Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-09- HSPB minutesCITY OF PALM SPRINGS HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING Minutes of Regular Meeting -Tuesday, October 14, 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 2003-2004 Excused Absences To-Date John Williams, Chairman X 2 Shevlin Rush, Vice Chair X 2 Lee Bledsoe 1 1 Ron Chespak X 2 James Hayton X 1 1 William Scott X 2 Jim Isermann 1 1 STAFF PRESENT: Doug Evans, Director of Planning and Zoning Jing Yeo, Associate Planner Loretta Moffett, Senior Secretary * * * * * Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 8:25.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, October 9, 2003. * * * * * * There were no public comments. * * * * * * PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE APPROVAL OF September 9, 2003 MINUTES: Chairman Williams asked for comments or corrections for the September 9, 2003 Minutes. M/S/C (Hayton / Scott) (5 Yes, 0 No, 2 absent, 0 abstentions) to approve the September 9 8, 2003 Board Minutes as presented. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Chairman Williams announced that Board Members Isermann and Williams met with staff regarding the cameras at Fire Station and this Board had approved a subcommittee to look at putting three of the dome-type cameras at the Station based on the staff recommendation. The sub-committee did approve two dome-type cameras to be placed on the left side of the building and one of 22 inch cameras in the back of the building. The First Chief seemed to be happy with that and it was a good compromise. That has been accomplished and it is hoped that City staff will follow-up on installing the historic plaque on the building. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 3.2098 - Application by Catherine Meyler for a landscape plan at 2311 North Indian Canyon Drive, Zone R-2, Section 3. Associate Planner Jing Yeo introduced the property - The Grace Miller House a Class 1 Historic Site. Staff and Board have been working with Ms. Meyler related to various improvements proposed for the property. Today the landscape plan will be presented. The original site design was passed to Board Members for review. The difference between the current landscape is a little more sparse than the original plan. Catherine Meyler described the current landscape and how it was designed for a 25% viewing corridor as well as privacy. Original plants had grown up very very close to the house, (1940's photos were passed round) which is not what Ms. Meyler prefers. Keeping plants away from the house sets the house off for better viewing. Ms. Meyler introduced Warren Miller, the landscape designer, who talked about the concept of visualizing the house from the view area as well as providing the privacy that the property owner wants to establish. The plan is to give the property more of a ‘desert look’. No plant material around the house, there is an accentual octillio and a couple of Texas Rangers, but for the most part, the house will be left open for view from the corridor. There will be some cactus along the drive to assist with security. Drive will be gravel and decorative and native sand, with lots of boulders. There is a two-story apartment complex next door, the accacia will provide wind resistance and privacy. The Blue Leaf Waddel trees will be planted about six feet apart, they are weeping, lacy trees. There will be hesperia, cardera, pampas grass, etc. Plants are desert and/or low water type plants...palo verde, mesquites, and accacia. Director Evans pointed out that if the trees are planted as close as the plan depicts the first five years will be wonderful, then the trees will fight one another and will have to be thinned out. It may result in a growing problem. Mr. Miller agreed that thinning at a later date will be required and will be evaluated and addressed when required. The plantings will be more traditional and desert. The pool is not in as yet and an area will be left open for that to be installed at a later time. Chairman Williams asked where the plaque would be installed. Director Evans suggested that staff work with Ms. Meyler so that when the landscaping is completed, the plaque could be installed in a location where plants would not obstruct it and in a location where Ms. Meyler would want the public to be. Wherever the plaque is installed is where the viewing public will gather. M/S/C (Scott/Rush) 5 Yes, 0 No, 2 Absent, 0 Abstensions that the application be approved as presented. AGENDA ITEM #1: WORK PROGRAM 2003/2004 The Board packet provided a copy of the Work Program for 2003 which the Board approved some time ago. Chairman Williams pointed out that on the back of that document are the approvals and denials in 2002 and asked staff for an update on the door alteration at 800 North Palm Canyon Drive the Board to review and it that had been resolved. Director Evans advised the Board that no legal proceedings have been initiated against the property owner who had indicated the property might be sold, and staff might have more luck with the new property owners. If it is the Board’s wish that this be pursued we would have to bring legal action to enforce the issue. If there are Board Members who know the property owner, they may just call. Prior attempts have not been successful, the property owner wants the building de-classified and is very very firm on that on the basis that the building has been substantially altered over the years and questions if it should have been designated in the first place because of all the alternations. Chairman Williams referred to the Work Program for 2003 which is done on a calendar year and asked Director Evans to discuss the program. Director Evans went over the items in the Work Program: 1. Funding: Associate Planner Kathy Marx will update the Board on a conference she attended that addressed Historic Preservation funding sources. 2. Master Plan for Historic Preservation: This is part of the General Plan update and copies were given to the Board for review and their comments. That review has been started via the General Plan Steering Committee and Board Member Scott is serving on this Committee. Board Member Scott advised that everyone is invited to attend these meetings. The next one will be October 30 in this conference room at 5 p.m. The Committee is comprised of people throughout the community, i.e. neighborhood groups, economic representatives, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, etc. Will be refining the Vision Statement at the next meeting and the next step is how to achieve the Vision Statement, then start working on the Master Plan Update. There are about 23 people on the Steering Committee. Attendance has been good for these meetings and it’s a very diverse group. 3. Ordinance Revision: This has been discussed by the Board and how to deal with the survey and eventually that will go into the Ordinance and the likelihood that staff may have to consider de-listing...the “undoing” process that we’ve talked about. The City Attorney and staff feel that there are other areas that need to be clarified in the Ordinance so that it’s clearer as to what happens in various circumstances. Staff has not pushed the City Attorney to deal with the de-listing, but that will come up based upon what happens in the courts. 4. Plaques: Board and staff have been working on the plaquing of historic sites and Board Member Rush has done a survey of all the plaques. Staff will continue to try to get all the Class 1 sites plaqued as quickly as possible. 5. Survey Update: This will be discussed later in this meeting. 6. Local, State, and National Historic Designations: Kathy Marx updated the Board on SHPO re the Frances Stevens Nomination is going before the Historic Advisory Committee November 7, 2003 on the Consent Agenda calendar which means that SHPO has reviewed the nomination and has given their staff recommendation of approval. Consequently, they will give a brief slide presentation for that nomination plus others at the beginning of the meeting and if no one has objected or objects, then the nominations are approved. It’s not a contenscious nomination, which is very good. It’s going to be at the Pasadena City Hall Council Chambers at 9 a.m. November 7 and anyone is welcome to attend. 7. Historic Preservation Public Information Program: The Board had envisioned working on this the early part of next year in conjunction with the survey to try to talk with owners of buildings that are not designated that the survey has identified, especially the most historic fifty (50) to get them moving toward Class 1 designations. That will carry on to the Work Program for next year. Chairman Williams asked for other comments on this year’s work agenda and ideas for next year and asked the Board Members to give thought to this and present their ideas at the next two meetings. Director Evans explained that this needs to be in place and submitted to the City Council about mid-January. The next two months are open for items to add into this program, perhaps expanding the public information program, clarify what the Board is actually doing. AGENDA #2: MEDIA OUTREACH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE - BOARD MEMBER RUSH Not much to report on the media outreach, but suggested a meeting with staff to establish a timeline through the next 12 months, such as the Frances Stevens School, the survey finalization, etc., and identify the opportunities for media outreach as they come up over the next year. This could be a working document that changes depending in what new things come up, to be sure the Board and staff are aware of those opportunities and are acting on them within the time frame of when they are happening. The survey finalization should present several opportunities for media. Will contact staff outside of the meeting to discuss ideas and develop a timelime. Comments were that it’s been disappointing that nothing has been seen in the papers about the survey in progress, but perhaps information can be gotten out when it is finalized. Director Evans advised that a press release was published and tried to gain the interest of the local newspaper, but nothing came of it. Chairman Williams offered to work the Board Member Rush to try to set up a meeting with Brian Joseph of the Desert Sun to get them aware of what the HSP Board is doing and asked if that is something that can be done as Board Members. Director Evans explained that the Board has to work with Lee Husfeldt, the City’s Public Information Officer before Board members go out to initiate media. The City Manager and City Council have to be aware in advance of what is being done. The challenge with the media is that they can be fed all the information possible and when the issue come son the agenda, depending on the news day influences whether or not coverage is given. With Ms. Husfeldt’s help, Board and staff can start setting the frame work for a article, as opposed to a news bulletin, such as talking about what the survey is, what it means, layer in Frances Stevens School ‘s State designation. Try to give a good story because good news really has to be pitched....it there is not something “stirring” it’s hard to create an article. In the meeting, also bring in Rick from Channel 17, and what he and his staff are capable of doing, a photographic piece that can run on channel 17 as normal programming. AGENDA ITEM #3: HISTORIC SITE PLAQUE SURVEY UPDATE - BOARD MEMBER RUSH Distributed the revised Plaque Report because Frances Stevens School was inadvertently left off and in the section pending plaques have been listed including the Grace Lewis Miller and the Edris houses. There is a reception featuring the historic designation on the Edris house which will be October 18 and it is hoped the plaque will be available to present. Perhaps another meeting with staff to contact property owners for those plaques listed as “not visible” to determine what the messaging to the property owners to coordinate and resolve these issues. Board Member Scott pointed out two Mills Act properties listed as “not visible” and the agreement criteria is that plaques will be visible: Carey-Pirozzi and Kaufmann-Harris houses. Director Evans explained that in the Pirozzi house it was between the home owner and installer to select a suitable rock or boulder to mount the plaque on and the most suitable was not a good location and lost the priority of having it visible. The owner of the Kaufmann-Harris house did not like the bronze plaque, staff could possibly work with them to switch to a brushed aluminum-type plaque which might resolve their concern. They are bombarded with people who want to see their property and it’s a delicate balance of public versus private relationships on that house. Staff will have to double check to see if those listed as “not visible” were officially plaqued and/or go out and physically try to locate the plaques. Staff will do some records research. Board Member Rush asked about the cost of plaquing. It was reported that the plaque costs about $268 plus shipping. Director Evans reported there are funds to do the plaques and the larger plaques are about $1,000. The City had an employee who volunteered to install the plaques, but he has since retired and there may not be another person who can or is willing to do this. If a professional installer is required, the cost may go up several hundred dollars as the procedure requires to go out, find a suitable location, get the materials and equipment to install, transport that to the site, do the installation, etc. Board Member Chespak asked if this could be upgraded so that we have a reliable person to install plaques and be available when other sites are designated so that staff and Board knows that plaques are being installed correctly and timely. Director Evans explained that going out for a bid and having a contractor on board to install infrequent plaques, the contract would go stale. Staff will call to John at his home to see if he would be interested in continuing these installations. Installation of the plaques is not the problem. Staff will work with Board Member Rush to establish a routine for these plaque installations. Will try for an update at the next meeting, Planning is short-handed at the moment and everyone has a heavy workload. Chairman Williams advised that he knows of two sites that are not plaques...the Ingleside Inn and the Fire Station. An update by staff at the next HSPB meeting would be appreciated. AGENDA ITEM #4: CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATIONS’ INCENTIVE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT WORKSHOP - ASSOCIATE PLANNER KATHY MARX Kathy Marx attended this workshop on September 26, 2003 in Berkeley and reported that it was extremely interesting and intense. She gathered quite a lot of information, including a CD which can be downloaded for detailed information. Federal, City, and State incentives programs were presented and examples were supplied for Board review. A summary of the day’s workshops was provided in the Board’s packet and those applicable to Palm Springs were underlined. The second half of the day (page 2, section D of the summary) for local incentives was to do the most with the least amount of money which utilized different components: Zoning incentives, Permit review streamlining, Mills Act, Historic Building Code, Facade program, Historic preservation grants, and transfer of development rights. Example: Single-family historic home in a single family location, flexibility was allowed in the zoning to perhaps allow for a gallery downstairs and residence upstairs; review of parking requirements, etc. These were on a case-by-case basis. Palm Springs is active in many of these areas. One interesting comment re the Mills Act is that it can be used for condominiums, townhouses and homeowner association type properties. Brochures were available for Board review, and copies can be made for anyone interested. Director Evans thanked Kathy for seeking out this workshop and paying for some of the expenses out of her own pocket. She went above and beyond on this and brought back valuable information. AGENDA ITEM #5: FRANCES STEVENS SCHOOL CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES NOMINATION UPDATE - ASSOCIATE PLANNER KATHY MARX This was discussed earlier in the Work Program and does not have anything more to add. Had to do a lot of extra work on that one after the initial information was submitted as the State asked for additional information. It is available for anyone who wishes to see all the details. Director Evans again thanked Kathy for all the outside work done on this nomination and congratulated her on getting her “first” application on the State Consent Calendar. It is a credit to how hard she worked. It will help to have someone in the audience from Palm Springs when this comes up at the November 7 meeting. Staff will talk with the City Council to see if there is any interest in attending. The State Boards like to see representation from the City where a property is up for nomination and designation. Chairman Williams asked if staff knew of any Coachella Valley properties currently on the California Register and asked if staff would research this. Kathy Marx advised that Tahquitz Canyon is an archeological site, but she’s not aware of any other Coachella Valley property. She is working with the property owner of the O’Donnell house to get it listed on the National Register. Director Evans reported that one of the very early schools in Coachella may be on the State Register. Staff will check if the Board wants that information. The Internet could give us most of that information and this could be a target for getting the Desert Sun involved. It was asked if there is going to be a presentation to the Council about this that Board Members should attend. Director Evans thought that a “receive and file” report could be done for one of the next Council meeting. AGENDA ITEM #6: HISTORIC SITE SURVEY PROCESS, CONTACT, AND CONSULTANT REPORT Associate Planner Jing Yeo reported that all the Board’s recommendations were forwarded to the Consultant. They are now trying to select the first 100 properties which will be given to us before they proceed further. The “shaded” properties on the spreadsheet handed out to all Board Members are those recommended properties which have been sent to the Consultants. Properties not on the original list, but submitted by Board members are listed on the last page of this spreadsheet. Some of the Board Member’s recommendations were forwarded direct to the Consultant and are not on this spreadsheet. Those will be added to the spreadsheet so all properties will be itemized. Director Evans advised that a few “names” were taken off the list for privacy issues, their properties are still listed...just not the names of current owners. Planner Yeo updated the Board as to Consultant cost for an unscheduled trip to Palm Springs related to obscured properties. Director Evans advised that when staff looked at this, it was to try to find locations that would be close to invisible as possible. Staff suggested that instead of tampering with the metal, which is the most fragile part of the building, to mount on the building wall itself. Staff was not aware of the two-camera options, but if this dome camera can be mounted on the building and still pick up the majority of angles, it’s probably the least noticeable. Buildings all over are being vandalized and protecting the building and the areas surrounding it are important. Often it’s very obvious the fire house is not occupied when the fire fighters go out on call. Cameras are a deterrent, but people are willing to rob banks knowing full well there are cameras there. Many people will walk into a place, see a camera and walk back out. The major concern is the vandalism. As an example, about three years ago one of the fire stations was set on fire inside the station. Had there been cameras there would be photos of that individual. Right now, the fire fighters’ automobiles are being vandalized. Damage is taking place outdoors consistently. They park them for their 24-hour shifts and while they are away from the fire station, the damage is being done. These cameras would cover the peripheral area of the parking around within the fire department space. Signage was discussed - would signage alerting people that “they were under surveillance” be a deterrent. Perhaps on a chainlink fence that opens into the parking lot. Signage would be up to the City. When signs are put up there is some expectation of privacy, but in an open space like the parking lot, there is no expectation of privacy and it a sign is not required, don’t put one up. When it comes time to remove it, how will it be repaired? It should be easier to repair the metal than the block work. Steel can be painted. The block work changes over time and trying to match it is extremely difficult. There are smaller cameras, but they can’t be out in the open and as cameras become more and more covert, they become more fixed and have less flexibility and usually the focal aspect goes away. This dome unit here for outdoor is about as small as they come and is a good solution to be a little more discreet. Chief Freet advised that this issue has been ongoing since June and something more expeditious is needed, and has been held off awaiting the HSP Board’s meeting today, which is another 30 days lost and the vandalism continues. Strongly supports a sub-committee to work with the fire department and to give the final approval as quickly as possible. If the cameras are moved back to the wall and the bases are painted closely to the brick color as possible, along with smoked cover, it will pretty well be hidden. There are already two items hanging from that wall...horns of loudspeakers that were installed back in the 50's or 60's and are already in place. The only thing visible would probably be the smoke color dome, which would probably match the patina. Board members preferred the smaller dome style camera, but the larger unit is easier to identify as a “camera” and perhaps be more of a deterrent. Signage would be a deterrent as well. Locations are paramount. It was suggested that one Board member work with the Fire department and the Planning department to approve the final installation. Board Member Isermann moved that the Board approve three (3) cameras, wall-mounted domes with the housing painted to match the sandstone brick. Final locations to be approved by staff and a sub-committee of John Williams and Jim Isermann. (M/S/C) Isermann - Rush, 6 Yes, 0 No, No abstentions) Board Member Scott asked about the historic plaque for the Fire Station. There is no plaque attached, and asked Fire Chief Freet if he would approve installation of the plaque. He agreed. 1. Case 3.0865 Application by Ingleside Inn to repaint the buildings at 200 West Ramon Road, Zone R-3, Section 15. Planner Jing Yeo reported that this is a Class 1 Historic Site and introduced Dominique Daniels to present this proposal. Ms. Daniels: Daniels Design Associates was hired by Mel Haber owner of the Ingleside Inn to renovate 30 rooms at the Inn. The exterior of the property has had some changes over the years. When Ms. Daniels’ company came on board approximately two months, there were several issues involved: The exterior entry gates (photos were passed around) and property is looking like a New Orleans burlesque, with “white” gates in front. There are layers and layers of paint on the iron gates. The property has three distinctive styles incorporated into its design...it is California adobe, it is a Santa Barbara mission style, and also has colonnades, and different types of castone elements. One of the issues is the patina on the exterior paint which has been whitewashed white over and over again with multitudes of different tones. Some of the older areas that had not been whitewashed has turned a very nice amber. One thing everyone would like to see sf to have a glazing or “amber” affect on the exterior finish. They are asking to strip the white paint off the gates and return them to their original condition. All the archives photos show them as wrought iron graphite black finish. The lighting fixtures and pilasters are also painted white and has that New Orleans look. Permission to bring back the old-world feeling to the property and to the original historical state is asked. Staff did not have the original historic designation to define elements here today, but in research, Planner Jing Yeo stated that it did not define the elements as do designations of today. Ms. Daniels reported that her research indicates that Mr. Haber has owned the property almost 30 years. When purchased it was quite dilapidated so there were very few original artifacts. There is a lot of Portuguese tile influence thru-out the property. A fountain was added at some time that is not original to the property. Right now they are trying to bring it back to what it should be . . a landmark of the desert and a historical property. There is a lot of deterioration of the structure and there has not been many repairs. A subtle amber glazing over the existing white would bring it all together and make it easier to do on-site repairs. The white naturally ambers over time, and the amber makes it look more elegant and classy. A sample of the amber glazing was passed around. There is a lot of shrubbery covering the building, which will not be disturbed, but everything visible will be glazed. The property direly needs to be landscaped, but the owner is not willing to remove any of the shrubbery and vines as they now exists. A sample of peeled layers of paint was passed around, the buildings have not always been white. Light fixtures and all of the wrought iron, would be striped back to their original graphite black. There are photos that are quite old showing the gates as being black. When Haber purchased the property they were all white. The Board was pleased to hear that Mr. Haber is upgrading the property, and asked for any old photos that show the gates black to see what light fixtures are going to be changed back to. Ms. Daniels indicated no light fixtures are being changed, just stripped of the white paint and restoring to the original black graphite color. The application is to repaint all the buildings and the Board applauds that a professional is handling the job, but the Board does not have any way of knowing how the conclusions were arrived at, and would like to see more of the process...photos, etc. why the cream color was chosen. Ms. Daniels explained that at some time it was painted oyster, it has not always been white. It is felt that because of the three different influences of the property , perhaps an amber glaze over the buildings would tie everything together better for a more elegant and class look. Ms. Daniels further advised that her contract ends at the end of this month, so everyone has waited till now to meet and address these issues with the HSP Board. Ms. Daniels offered to go back to the property to get the old photo that shows the gates as being black and asked if the Board would agree to her company proceeding. The color would be a graphite black with a little brown patina so they look historically old to give the property some dignity. The light fixtures and bannisters would also be that same black. The original fixtures had been stripped from the building when it was purchased, so fixtures on the building now are very small plastic carriage lights. Her firm will go out and collect old wrought iron fixtures similar to those on the pilasters now in the same time period and little by little, collect the appropriate fixtures believed to originally exist. The cornucopia on top of the exit gate would not be changed...just the gates. Trying to establish a “old-world” uniformity with the colors, gates, etc., Director Evans explained that the Resolution has two operative sections: one is the legal description of the property, and the second has to do with “no permits or exterior alterations to the Ingleside Inn shall be granted without the prior approval of the HSPB. Alternations shall preserve historic integrity of the site.....” Traditionally, five to ten years ago staff would probably have worked with the owner and approved this without involvement of the HSPB and may or may not have even reported of working with them. Board Member Isermann accurately represented the issue of color and staff has tried to work with owners on color because it is changeable. What the Board might want to do, because of the wait involved in approaching the Board, is an older photo can be brought that predates our knowledge of the property and it’s black, the presumption would be that that was the traditional. They wanted to do this work this summer and staff delayed them for the HSPB meeting. It is not uncommon for board and commissions to say ”we grant approval subject to the following validation actions by the staff” before the actual approval occurs. There will be times on some buildings that have a Class 1 designation that a complete repaint to a different color makes sense for the owner. The client is the ultimate influence and authority on the design of their property. Board Member Scott suggested that when future applications comes, perhaps a paint color analysis could be performed. A black and white photograph doesn’t really show the exact color, it could be a dark green, brown, slate black, but a paint color analysis would be important to restoring the property to its original look. Ms. Daniels will bring in a photo of any exterior showing gates and any other archive photos. There is a very limited time frame to get this done now. The last thing the Board wants to be perceived as is inhibiting the refurbishing and upgrading of any of our historic sites. Chairman Williams asked for consideration of a motion to approve these paint changes as requested subject to staff reviewing the old photos and confirming that the gates were originally black. Board Member Scott moved that the Board approve subject to staff review and acceptance of the colors. M/S/C (Scott/Bledsoe) 6 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, No Abstentions. Director Evans advised that staff will follow-up for the location of the historic plaque as part of this permit application. Board Member Isermann: In terms of restoration, in talking about the faux finish. Prefers oyster white of an off-white. Board Member Bledsoe suggested that when these types of applications are requested, the folks supply archival photos so the Board has reference and copies of the property’s designation as part of the mailed out packet for earlier review prior to the meetings. AGENDA ITEM #1: WORK PROGRAM DISCUSSION OF HSPB 2003/2004: A program was developed for the last year which was pretty well fulfilled, but the coming Historic Site Survey needs to be discussed as to how we intend to use that. Planner Jing Yeo: Architectural Resources Group, the project team, came down in August to complete their reconnaissance survey. Subsequently they have listed all the properties looked at while they were here. Staff is scheduling two meetings (passed around the notices) and sent out about 150 to 200 notices to all property owners. Some properties were obscured and could not be accessed or seen. Meetings will be next week, September 16 in the afternoon so it may be better attended for the public, and the Board and project team will be at 8:15 a.m. on September 17. A spreadsheet of all properties will be sent to all Board members. Completion target date for the survey is March 2004. Chairman Williams asked the Board what they would like to see the Board accomplish for this coming year. Board Member Isermann commented that one of the outstanding issues from last year to be addressed by the City Attorney is the de-listing or de-classification process, and hopes that process can come before the Board and become part of the General Plan. Director Evans explained that there is a formal request to de-classify a property. There is nothing in the ordinance that says how to do that. Logic would say you’d just go backwards using the same process as listing; however, the City Attorney is looking at this. Recognizing that the field of historic preservation in the State of California is becoming rigorously tested by people who have advocacy or ownership positions, the City Attorney does feel that we need to put a provision in the ordinance that says how do you de-list and what’s the process. Whether the Board wants to de-list a property is not the issue, it’s legally there has to be a process to do it. The Historic Site Preservation Ordinance update, the City Attorney and staff have reported to the previous HSP Board and it is in the Work Program to update that ordinance. What is the official status of the survey? It should be address in the ordinance so there will be multiple areas to review in the update. Board Member Chespak disagreed with having a de-listing or de-classifying process and stated that the purpose of this Board is to preserve properties. Chairman Williams asked if a written Work Program needs to be formalized for the Board. Director Evans advised that the Board will probably need to take action approving a Work Program at the January meeting. Staff needs to submit a Work Program for all the boards and commission that staff provides services to for Council consideration in early February. The existing Work Program will be given to all members, discuss what the Board wants to do, items on the agenda may need to be added to the Work Program or refined and this current agenda is a good start on next year’s program. AGENDA ITEM #2: MEDIA OUTREACH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE: Board Member Rush: Nothing new to report. Will be touching on some of the issues in Agenda #4. Need to keep this as an Agenda item for the next meeting. Planner Jing Yeo reported that a press release was in the works for the survey. Staff met with Rick and Omar regarding the photographs and Omar has agreed to photograph some of the sites for the channel 17. Budget limitations and what they can do were discussed. Staff needs to meet and work with the sub-committee in terms of what the Board would like to be photographed and how all this is going to come together. AGENDA ITEM #3: HISTORY SITE PLAQUE SURVEY: Board Member Rush: Asked the Board to consider this a living document which will incorporate changes as the year progresses. Frances Stevens School was inadvertently left off. Revised list will be distributed t next meeting. The July 9, 2001, list was used to compile this information. Staff is asked to review it to see if there was any property missing from the July 9, 2001 documents. If so, he will add and check the status of the plaques. Two properties not listed were the Grace Lewis Miller house and the Edris House as plaques have not been installed. Under the Visible Section are the Wexler Steel homes and all are visible except for 3133 North Sunny View Drive. Under Not Visible, the majority of the Class 1 residential structures were not visible. The Wexler Homes were the only ones verified to have visible plaques. The Carey-Pirozzi, Loewy, the Kaufman Harris House plaques were not visible. The O’Donnell and Frey houses are on private roads and there was no access. The criteria for this audit was to determine if plaques are visible from public right-of-ways. Staff’s help is needed to contact owners and determine if they have a plaque, if it is on the property, and/or would it be possible to plaque the site at the beginning of the private roads, such as in the Frey #2 and O’Donnell houses. Could not find the Oasis Hotel Tower plaque. The Kaufman-Harris owners applied for the Mills Act, so the plaque must be displaced as part of that agreement. Director Evans commented that a good test would be...”is it easily visible.” Plaques should not be buried or hidden, it’s a public issue of the designation and the plaques were installed with public funds. Staff will check some of the files and background to see what the designations spell out. There is a delicate balance when plaquing private homes. A section for “Future Plaques” was requested on the next list. Staff will work with Board Member Rush to confirm with owners that the plaques were installed before sending a letter inquiring if plaques were or were not installed, locations, etc. The staff member who installed all the plaques has retired and staff may not be able to contact him. The City cannot trespass onto private properties if the owners do not want plaques. Chairman Williams pointed out that Agenda items #4 and #5 were basically the same and should be combined for future meetings. Item #5 (Board Member Updates on Contacts with Potential Historic Site Property Owners) brought about the Edris House designation. Item #4 is visualized as the folks who are identified in the Historic Survey...how does the Board chat with them, hold a meeting, do informational seminars...something that would interest them? What input do Board members or staff have along this line? Director Evans advised that there is a meeting next week (September 16) inviting those identified property owners and staff will be ready to meet and answer their questions. Those who show interest will be the ones staff talks with first. There may be another level of work evolving from that meeting, which is the intent of the survey. Planner Jing Yeo advised that the format for the meeting was discussed with the team doing the survey and it will be in a workshop setting with opportunities for the Board, staff, and property owners to ask and answer questions. Public comments will be invited. Director Evans explained that it can be set-up in a number of ways. If the Board sits around the table, the public may respond that this is a formal meeting. If staff and Board want to be in the audience, it’s less formal. It’s difficult to predict how people will respond. In neighborhood meetings, when there are contentious issues, the least formal presentation in a meeting format has been the most successful. The more formal or lecture driven format has not worked as well. The meeting can be set-up the way the Board prefers in conjunction with the consultants, but it really should be less formal. The consultants take the lead, staff is there to facilitate and guide, then the Board is there to listen and if appropriate, taken an active role. The Board meets the following day, September 17, to have a more official discussion. That meeting will be at 8:15 a.m. here in the large conference room at City Hall. Chairman Williams asked about the letter of September 5 and responses from property owners, and expects that there will be several responses based on the context of the letter...”potential property to be surveyed and documented...” He suggested that the team present to the Board and the public as if they were all “one” and also that the team give a little history of what the survey is and why it is being done and the benefits. .....more for the benefit of the public than the Board, then go into the details. Jing Yeo advised that mail takes a couple of days and there have been no responses as yet., and the Board will be mailed a list of the properties. Board Member Scott mentioned that almost everyone he talks with who has a potentially historic house are amazed to find out they could save on their property taxes. That issue is important and should be brought out. We should have that documentation, The Mills Act, to pass out to people and if they apply for historic designation they can actually have a reduction in taxes. Might get a lot of interest with this feature. AGENDA ITEM #6; DISCUSSION OF CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (Chapter 8.05 PSMC), DUTIES, ACTIVITIES: This has already been touched upon. AGENDA ITEM #7: PALM SPRINGS PRESERVATION FOUNDATION: Board Member Scott reported that this Foundation is developing an interesting program for Friday, November 14 and Saturday, November 15, 2003, “Celebrating the Spanish Revival Architecture of Palm Springs” with a bus tour of selected properties, some that have never been open to the public before. Also putting together an extensive journal that will have photos and documentation about the design of that period. Anticipates a good attendance. AGENDA ITEM #8: PALM SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Board Member Bledsoe reported that it is still closed for the summer. AGENDA ITEM #9: PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE: Chairman Williams reported that there was no meeting in August. The next meeting is this Saturday at 10 a.m. in a private mid-century home at 605 Crescent Drive. Anyone interested in attending is welcome. Board Member Isermann added that ModCom had made a stance on the Biltmore Hotel property and had sent a letter to the City with copies to the HSPB and would like a staff report to the Board on what the state of the Biltmore really is. Director Evans indicated staff would check on the letter and try to get it to the Board. The Biltmore property is coming out of bankruptcy. There is a new development buyer. They went into the bankruptcy with the intent of acquistion based upon the City Council having already directed and filed court motions to have the property demolished, and the ModCom letter has been referred to the City Attorney for review. Board Member Isermann stated that if he remembered correctly, the Biltmore was always on the unofficial HSPB survey. Director Evans stated that the Council went through a very public process to designate the property and notify the owners that it was a public nuisance and probably the only reason the building is still there today is the fact the bankruptcy proceeding stopped the City frm seeking a court order to demolish the building. The City was in Superior Court discussing the issue of getting the court order to demolish with a tremendous amount of neighborhood input over the past three or four years. The bankruptcy stopped the California Court process because it was a Federal action and at the time going through a fairly public process with multiple Council meetings. No one really stepped up and said “save the Biltmore”...in fact large numbers of people talked about the problems with the property. Director Evans commented that Class 3 properties technically don’t have any status. There could be a stay of demolition. Council has already given staff the directive of what their intentions have been. Those issues are being evaluated by the City Attorney. Director Evans announced that if the television coverage goes off, it’s because there is an allotted time and the meeting is running beyond that time. The meeting will continue off the air. Chairman Williams asked for additional reports, comments, etc., there being none, the meeting was adjourned at 10:32 a.m. The next meeting will be October 14, 2003, at 8:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Douglas R. Evans Director of Planning and Zoning :ldm HSPB Minutes, September 9,2003