HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-08- HSPB minutes
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 08, 2003, 8:15 a.m.
Large Conference Room, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
ROLL CALL
Present
This Meeting
Present
Yea-to-Date
FY 2002-2003
Excused Absences
To-Date
Jim Isermann, Chairman
X
9
William Scott,
Vice Chairman
X
9
Lee Bledsoe
X
8
1
Ron Chespak
X
9
James Hayton
8
2
Shevlin Rush
X
8
1
John Williams
X
8
1
STAFF PRESENT:
Doug Evans Director of Planning and Zoning Jing Yeo Associate Planner
Loretta Moffett Senior Secretary Kathy Marx Associate Planner
Larry Mainez Principal Planner
* * * * * *
Chairman, Jim Isermann called the meeting to order at 8:20 a.m.
* * * * * *
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The Agenda was available and posted in accordance with state and local
procedures for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Zoning
counter by 4:00 p.m., Thursday, April 03, 2003.
* * * * * *
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Isermann asked for approval of the Minutes from the March 11, 2003
meeting and asked for comments or corrections. Chairman Isermann corrected the spelling of the Eris Home.
M/S/C Scott/Hayton (7 yes, 0 No) to approve the March 11, 2003 Minutes as corrected.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: Chairman Isermann said that the survey of the Palm Springs Historic Resources review of
proposals is moving forward, the next step will be to interview two of the proposers, and should have a final
result by next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: HSPB #15 - APPLICATION BY DIOCESE OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION
OF OUR LADY OF SOLITUDE CHURCH AS A CLASS 1 HISTORIC SITE LOCATED AT 151 ALEJO ROAD WEST, ZONE
CBD, SECTION 15.
Director Evans stated that it had been a while since the Board had a Public Hearing and he reviewed the proper
procedure: Staff will give an overview, Board Members have a written report before them, and at the conclusion
of the staff report, the Board should ask questions of staff so the public knows the Board’s concerns. Then the
Board will open the Public Hearing, receive all public testimony and at the close of the public testimony, close the
public hearing. Board can ask staff questions, debate amongst members, and then take any appropriate action
they might consider. For the public’s awareness, there is an outline of options relative to potential motions for
Board consideration and at the conclusion of public hearing and debate, staff’s role is to try to help in
formulating a motion and then to bring back a resolution based upon any specific direction the Board may take.
Associate Planner Jing Yeo, reported that the Dioceses’s request was actually made in writing on May 9, 2002, but
staff has been working with the Diocese to try to resolve the physical improvements that were made to the
exterior of the Church since then. Essentially, Our Lady of Solitude Church was designated a Class 1 Historic Site
on May 15, 1985. At that time, the Diocese had sent a letter to the City requesting a continuance; however,
there was some mis-communication and no follow-up on behalf of the Diocese or the City in the month the
continuance was heard, so the designation moved forward. Their reasons are that they did not want the
designation in the first place as owner of Our Lady of Solitude Church. Also, in order to meet the changing
needs of the Parish, they feel that the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance might be in conflict. Those are
two reasons they have stated in their letters and also in conversations with staff as to their wishes for
declassification. The original Staff Report and some correspondence was sent to this Board for review and
consideration.
A note regarding the California Environmental Quality Act - in this Staff Report, it does say that it was exempt for
environmental review, but upon examination of a new case law of last year, that we just found out about it last
night, it is considered a project under CEQA, so an Initial Study will have to be prepared.
HSPB Minutes Page
3 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
Board Member Williams asked Ms. Yeo to elaborate more on the process of designating the Church in the first
place and was anything done by the Board at that time that was inappropriate?
Jing Yeo responded that in looking at the file, it seemed there was mis-communication between the City and the
Church and quite possibly more effort on behalf of both parties was needed.
Director Evans added that in 1985 the HSPB was conducting it’s hearings on the property and the Church asked
for a continuance. There was a one month continuance granted by the Board at the April 8, 1985 meeting. The
Church representatives did not attend the next meeting on May 15, so the Board proceeded to make the
designation, which then went for further review, so it appears there was no inappropriate activity on behalf of the
City. Maybe phone calls could have been made or another continuance. Had the Church not attended today,
staff would have made a very brief staff report recommending a continuance, and staff would have then called
the Church to be sure they are at the next meeting. Once that positive contact had been made, if the Church
did not appear again, staff would advise the Board to proceed with the hearing. In looking at the records, it
does not appear that anything was inappropriate. Back in 1985 a completely different set of staff members
handled the HSPB, so the only thing current staff can draw upon is the written record insofar as what is in the
files, minutes, and the correspondence back and forth. Staff has given this Board virtually all of that information
which is now before you.
Chairman Isermann asked when the building was plaqued.
Director Evans stated that he did not research when the plaque was installed on the building, and is not sure that
the Board was really active in the actual plaquing. All the minutes would have to be researched and if the
Board would like to have staff do that, the date the plaque went up or thereabouts might be found...if the Board
was active in the approval of plaquing of the building.
So that the public understands, Board Member Scott asked what is covered under the Historical Resolution for
this particular structure – inside or outside of the Church?
Director Evans read Section 2 of the Resolution ....”No permit for the exterior alteration of Our Lady of Solitude
Catholic Church shall be granted without prior approval of the City Council.” To staff’s knowledge, there have
been two exterior changes to the facility that did not receive approvals and staff has contacted the Church. This
is what really initiated this declassification proceeding. Staff has met on site with Church and architectural
representatives to review options and staff was hopeful after the field meeting, that the Church would review the
HSPB Minutes Page
4 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
two changes. One change was a relatively minor painting issue and the other was the addition of a wainscoting
or tile element. Staff felt the Church probably had good reasons for putting the tile up, insofar as the color of
the Church and the scuff marks were a continual maintenance problem; but, the material really did not match.
It was a foreign material to the existing facility and staff hoped the Church would reconsider that material.
When architectural advice was offered with an alternative, staff received the letter asking for declassification.
Staff felt this was a firm answer that the Church did not feel they should make those changes.
Board Member Chespak stated that even if there were past errors or issues on anyone’s part or items that were
never really approved, the real issue is to stop the declassification and for everyone work toward a neighborly
compromise.
He encouraged the possibility of negotiating with the Diocese and City so that everyone can accommodate each
other on a neighborly basis and asked that everyone to be neighborly and get together to compromise this issue.
It is a spectacular property, and as opposed to declassifying a property, this Board is here to maintain and/or
improve properties with historic classifications.
Chairman Isermann advised that the Board was now at the point that is has to go forward with the Public Hearing
and that all these issues were covered in the past.
Board Member Williams asked for clarification because the original resolution asked for a Class 7 Historic Site?
Director Evans explained that originally the City had seven (7) Historic classifications. The ordinance was
amended for clarification so that Class 1 was the most prestigious from the eyes of the City. Class 3 is a
recognition of age and Class 2 is recognition of the building, but without protection. In the process of
amending the ordinance, classifications were reallocated and Class 7 was equivalent to a Class 1.
Chairman Isermann stated that unless there were direct questions for the staff, the Board will move forward with
the public hearing, discuss the points, and open the Public Hearing to those present who have statements or
comments.
John Harrell, resident of Palm Springs, and past Chair of the HSP Board read a statement (copy attached for
reference) into the record and requested that the Board reject the declassification. He advised that the building
was plaqued during his tenure as HSPB Chairman, but he did not have the date of plaquing. Mr. Harrell
distributed copies of his statement to the Board.
HSPB Minutes Page
5 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
John Skora, Director of Administrative Services for the Diocese of San Bernardino, introduced himself and Father
Miguel Ceja, current Pastor of Our Lady of Solitude. He stated that as the Church views this classification, it was
done neither with the knowledge of nor with permission of the owner who is the Roman Catholic Bishop of San
Bernardino. Their files do not show where permission was granted or signed by Bishop Straling, the owner at
that time. Bishop Barnes is the current owner. They did find a memo in their files written by a Blanche Stewart
to Bishop Straling dated March 6, 1985 that states..” I spoke with Richard Patenaude of the Planning Department
who informed me that a group of Parishioners initiated this action with the intent to prevent any sale of the
property or closure of the Parish. I have spoken with Bill Lemon, Diocese and Attorney, and we are requesting a
continuance...” As Planner Yoe advised, there was no follow-up and this was dormant until two years ago. I
recall when serving on the Parish Council that the Diocese and Catholic population started growing tremendously
at the time and there was talk of merging Parishes, building larger churches, etc. At the time, Bishop Straling
mentioned that maybe the north end of Palm Springs, going into Cathedral City, is growing and maybe we
should build a larger church in that area. Then a group of Parishioners initiated this historic classification
believing that if this was to become a historical monument, then the Bishop couldn’t sell it. That’s why Bishop
Straling asked for a continuance and now Bishop Barnes formally requested the declassification.
There are no intentions to change the building or of selling the building, but Bishop Barnes would like the
freedom to do whatever is necessary. Whether now, 20, or 100 years from now, if there is no one to staff the
building, it makes no sense to keep it open. That is the basic contention of the Church...that the owner, who is
the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino, never did approve this designation.
Chairman Isermann stated that this building was designated 18 years ago. If the Church never wanted it
designated, why did it allow the plaque to be mounted on the building, and why was nothing raised about
this in 18 years?
Mr. Skora indicated that he did not know, but that he talked with the former Pastor, William Erstad, who stated
that Bishop Straling was upset that this happened. He could only surmise that this was initiated at the local level
and to take care of it at the local level, but was not sure. Generally, a Bishop visits Parishes once every four years
and may or may not have looked at the plaque.
Chairman Isermann noted that the plaque has been up more than four years; and as a point of clarification, the
historic designation does nothing to prevent a building from being sold and this particular classification only
protects the exterior of the building. When this issue came up two or three years ago, it was because of the two
minor additions to the front of the building.
Board Member Chespak stated that the business of the Bishop is not the question here. The issue is that the
HSPB Minutes Page
6 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
community wants to preserve that beautiful building, which could become more spectacular in time. So the
question is... how can everyone be happy so that there is no declassification? It is the hope that this property
can be preserved so everyone in the community can enjoy it.
Chairman Isermann asked if there is anyway that the Church will compromise or is this black and white..that they
want this declassified?
Mr. Skora advised that he had spoken with Bishop Barnes and the Bishop said would not like to have any
restrictions on any of the buildings, and that there was only one other property with similar restrictions.
Board Member Scott indicated he understood that the alterations made to the exterior should have been
brought before the Planning Commission as well as the HSPB, so if it is declassified, would the Church still go
before the Planning Commission and ask them to review what was done to the Church? And, if the Diocese was
instructed to change it, would they change it?
Mr. Skora agreed they would, and yes, they could change it.
Board Member Williams stated that everyone felt the Church is an asset to the community, and to follow up what
Chairman Isermann and John Harrell stated, the process for preserving assets to the community is to have them
classified as Historic Sites, so 20 or 100 years from now the building would still be in tact. Is there a way that the
Board could somehow work a compromise or continue this process, go back to the Bishop to educate him on the
value of the designation and the fact that it does not preclude him from selling the building or changing the
building, as long as there is approval from this Board. Is this a possibility?
Mr. Skora stated that he did not feel it was a possibility, but that he would go back to the Bishop with that
information, He further stated that truly, the Bishop at that time did not know that this was going to happen and
Mr. Skora asked if this could happen to any building without the owner’s permission?.
Board Member Scott pointed out that there is a letter dated March 7, 1985 from the Pastoral Center, so they
knew that something was going on. It seems that they did not follow-up from the very beginning.
Mr. Skora acknowledged that “yes” they knew and they did not follow-up for one reason or another, but in now
speaking on behalf of the Bishop, who may or may not have known that this issue was not resolved, he never
knowledgeably agreed to the designation.
Board Member Bledsoe asked about the timing of this issue and if there are any plans for the Church for the
HSPB Minutes Page
7 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
property at this time as to expanding or going in another direction?
Mr. Skora advised that there are no current plans and that historical patrimony to the Catholic Church is very
important for this building and all their buildings. There is no intention of doing anything with the property.
As Bishop Barnes is concerned, it places a restriction on the owner of the property to do something. Mr. Skora
further stated he understands that it is the concern of the Board that someone might do something with it.
Board Member Williams asked staff if the owner of the building was notified, as in this case it was, is it then
within the legal bounds of the HSPB, after notification and no response, to have a property designated?
Director Evans advised that under the ordinance, the HSPB makes a recommendation to the City Council. The
City Council actually makes the designation, and, yes, they can designate properties as historic without the
consent of the property owner. Current City Council prefers not to do that, works very hard, and asks staff to
work hard to try to get willing property owners to the greatest degree possible. There have been properties
designated, with strong protests from the owners, but after the feelings settled and staff went back and asked the
owners if they would like a plaque, the owners have accepted the plaque for their properties. This can’t be
tracked as well as staff would like, but if the plaque was installed on Church property, it was installed with
approval from the Church. Staff would not trespass onto any property without owner approval. A City employee
has installed all plaques with the exception of one or two, so we know where they are, how they are mounted,
and it would be very difficult to remove any plaque. The City Council has always tried to find willing property
owners and in this particular case, although the record does not reflect all the discussions and correspondence
that staff members may have had, Richard Patenaude, the Planner assigned to the HSPB, was very conscientious
about trying to communicate. It is the assumption based on the files, that the Church was aware of a pending
meeting and they asked for a continuance, so there was some dialogue pertaining to this issue. The answer,
very specifically, yes, the City could designate a single family home, a church, a commercial building, or any other
type of structure. They have that authority under the City Ordinance.
Board Member Hayton stated that he views the designation as an insurance policy against any kind of hasty
modifications or decisions that would besmirch the incredible history of this Church; and if the owner wants this
declassified, what percentage of the parishioners would want this historic treasure’s insurance cancelled, maybe
sold, the plaque removed, etc. How is that supported by the parishioners?
Mr. Skora indicated that he had no idea of the percentage of parishioners, but would guess that there would be a
large number against declassifying the building. Mr. Skora advised that this was originally initiated by
parishioners who apparently wanted to prevent Bishop Straling at that time, from selling the property. One
concern is that if the building was sold that it would remain in tact as it is; but the interior might be changed to
HSPB Minutes Page
8 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
a bar and grill or whatever. At that point, it would no longer belong to the Roman Catholic Bishop and the new
owner could do what they wanted to do with the interior of the building...that would be the Diocese’s concern.
Chairman Isermann advised that the responsibility would transfer to the new owner and the classification only
protects the exterior. There is nothing to stop any owner from changing the interior.
Chairman Isermann asked for further questions or further comments.
William Kopelk, resident of Palm Springs, introduced himself and is President of the Palm Springs Preservation
Foundation. He urged the HSPB to reject the de-designation of the historic classification of Our Lady of
Solitude. He stated that he believed this was the first request for a declassification and it must be prevented. It
sets a very dangerous and damaging precedence for the City of Palm Springs in terms of historic preservation.
Director Evans advised that staff received correspondence via telephone today and he was asked to read a
statement from Tracy Conrad, a citizen of Palm Springs. Her statement reads ...”I object to any action toward
declassification of Our Lady of Solitude Church as a historic site. Indifference to the historic significance of this
Church by the current property owner should not be considered reason enough to remove the protection of the
classification. As a member of the Historic Tennis Club neighborhood, I must report that this organization is also
adamantly opposed to such action and encourages the HSPB to support and appreciate this historic property.”
Signed, Tracy Conrad.
Chairman Isermann asked if it was now correct to close the hearing and then discuss it?
Director Evans answered in the affirmative and asked if he could give an update on an issue after the hearing was
closed.
Chairman Isermann thanked everyone for their interest and comments and closed the public hearing.
Director Evans advised that once the public hearing is closed, the Board can deliberate and give staff direction.
Because this is an item that is very sensitive to the Catholic Church as well as to the Board, staff asks that the
Board direct staff to prepare a resolution with whatever direction the Board wishes to take, vote on that direction,
and staff will prepare the resolution and bring back for the Board’s adoption at the next meeting. The outline
given to the Board had a range of options. The Board can consider any type of action they wish and staff will
assist. In the event the Board does want to declassify the site, staff did some subsequent evaluation and
Planners Jing Yoe and Kathy Marx were working on the Internet last night looking at court cases. They found an
appellate court case that basically has determined that the declassification of a historic site is a project pursuant
HSPB Minutes Page
9 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
to the California Environmental Quality Act. That means that if the Board’s desire is to declassify the site, the
Board cannot do so with the information in front of them today. The Board would have to continue this item,
direct staff and the property owner to prepare a historic site evaluation, an environmental assessment, and if it
is considered a significant impact on the environment, staff might have to prepare an environmental impact
report, which would be rather costly. Procedurally, a negative declaration would take three or four months to
prepare, and staff would need assistance of consultants that the Church would have to provide. If an
environmental impact is required, that is a nine to 12 month process, six months in process only, and it is a very
substantial effort. Staff has not consulted with the City Attorney as yet, but if the Board’s desire is to declassify,
it is suggested that the Board review Item #3 of the options which would direct staff to evaluate that issue
further, consult with the City Attorney, and bring back a report at the next meeting for Board consideration.
That completes the staff report relative to this issue.
Chairman Isermann asked that if the Board chooses to maintain the designation, does the Church have the
option of appealing it to the City Council?
Director Evans answered in the affirmative.
Board discussion followed. Board Member Scott stated that he attends services at the Church, lives in the
neighborhood, and this Board has changed since 1985, City Council members have changed, Bishops change,
Pastors change, and the congregation has changed. The thing that remains constant is the building and to leave
it to the whims of a parishioner to decide to paint something blue this year, pink or yellow next year is not
appropriate. There is a heritage here and the building should remain a designated landmark.
Board Member Williams echoed Scott’s comments, but understands some of the challenges that the Church has.
He is concerned that this issue has been ongoing for a number of months and asked if this Board could come
up with some kind of motion that would allow Board members or staff to try and work with those representing
the Church who are here today, because it appears everyone has the same goal in mind. Perhaps it is more of
an education process with the Bishop and before the door is closed on this issue, can’t this Board take another
look, keep it on the agenda and convince the powers that be that this is the best course of action. The Church
indicated today that: (1) it might hinder a sale of the building, which is not the case; (2) the exterior of the
building can’t be changed, which is not the case. It can be changed, but it requires approval from the HSP
Board. It appears that the things the Church wants to do are in keeping with the historical site status. Board
Member Williams encouraged everyone to come up with some kind of compromise to convince the Bishop that
keeping the historic status is the best solution all-around.
Board Member Chespak agreed with both Member Scott and Williams and asked for neighborly negotiations so
HSPB Minutes Page
10 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
that the designation is maintained.
Board Member Hayton agreed with other Board Members and stated that Churches are somewhat public
domains and being that they are not tax contributors and so forth, the public has a greater interest in Church
properties than perhaps if this was a bank, hotel, or commercial business. This is not the case here, this has such
tremendous public benefit it’s hard to imagine declassifying this site.
Board Member Rush agreed with comments from other Board Members. Inherent in the processes that follows
a Class 1 designation is negotiation of any potential changes that would come before this Board. Those would
be considered as well as the needs of the parishioners and Diocese. Because that is something allowed
through-out the process, the move toward declassification seems a little bit of a stretch. It seems that any of the
needs of the parishioners, the Diocese or the Church would be protected and could be negotiated via the Board
and preserve the historical integrity of the Church. At the same time, Board Member Rush stated that he is
uncomfortable not having a better read as to what the parishioners, as a whole, feel about this process. Mr.
Skora did estimate that a number of parishioners would support declassification, but parishioners originally
initiated the designation of the site. To not have a better understanding how the parishioners as a whole feel
regarding the preservation of the Church historically does create an uneasy feeling in terms of making a decision
about the declassification.
Chairman Isermann summarized that none of the Board Members are in support of declassifying the building.
Since sitting on the Board for four years and having gone through this with the Church during the last two years,
there has been no compromise on this issue, and it is not optimistic there would be a compromise at this point.
The value of this building and to the history of Palm Springs is paramount and he opposes the declassification.
One of the available options is to continue this until the next meeting... if the Board would like another chance to
communicate with the Church. This Board has made motions in the past for the Planning Department to reach
out to the Church.
Board Member Williams asked the staff for clarification on the issue in the November 11, 2002 letter, one
sentence says that....”I agree that the issue should be placed before the HSPB for requested re-evaluation....”
This issue must be the wainscoting and painting of the shell alcoves. That issue has not been put before the
Board even though it was requested by the owners of the Church. Planner Yoe was asked about any further
interaction with the Church, what has happened, and re-iterated that the letter states...”Mr. John Skora has asked
that I follow-up with you to seek a remedy for the outstanding issues for the tile installed as a protective wainscot
and the painting of the shell alcoves for the two statues on the front elevation of the Church...” this was sent by
Ted Furlow, Construction Coordinator. This speaks of some kind of compromise.
Jing Yoe asked if this question was regarding the exterior improvements, and just to place that letter in the
HSPB Minutes Page
11 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
context ...Director Evans and Ms. Yoe met with representatives of the Church last June or July, and staff had
written to the Diocese as a follow-up to that meeting. At that meeting with Mr. Skora and the person who was
trying to assist in finding alternative materials for the wainscot and the painting in the alcoves, staff had asked
the Church to continue working with their consultant regarding alternative materials. Because the work was
done without HSPB approval and without Planning Department or Commission approval that was what was
meant as to the re-evaluation, which would have been the first time that issue would have come before the
Board.
Board Member Williams further read the letter...”I have visited the site and discussed the issues with Pastor, Rev.
Ceja and he is prepared to move on this issue. We both are hopeful that some compromises can be arranged.”
He asked that if sometime after November 11, had this been brought before the Board and a compromise been
reached, we would not be at this point where the owner is now requesting declassification. More importantly,
could we re-examine those two issues, which seem to be the most important to the owners at a later Board
meeting, and perhaps come to some kind of compromise?
Jing Yeo answered in the affirmative... if that is the Board’s desire. In looking at the record of correspondence,
the request for the re-evaluation of the exterior improvements was made in the context of the Church’s request
to declassify the building. If the Board wishes the issue to be brought to the Board at a future meeting, that can
be done.
Board Member Scott stated that this appears to be more of an issue than just the wainscoting and the painting of
the alcoves, it’s that they want the Church to be declassified no matter what happens. This has been ongoing
for a year and even if an agreement could be reached as to the two exterior modifications, it does not appear this
would settle the issue.
Chairman Isermann asked if anyone was prepared to make a motion.
Board Member Williams requested that the Board continue this hearing to the May 13, 2003 meeting and that
the Church representatives now present go back and communicate to the Bishop some of the things that seem to
be confusing: (1) the Church can be sold, if that is the owner’s desire; (2) that changes can be made with
HSPB approval in advance; (3) that this Board wants to see this maintained as an historical site; and, (4) all
parties reach some kind of compromise on these issues. The Board has heard from Director Evans that it will be
a long, legal process to declassify the site, and probably including a long and costly environmental impact
report. So, in knowing all this, the Board invites the Church representatives to come back to the May 13
meeting and the hearing be continued.
HSPB Minutes Page
12 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
M/S/C (7 yes, 0 no) (Williams/Hayton) that the Public Hearing be continued and be re-opened at the May 13,
HSPB meeting and Church representatives are requested to attend that Meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #6: TRAMWAY VISITOR’S CENTER UPDATE.
Lance O’Donnell introduced himself as one of the architects working on the Tramway Gas Station’s conversion to
the Tramway Visitor’s Center. Since the previous presentation, the architects were asked to master plan this
project and look at some of the connections to future opportunities in the area. He presented the site plans
and described each area: (1) trail and pathway connections from the building to the gateway sign; (2) parking;
and, (3) obtaining information about hotel, opportunities, entertainment, and various other attractions in Palm
Springs, etc. There was a competition for the gateway sign, the design has been approved, is now in the process
of determining funding, and how that will come to fruition. Moving the parking from behind the building was
looked at along with ease of movement through-out the building and site. The area to the west is now
designated for parking and is off the site with the owner’s approval. Parking involves 37 vehicle spaces, four (4)
RV spaces, and three (3) bus spaces. There is a small employee parking site separate from visitor parking. The
building housing the restrooms and storage is still under review and may be moved from behind the Visitor’s
Center building (based on City Council and Mayoral encouragement) to create an anchor along the pedestrian
way. Interior spaces are as presented, no concrete walls are being touched, glazing is being left in tact. Interior
will offer a counter for the Tribe, a counter for Tourism, and various retail displays, hanging displays, small video
area, and a staff area for reservation work stations. All these with low partitions.
Chairman Isermann asked if anything was happening to the original exterior of perimeter walls that were part of
the designation and is that a windscreen across the back?
Mr. O’Donnell explained that in this drawing, it is a planter to try to get the pedestrian out around the sides of
the building and into the main entry doors under the main canopy. If the building housing the restrooms and
storage moves, this may become a windscreen or a landscape element. There was a retaining wall shown inside
the historic walls that bound the perimeter on the west and north, but this will go away when the small building
moves to the southern edge of the site. No historic block is being moved for the trails and pathway. A
pedestrian walk was looked at for the front underneath the point of the canopy.
Board Member Scott asked how high the new wall will be and expressed concern about the restrooms and
storage being brought to the edge of the “wing” of the property and the overall effect it will have.
Mr. O’Donnell explained that it will be scaled and positioned in a way that it is not competing with the
HSPB Minutes Page
13 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
architecture. The intention is to have a background building that is so finely detailed and poetic on it’s own,
that it will stand in a way that it does not detract from the building nor does it call attention to itself.
The other question as to the wall and the height....the intention is to keep the wall at approximately three(3) feet.
It will be somewhere between 32 and 36 inches. It is mediated by an existing wall that was built with the
original gas station. The height between the planter wall and the white wall will be about 18 and 24 inches.
The existing wall will remain, the wall that was brought in with the Montana - St. Martin project will be brought
down, in relation to this, to about 18 to 24 inches.
Board Member Rush asked if the restrooms were to move what would occur in the area from where they moved?
Mr. O’Donnell explained that by moving the restrooms and storage facility, it does a couple of things. There is a
transformer and switch gear than cannot be moved, so having the building moved close to these utilities and a
future sewer connection, it helps economically get this building permanently located. Then it frees up the back
area for potential master planning down the road. There may be developments and things that are not now
known until this becomes operational and it’s determined there is not enough space. Ideally, everyone would
love to have this almost a museum type building where there are no administrative functions, no desks or people
talking on headset phones...just a clean open space with some retail functions, that has historic diagrams,
displays, etc. That is the ultimate goal and in order to achieve that, the administrative functions may have to be
moved into a future phase or building that would wrap around the back or be pushed to a separate location with
no physical connection to the main building. The two-fold of moving this building at the outset are economics
and future location of administrative functions.
Board Member Williams made the observation that this would take a lot more land and asked if this is
City-owned land?
John Raymond, of Economic Development, explained that the whole parcel is part of a 36-acre parcel owned by
the Nickels family. Culver and Sally Nickels built the gas station, and Steve Nickels is administrator of the family
trust that still owns it. The City sign is on the corner of that parcel with an informal lease agreement. Through
recent conversations with the family, they have agreed to commit the land and access to the sign and to the
parking. The City does not to have to buy it. Ultimately, the family would like to develop the 36 acres and sees
this as a good future development. One of the consequences of not having this under City ownership or a 99
year lease is what was proposed as a parking area on the current site, will probably be asphalt., which over time
may be re-located to suit future development needs. The City has a good relationship with the owners who will
allow the City to have more space, more parking space, and more free space for pedestrian trails and people
HSPB Minutes Page
14 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
circulating.
Board Member Williams encouraged a very formal and long-term agreement for this property. He asked about
more clarification on the wall...from the inside the wall is now seven (7') feet high, then it will be 32 inches high?
Mr. O’Donnell explained that from the inside it is now seven(7') feet high and in order to achieve that height, it
does slope up as it wraps around and to higher grades. It looks horizontal, but it is actually lower and higher is
some areas relative to the grading. The height on the inside will be approximately 24 inches, but the profile of
the wall may be between 18 and 32 inches because of varying grades as seen from the outside...or 36 inches
depending upon the block module that was discovered once plaster was taken off the walls. It will be kept as
horizontal as possible.
Board Member Williams asked about the 32 inch grade difference between inside and outside the wall. What
would be seen from the front at the maximum grade level?
Mr. O’Donnell pointed out on the site plan the locations of the 32 inch grade differences. From the curb or
sidewalk, the existing wall at the existing height which is 24 inches, then the wall behind varies between 18 and
24 inches above the low wall. The absolute height of that wall could be greater than 36 inches as seen from the
sidewalk, but it is mediated by having the low wall in front which gives a stepping effect.
Board Member Bledsoe asked about the height of the partitions in the interior.
Mr. O’Donnell explained that the goal internally was to maintain a view up through Chino Canyon. In order to
achieve this view up into Chino Canyon, the view needed to be maximized out of the back windows. These were
the original service bays, so they were three solid metal roll-up doors. In the most recent invention here, they
became off-site pivot doors so the whole rear can open up. Above that and above about a ten foot line, there
are clear story windows about 13 to 14 feet sloping up in the back. The goal in all instances is to maintain sight
lines into Chino Canyon and the top of the ridge.
Board Member Chespak thanked Mr. O’Donnell and voiced his agreement with most all developments; however,
stated he was adamant about the entry sign. This is the most important thing to care about right down to the
type style, and asked how it is going to be lighted?
John Raymond invited Member Chespak to his office to show him the designs and explained that it did go
through a design competition, was selected by the Arts Commission, and went to the Council. All are happy
HSPB Minutes Page
15 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
with it and it is compatible to what is happening with the building.
Board Member Williams asked about signing the building itself as a Visitor’s Center.
Mr. O’Donnell explained that one of the team members is Gary Wexler, one of the three members of the winning
entry gateway design team, so the graphics used and approved by the City Council are the same type of graphics
and signage that will be used in and on the building. The intention is to have a modified pole sign on the
property with a vertical feature that can be read coming or going along Palm Canyon Drive. Any other type
of sign will be mounted on a wall or plaque and will tie-in with all signage.
Board Member Hayton expressed his thanks and feels that everyone has done a tremendous job. What a
brilliant idea to have the pathway from the sign to the Center and it makes an incredible visitor attraction. Both
the improvement made and the original Frey gas station should both be highly recognized. The doorway
existing now in that wall was beautifully done and if that is not going to be used as a parking lot, maybe that
door could be saved along with the sign on the back section of wall and perhaps commemorate that to the
gallery people who did such a great job. Secondly, it is still the Frey Gas Station and there is nothing that
symbolizes that this was originally designed as a gas station. He recommended an antique car or cars posed in
front under the canopy and perhaps an old-fashioned gas pump that would symbolize the time that this was
built and the original use. This would create a very obvious hue as to what this building was designed for... it
would be interesting to locals and visitors.
Mr. O’Donnell agreed to take that under consideration and explained that under the canopy it was thought to
have people gathered for lectures as an entree for the journey into Palm Springs and visiting historic architecture
and sites. This area’s use is still quite flexible.
Chairman Isermann advised there would be no motion today, but at some point the Board would see a final plan.
AGENDA #4: GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER.
Larry Mainez, Principal Planner, reported that he will be overseeing the update of the General Plan during the
two-year process and explained that staff is now in the beginning stages. This was brought before the Board
last month and the Historic goals and objectives section of the General Plan was handed out to Board Members.
The purpose today is to ask for a volunteer to sit on the 20-member Steering Committee. Functioning details
are being worked out and volunteers are needed.
HSPB Minutes Page
16 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
Chairman Isermann asked how often the Steering Committee will be meeting.
Planner Mainez indicated that all details have not been resolved, but the Committee will probably meet once a
month, perhaps every two months. The Committee will represent various community interests and is looking for
a very broad representation. Members will be pulled from various boards, commissions, neighborhood groups,
committees, business organizations, etc.
Chairman Isermann asked for a volunteer. Vice Chair Bill Scott volunteered.
AGENDA ITEM #5: GENERAL PLAN’S HISTORIC RESOURCES UPDATE.
Jing Yeo reported that this is in relation to the Historic Preservation Board Work Program 2003 that was briefly
discussed at the last meeting, where the Board had added the last Item, “Historic Preservation Public Information
Program,” and it was accepted as the Board’s Program for 2003. It is on this agenda today for any discussion,
questions, etc.
Chairman Isermann ...in terms of the Historic Resources Update there is nothing to add to that today and the
matter is continued until the May meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #1: DISCUSSION OF CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, DUTIES, ACTIVITIES.
Jing Yeo advised that this is a continuing Agenda Item to cover any questions the Board may have from time to
time and will stay on the Agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #2: BOARD MEMBER UPDATES ON CONTACTS WITH POTENTIAL HISTORIC SITE PROPERTY
OWNERS.
Board Member Bledsoe advised that he talked with Eric Mellum (msp) owner of the San Marino Hotel. He had
been staying there for about 20 years, intrigued with property and bought it. The name has been changed back
to the original Del Marcos and has a temporary sign up. He has done a lot of modifications and renovations
taking it back to the original William Cody look and is very enthusiastic about a Class 2 designation. He wants
to know what the next steps are...who will contact him and/or what kind of paperwork he needs to process, sign,
etc.
HSPB Minutes Page
17 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
Planner Yoe advised that staff would prepare a Class 2 type designation package for Board Member Bledsoe to
give to Mr. Mellum (msp) if that is what he wants.
Board Member Rush contacted owners of the Wexler family home on Verbena who are interested in a Class 1
designation. He will meet with them within the next week or so and will have more information at the May
meeting.
Chairman Isermann advised that he presented an updated application to the owners of the Ship of the Desert
who have been wanting to designate it for a couple of years. They have promised to move forward.
AGENDA ITEM #3: WORK PROGRAM 2003 - DISCUSSION:
Board Member Williams advised that his update related to the Mayor’s concern that there was no available
tourism information on historic resources in Palm Springs. Met with Liz Perkovich of the Visitor’s Center and
with Robert Ember who is a representative of ModComs. That committee will be installing boards with photos
of historical sites and mid-century modern sites and will take a display case in the “second room” of the Visitor’s
Center. Map sales are moving along briskly at the Visitor’s Center and there was discussion about having the
map available at City Hall. The contact information was given to staff for future use and if the maps are bought
in bulk, they are $3.00. There was a plea from the Visitor’s Center to please get more of the Architectural
Brochures.
AGENDA ITEM #10: PALM SPRINGS BRIEF HISTORY & ARCHITECTURAL GUIDE UPDATE:
Jing Yoe reported that there are about 80 remaining of the older version of this brochure and they take about a
week to re-print. There is no new information on the new brochure.
Board Member Williams encouraged that we move on this as the Board has been hearing about it and hearing
about it and any one of the Board Members would be happy to try to make this happen.
Board Member Chespak is working with Tracy Conrad to coordinate the photo release and printing of the new
version of this brochure.
AGENDA ITEM #7: PALM SPRINGS PRESERVATION FOUNDATION:
Board Member Scott has nothing to report except the next meeting is April 9 and he will report at the May
HSPB Minutes Page
18 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #8: PALM SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY:
Board Member Bledsoe had nothing at this point, but will have a report next meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #9: PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE:
Board Member Williams advised that there is a rumor going around that two community church buildings have
been sold to a developer and the ModComs would like clarification. One of the buildings is a historic site. The
next ModCom meeting is April 12, he will report at the May meeting.
Associate Planner Kathy Marx reported that the property has not exchanged hands are yet. There is a proposal
for a change of zone on the property from R-2 to R-3 which represents a slight increase in density. Mr. John
Wessman is the proposed buyer. He has met with the neighborhood group and his intent is to actually
demolish the newer structure and the older structure(the Class 1 site) will probably be converted to a bed and
breakfast. He is strongly opinionated in keeping it “as is” and has no intention to declassify, as he feels it will be
a focal point for the development. The project is intended to be condominiums. Public meetings have
occurred, Wessman has gone to the Planning Commission’s Study Session, and neighborhood meetings were
well attended. Kathy Marx offered to get contacts of attendees. This meeting was organized through the
ONIPP “Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Public Participation.”
Chairman Isermann advised that if there is a public meeting where a designated site is involved, the Board should
be notified so members could attend if they wished.
Board Member Williams commented that he was saddened to hear the plans are to raze the newer structure,
which was built in 1961and is a classic example of mid-century modern architecture. Not sure that this Board
wants to get involved in this and talk with the owner, as it is not a Class 1 site, but it is certainly a piece of Palm
Springs history and perhaps the Board could talk with the owner to see if they would be agreeable to change
those plans.
Planner Marx informed the Board that it was their right, but at the moment there is only a zone change being
requested. There is no proposal for development or demolition, so we are at a very basic beginning point. The
development corporation is very open and willing to speak to whomever. If the Board wants to request that this
be on the agenda for the next meeting, she will try to arrange to have their representative here.
HSPB Minutes Page
19 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting
Chairman Isermann stated that it may be premature for the next meeting, but it will affect the Class 1 site once
plans are in place and the Board would like a chance to review it then.
Planner Marx advised if there is no exterior change to the site (the older church), that option may not be
available, but staff will be willing to facilitate a discussion between parties.
Chairman Isermann stated he was not sure how that would affect the exterior appearance of a structure when it’s
a change in land us.
Board Member Williams stated that he did not know much about it, but it (the newer church) is included in a lot
of the tours of Palm Springs by people who are interested in mid-century architecture, and it is a building that is
basically in tact in it’s original creation. He would like to discuss these plans with the potential new owner.
Does the Board have a right to do that if it is not a designated site?
Vice Chair Scott suggested that Member Williams spearhead this, meet with the new owner, and report back to
the Board at the May meeting.
Planner Yeo advised that it is not certain that Board Member Williams can act in behalf of the Board outside of a
meeting. A sub-committee might have to be appointed, she will check with Director Evans and/or the City
Attorney as to how to proceed with this and will advise Board Member Williams prior to the next meeting.
Chairman Isermann asked for any additional Board or staff reports. There being none, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:04 a.m. The next meeting will be May 13, 2003 at 8:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas R. Evans
Director of Planning and Zoning
:ldm
HSPB Minutes, April 8, 2003
Attachments
HSPB Minutes Page
20 of 12
April 8, 2003 Meeting