergency ordinance banning any new restaurants. An ordinance banning the use of illegal kitchens in the residential zone was also passed in 1974, in an effort to curb illegal cooking in boarding rooms and transient apartments. While these efforts continued throughout the decade, with much discussion among planning staff, commissioners and the public, these various concerns would not be addressed significantly until the adoption of the 1984 General Plan.79 The culmination of over one decade of discussion was the passing of the Carmel General Plan Update in December of 1983. Officially adopted in 1984, the new General Plan sought to address concerns about commercial overdevelopment, to foster small-scale commercial development in the business district and residential design controls. Plan highlights included:
Establish a “village preservation overlay zone” on Ocean Avenue, implementing design restrictions on additions/alterations to new buildings.
New second-story retail shops are not permitted in the commercial zone; however, residential apartments are permitted, as are professional offices defined as services. New motels are permitted only in the new RC: Residential and Limited Commercial Zone, located outside the commercial zone and adjacent to the R-1 Residential Zone. New tourist-related stores (including T-shirt shops and art galleries) are only allowed in the central commercial district, subject to the granting of a use permit. New restaurants would be allowed in the central commercial district and the commercial service zones, subject to the granting of a use permit.
Commercial uses are no longer permitted in the R-4 multiple-family district.80 The City Council’s first reading of the 1984 General Plan occurred in June, with a spirited, lengthy meeting that included, “name-calling, open threats of recall and a six-hour marathon session.” The second and final reading occurred on July 3, 1984.81
During this time period, Carmelites also voted to confirm an ordinance making the mayor an elected position in 1978, a decision formerly under the purview of the City Council. In 1980, former mayor (1968 to 1972) and pragmatist Barney Laiolo became the first elected mayor of Carmel.82 Laiolo served as mayor for one term, from 1980 to 1982, and returned the city administration to a business friendly environment. The mayoral election of 1982 became another political battle between the practical Laiolo
77 “City Attorney Asked to Draft Ordinance on Residential Design Control,” Carmel Pine Cone, 8/10/72. 78 “Retiring Councilman’s Last Vote Stymies Move to Ban Two-Story Homes,” Carmel Pine Cone, 3/14/78. 79 “Moratorium Proposed on New Restaurants,” Monterey Peninsula Herald, 11/21/74; “Two Ordinances Proposed for Limiting Second Kitchens, Additional Tenants,” Carmel Pine Cone, 11/7/74. 80 “New City General Plan Ordinances Would Limit Shops, Galleries, Eateries,” Carmel Pine Cone, 4/26/84. 81 “1984: The Year in Review,” Carmel Pine Cone, 12/27/84. 82 Gualtieri, Kathryn and Lynn A. Momboisse, A Village in the Pine Forest: Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2016, 12.
Attachment 3
36 and his old foe Gunnar Norberg, the latter seeking to return the city to an anti-commercialism platform.
Despite both men’s plans, Carmel native Charlotte Townsend won the mayoral race in 1982, becoming the first elected female mayor in Carmel’s history.83
Charlotte Townsend served two terms as mayor from 1982 until 1986. After nearly ten years of hearings, she stewarded the passage of the 1984 General Plan (discussed above), which endeavored to provide a compromise between commercial development and keeping Carmel a local place. As implementation of the new General Plan occurred, business owners increasingly grumbled at the Plan’s restrictive policies, viewing the new administration as anti-development, despite its intentions to balance both commercial and local needs. To assess the opinions of Carmelites, the Townsend administration released a survey to residents in the summer of 1985, with questions regarding the General Plan policies, including the limits of new restaurants and tourist-related stores, the location of hotels and the changes to second-story development in the commercial zone. The survey was distributed to 3,900 residents. The Carmel Pine Cone summarized the preliminary responses of the first 1,000 residents in a July article, notably that the city has “too many” tourist-related shops, such as gift shops, antique shops and art galleries; and that the city needs more shops that provide goods for locals, including book stores, hardware shops, furniture and auto parts stores. What became clear from the survey results is that locals felt underrepresented in their community, again reviving Carmel’s longstanding conflict between commercialism and local needs. This controversy would lead to the election of Clint Eastwood in 1986.84 In 1985, Hollywood celebrity Clint Eastwood submitted plans for a new building on San Carlos Street.
Initial designs were rejected by the Planning Commission, who viewed the proposed Eastwood building as too large and out of character with Carmel’s village-like atmosphere. Negotiations continued for months. A bitter compromise was reached in 1985 and Eastwood was granted a permit for construction of the building. The results did not sit well with both locals and the business community, the latter viewing the fight as anti-commercial and not in the best interest of business development. The battle also resulted in Clint Eastwood’s decision to run for mayor in 1986.
In 1986, Carmel made national headlines for reportedly banning ice cream. The media fervor stemmed from the denial of creamery permits (denied due to water requirements and restrictions on take-out food), misconstrued as an outright ban on ice cream. Eastwood made the issue part of his campaign, promising to bring back ice cream. Eastwood’s campaign created yet another surge of visitors onto Carmel’s quaint streets, as tourists swarmed into town to perhaps get a glimpse of the Hollywood icon. Running on an anti-government ticket, Eastwood sought to return Carmel to the people, and the actor embraced both locals and tourists alike during his campaign. Articles about Eastwood’s movements and interactions with the people dominated the Carmel Pine Cone in 1986. Both locals and tourists wrote frequent letters to the editor during the Eastwood campaign, reflecting the ongoing conflict between local and tourist needs. The Letters to the Editor page from March 20, 1986 featured both sides of the debate, with one Carmelite writing, “Clint Eastwood may be a very nice person and a smart businessman, but what we need is a person who can and will give their full-time effort to being responsive to the needs of the residents. One who will do their best to keep what’s left of the Carmel character intact, insofar as possible.” The opposing view was presented by a southern California tourist who frequented Carmel for decades: “My daughter and I are sitting here wearing Clint Eastwood pins and eating Paul Newman popcorn. Let me tell you that Clint Eastwood is more like the residents of Carmel in those days than most of the ones today.
Down-to-earth, unassuming and genuine.85
83 Harold and Ann Gillian, Creating Carmel, the Enduring Vision,1992, 206. 84 Michael Gardner, “Carmel Residents Voice Strong Views in Survey,” Carmel Pine Cone, 7/25/85. 85 “No Coney Island (Letters to the Editor),” Carmel Pine Cone, 3/20/86; “Keep Carmel Intact (Letters to the Editor),” Carmel Pine Cone, 3/20/86.
Attachment 3
37 Clint Eastwood was elected mayor in April of 1986. Despite fears over a return to commercialism, Eastwood’s term resulted in several benefits to Carmel residents. He revitalized the Carmel Youth Center, providing a place for Carmel children to meet and socialize in a safe environment. He also purchased the Mission Ranch in 1986, and restored the area’s agricultural buildings with minimal intervention that both preserved the ranch’s historic character and allowed for additional open space. Though ice cream was never actually banned in Carmel, Eastwood is credited with passing Ordinance 86-10, “Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code redefining and establishing standards for eating places primarily selling frozen dessert products” to ensure an ice cream-friendly regulatory environment in Carmel.86
4.2 Public Services
Carmel’s early residents organized to provide themselves with local public services and utilities long before the community was incorporated. In addition to the more frequently recognized services discussed below, other important community infrastructure basics include sanitation and disposal services. In 1966 a new Public Works Department building was constructed at Junipero and Fourth Avenue.87
4.2.1 Communication
The history of postal service in Carmel began in 1889, when leather mail pouches were hauled over the hill from Monterey to a small building in Carmel Valley known as the White Oak Inn. This arrangement was discontinued in April 1890. This post office was re-established in 1893, and there was an abortive attempt to move it in September 1903. At this time, Frank Powers traveled to Washington, D.C., where he successfully lobbied to have Carmel made the official post office for the area. The Carmel post office was finally established in December 1903. The first mail carrier was A.F. Horn, who carried the mail between Carmel and Monterey on a one-horse wagon, along with baggage express and passengers.
Charles Goold, who owned a local stage and hauling company, eventually earned the contract to bring Carmel mail from Monterey. Mail was distributed from Devendorf’s office at the general store and Devendorf’s brother-in-law, Mr. J.P. Staples, handed out the mail. BurtonMr. Williams, proprietor, acted as post-master until Louis Slevin had been a resident of Carmel for one year. Beginning with eight boxes, Slevin was Carmel’s first official postmaster, a position he held from 1904 to 1914. Slevein was followed by L. Payne from 1914 to 1918, and Stella Vincent was postmaster from 1918 to 1929. Subsequent post office locations include Dolores near Seventh, where it moved in 1922; the southwest corner of Ocean and Mission in 1934; and the second building from the northeast corner of Dolores and Sixth. Since there was never door-to-door delivery, the post office, now located at the southeast corner of Fifth and Dolores, has always beenwas, and still is, a favorite spot to meet and chat with friends. In 1951 the post office was moved to its current location on Fifth Avenue between Dolores and San Carlos. The building received an addition and doubled in size in 1957.88
In the early days, Carmel residents devised a unique method of communication, described by Daisy Bostick and Dorothea Castelhun in Carmel at Work and Play. On an old board fence on Ocean Avenue, residents and visitors posted lost and found notices, announcements of meetings, help-wanted signs, advertisements, and bits of world news. One enterprising individual attached a pad of paper and a pencil with the command, “Leave your orders for wood here.” As the village developed, the bulletin board found new sites. It remained a community institution until recent years.
86 Gualtieri, Kathryn and Lynn A. Momboisse, A Village in the Pine Forest: Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2016, 13. 87 Sydney Temple, Carmel-by-the-Sea from Aborigines to Coastal Commission, 1987. 88 Sharon Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, 1980.
Attachment 3
38 It was often said, “If you don’t hear about it on a trip to the bulletin board or the post office, you’ll read it in the Pine Cone.” The Carmel Pine Cone was established in 1915 by William Overstreet. An ex-San Francisco news reporter, clerk and correspondent, he dreamed of owning his own newspaper. Beginning on a shoestring budget with a second hand press in the room behind the post office, the Carmel Pine Cone became the voice of the village. Although the newspaper has changed hands several times over the years, it continues today as Carmel’s primary news organization. There have been numerous competitors and other local news publications; however, none outlasted the Carmel Pine Cone. Examples include the Carmel News from 1914-1917; the Carmelite co-founded by Lincoln Steffens, lasted from 1925-1931; the Village Press from 1926 to 1935; and the Village Daily published from 1930 to 1935, to name a few.
The first telephone service in Carmel was the Sunset Telephone Company, established in 1903. The Carmel Telephone Exchange was established in 1913 in a section of Blood’s Grocery on the corner of Ocean and Lincoln, with 35 customers. On April 13, 1917, a two-party telephone line was ordered by Carmel’s city government, one for the residence of the city marshal and one for the office of the clerk in City Hall. By 1928 there were 880 subscribers in the village. In 1949 a new telephone central office building was constructed on Sixth Avenue between Junipero and Mission Streets. The building housed equipment for a new dial telephone system.
4.2.2 Utilities
As in most frontier locations, water for domestic use was originally provided by individual wells.
Windmills and tank houses were common components of rural settlements during the early American period. In 1888, Wesley Hunter and his uncle Delos Goldsmith carried water from the Carmel River until a good well was dug. The first well in the city was on Carpenter near Ocean, but was too alkaline. The second, “Mary’s Well,” was at Guadalupe and Fifth. Water was piped to a windmill on Ocean Avenue where a tank supplied the Hotel Carmeleo.
The Pacific Improvement Company constructed the first unit of the water system when they piped the spring at the head of Laguna Grande, which proved unsuccessful. The first reliable water was supplied by a pipeline from Carmel Valley, built to supply water to the Del Monte Hotel in Monterey and Lost Laureles Lodge, a spa in Carmel Valley. Water was supplied from the original San Clemente Dam built by 700 Chinese laborers in 1882-1883 under the supervision of William Hatton. After the dam was completed, a pipeline was constructed to a new reservoir in Pacific Grove. The Pacific Improvement Company laid a pipeline down Ocean Avenue. Those not connected to the pipeline drew water from the line and hauled it in barrels. The Carmel Water Works had a large holding tank during the early days, and there was a public water trough at Ocean and San Carlos.
In 1905, the Carmel Development Company installed its own water system, with a pump at the river to bring water into a large tank at Ocean Avenue and Mountain View. Horse drawn barrels allowed water to be brought to higher elevations. Later, the Monterey County Water Works took over water distribution.
In 1935, the Monterey County Water System was owned and operated by the California Water and Telephone Company, a private corporation serving Monterey, East Monterey, Del Monte, Carmel, Pebble Beach, and various Carmel Valley locations. Cal-Am (California-American) now supplies water to Carmel.
Electricity may have come to the area as early as 1894. Monterey Electric Light and Development Company organized in 1891 and extended lines into Pacific Grove in 1894. However, Sharron Hale and other long- time residents agree that electricity did not arrive in Carmel until 1914. In the early days, the merchants and developers in Carmel-by-the-Sea agreed that the village should grow slowly and gas and electricity should be “forbidden.” Gas service finally arrived in Carmel in 1930.
Attachment 3
39 4.2.3 Health Ccare
Carmel’s first health care institution was a sanitarium operated by Dr. Himmelsbach. Opened in 1902, the Pine Sanitarium was located in his parent’s home on the northeast corner of Dolores and Ninth. A second facility, Carmel Hospital, was established in 1927, the brainchild of Edith Ballou Shuffelton, a graduate of the nursing school at Stanford. Shuffelton persuaded individuals to donate funds for a facility to meet the general medical needs of the community. Located in Carmel Woods, the hospital was designed by Robert Stanton and built by Michael J. Murphy. In a matter of a few years, however, the facility proved to be inadequate. The equipment was sold to the Monterey Peninsula Community Hospital and the building converted to the Forest Lodge apartments.
The Metabolic Clinic was founded in 1928 by Grace Deere Velie Harris, an heir to the John Deere Tractor fortune. This clinic conducted research on the blood disease from which Harris suffered.
Unfortunately, Harris died before the facility was completed in 1930. The Clinic was dissolved in 1934 and the structure became the Monterey Peninsula Community Hospital on Highway 68. Community Hospital had formed in 1934 and was located in the former Metabolic Clinic on Valley Way and Highway
1. When Community Hospital moved into its modern facility outside of the Carmel city limits, the building was transformed into a convalescent home (the Carmel Convalescent Hospital).
In the 1950s Samuel F.B. Morse donated twenty-two acres for the relocation of the Community Hospital of Monterey County. Famed modernist, Edward Durell Stone, received the commission for its design.
The new hospital opened on 28 June 1962 and received many awards for its progressive design. The hospital was the first in the country to offer private rooms to all its patients. The hospital cost $3.5 million, two-thirds of which was donated by the community.89 As stated above, the hospital is outside the boundaries of the City of Carmel, but it does serve the city’s residents.
4.2.4 Fire and Police Departments
A group of twenty citizens, led by Robert Leidig, established a volunteer fire department in 1908.
Equipment was stored in a tent on the southwest corner of San Carlos and Sixth and in a garage still standing at Santa Fe and Fourth streets. The Citizen’s Fire Protection Committee organized to raise funds for a proper fire engine and a permanent fire company in 1915. The equipment was kept in a building contributed by the Carmel Development Company. When the city incorporated the following year, the fire protection service became the responsibility of the city. In January 1917, the Fire Protection Committee reported to the City Council that the Monterey County Water Works would lay six-inch drain pipes down Ocean Avenue to Monte Verde, then down Monte Verde to Twelfth with necessary fire hydrants. In 1920, John Jordaon, owner of the Pine Inn, donated the shed which housed McDonald’s Dairy on Sixth between San Carlos and Dolores. Moved in 1936, this building is now at the old Thermotite site on the west side of Santa Fe and Third. Through the approval of a bond and a federal Works Project Administration grant, money was raised for a new firehouse in 1936. Completed in 1937, the new firehouse designed by Milt Latham was constructed of poured-in-place concrete faced with Carmel stone. The Carmel Fire Department underwent significant equipment upgrades in the 1950s and 1960s, including the installation of a radio system in 1958, a new ambulance, and in 1963, a La France Engine, which cost the city $27,000. The Fire Department celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 1965.
Robert Leidig served as chief from 1925 to 1941; Vicente Torras from 1941 to 1956; and Robert E. Smith from 1956 to 1965; J. Robert ‘Bob’ Baker from 1966 to 1970; and Robert Updike from 1970 to 1988. 90 89 “Our History,” Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula Online, 2008. 90 Sharon Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday, 1980.
Attachment 3
40 In 1948 Carmel’s police force was decidedly small and consisted of only eight men.91 In 1957, Carmel allocated a third of its budget toward policing the village, yet a newspaper from that year was quick to underscore that such a police force was unnecessary, as “almost nobody – and sometimes not even a few forgetful businessmen – lock their doors at night.”92 In 1967 a new police department station was completed at Junipero and Fourth Avenue, designed by Burde, Shaw and AssociatesRobert Jones. 93 The
new police station was designed and engineered for future construction of a City Hall, Council Chambers and City Offices. The Carmel Police Department was headed by Roy C. Fraties from 1940 to 1950; and Clyde RP. Klaumann from the 1950s to 19765; William H. Ellis from 1976 to 1981; and John J.
McGilvray from 1982 to 1994.
94 4.3 Educational and Religious Institutions
4.3.1 Schools
The Carmelo School District was established in the 1850s and served all the families in the Carmel Valley and beach area. The Bay School was established in 1879 on Joseph Gregg’s ranch at the mouth of San Jose Creek. The Sunset School was, founded in 1904, was the first and only public school established in the village of Carmel.95 Children first attended classes in Delos Goldsmith’s shed with Mary Westphal as teacher. Increasing enrollment, however, created a need for larger quarters. Classes were temporarily moved to Michael J. Murphy’s lumber yard while plans were drawn for a two-room school house on the southeast corner of Ninth and San Carlos. Completed in 1906, the mission Revival style building held forty-eight students in eight grades during its first year. In late 1931, additional classrooms and an auditorium were built to accommodate the growing student body. During this time, older students attended high school in Monterey or Pacific Grove. Miss Emma Williams taught a private school at two sites from 1906 through the 1930s.