HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-13- HSPB minutesCITY OF PALM SPRINGS
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
CORRECTED Minutes of Meeting – Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Large Conference Room, City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
BOARD MEMBERS
Present
This Meeting
Present
Year-to-Date
FY 2007-2008
Excused Absences
To-Date
Sidney Williams, Chair X 10 1
Jade Nelson, Vice Chair X 10 1
John Williams X 10 1
Brian Strahl
Sheila Grattan
Shelly Saunders
X
X
X
10
10
11
1
1
0
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES:
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning
Diane Bullock, Associate Planner Loretta Moffett, Administrative Assistant
1. The HSPB regularly scheduled meeting was called to order at 8:17 a.m. on Tuesday, May 13
2008 by HSPB Chair Sidney Williams.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: S. Grattan, J. Nelson, S. Saunders, B. Strahl, S. Williams, and J. Williams
Staff Liaison Diane Bullock will be about 10 minutes late. Former Staff Liaison Ken Lyon will sit in
until she arrives.
3. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: This Agenda was available and posted in accordance with state
and local procedures for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board, City Clerk’s office, and the
Department of Planning Services’ counter by 4:00 p.m. Thursday, May 8, 2008.
NOTE #1: Audio Cassettes and DVDs of HSPB Meetings are available for review. Cassettes will be kept
for six months only. DVDs of the meetings will be kept indefinitely.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Brian Williams, Palm Springs resident, commented that he felt that all property owners should
have the right to give permission before their properties are processed for Historic Class 1
designation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Board members asked for several corrections to the Minutes of
the April 8, 2008 Meeting: Taliesen WEST; John Porter CLARK’S (no ‘e’) and ABERNATHY, not
Abernethy.
Board member J. Williams asked if staff had written the informational letter to all the Class 1 Site
owners and if the Minutes had been reviewed to determine if the Board had nominated the
properties that have had HSPB numbers assigned to them, #60 thru #65. Staff responded that
the letter had been written but not yet mailed.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 2 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
M/S/C (J. Williams/S. Grattan) to approve the Minutes of the April 8, 2008 HSPB meeting as
corrected- Vote 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent.
6. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: Chair Williams thanked staff for the work to coordinate the Study
Session for HSPB on May 22. Lee Husfeldt described all the neighborhood organizations and
how they functioned, including that a ‘historic officer’ may be appointed from each neighborhood.
Councilwoman Ginny Foat offered a summation and stated that the defining of historic districts is
separate from the mission of the ONI. The HSPB fact sheet will be continued so that all
neighborhoods will have appropriate information if they wish to pursue Historic Districts. Monday,
May 19, 2008 is the deadline for applications for the Boards and Commissions. There are three
seats on the Historic Site Preservation Board – one for reappointment and two vacancies.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: N O N E
8. CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL REQUEST(S):
A. Case 3.2130 – La Serena Villas – Class 3 – listed in 1987 & 2004 Historic Surveys
Application by Jeff Smith of Duet Real Estate, LP, owners, for demolition of the
existing vertical structures, and application of approved binding agent on soil at 339
South Belardo Road, Zone R3, Section 15.
Staff member Scott Taschner described the application and demolition requested of a Class
3 Historic Site based on the fact that it was built in the mid to late 1930s as the La Serena
Hotel which consists of about 11 buildings. Photographs were reviewed...Stucco has been
removed, the landscaping is gone, pools have been filled in – all done by prior approval in
2004 when the renovation was approved. Building permits expired after six months and the
Planning approval expired after two years. By way of a Courtesy Notice from Code
Enforcement, the owners have been given two options (1) continue the renovation, and (2)
pull new permits, etc. The applicant is now applying for demolition of the structures. Staff
does not find any characteristics to recommend this to a Class 1 Historic Site, and is
recommending no action for a Stay of Demolition from HSPB which would allow demolition.
Chair S. Williams asked about the approval in 2004 for renovation. Staff member Taschner
described the approval: (1) removal of the stucco, repair, and replace stucco; (2) add doors
and windows; (3) additional landscaping to include a fountain or water feature of some type.
To continue renovations, they would have to pull all new permits.
Board member J. Williams stated that he was on this Board when applicant presented their
plans to save and restore the La Serena Villas in 2004. At that time the Board found the
property to be functioning and in fairly good condition, but its condition has deteriorated. It’s
very disappointing that another potential historic building(s) is now being considered for
‘demolition because of neglect’ -- this seems to be happening over and over in Palm
Springs. The applicant was asked to explain their current plans.
Chris Blaze, controller for the applicant owner, reported that the changing market condition
and finances led to the delays of the project, and Code Enforcement Notices prompted them
to move forward with the demolition application. The scope of work is to remove all the
neglected buildings, finish the site with ground cover to contain the dust problem, and
remove the chain link fence. There are no current plans for the property because of the
financial situation of the owners.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 3 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
Board member J. Nelson asked staff to explain the policies regarding blight and/or
neglected buildings in conjunction with the Vacant Building Ordinance (attached for
information).
Staff member Bullock explained that the Planning department does not regulate removal of
buildings because of safety reasons or disrepair – those are matters for the Building and
Code Enforcement departments.
Board member B. Strahl asked if there had been more than one Code Enforcement notice
since the buildings have been vacant for more than three years and asked if there was any
discussion four years ago about making this a Class 1 Historic site.
Board member J. Williams asked about copies of the past Minutes in this instance. He
recalled that the Board discussed the significance of the buildings, that it is a small historic
hotel, had an old Spanish style the Board felt was worth preserving, but as far as he could
recall, the Board did not move to elevate the status because the owners assured everyone
that it would be maintained and restored ‘in keeping with its style.’ It appears as if the
motivation is to tear it down because the City has given ownership notice that it is a hazard.
If there are no plans to build something else on the property, perhaps it can be fixed-up or
repaired so that it is no longer a hazard and is not torn down? Once it is torn down, it’s
gone. The Board might wish to work on a historic survey or assessment. It is one of the
original hotels in Palm Springs.
Chris Blaze stated that the owners have been trying to keep the property in better condition,
boarded up, etc. and have spent over $10,000 in doing so.
Board member S. Saunders pointed out that the Board had approved demolition of one
building some time ago, then approved French doors, other new doors, and windows
which appear to be ‘new’ and not restorations or replacements of original type items. The
‘new’ replacements would not be of historic value.
Board member Strahl asked that this be tabled until the notes and minutes from prior
meetings be reviewed. It is premature for this Board to make a decision today without
knowing what transpired at previous HSPB meetings.
Board member S. Grattan asked for a better process in monitoring these buildings.
Meantime, to delay this process and not take staff’s recommendation is a waste of time for
everyone. From its appearance, it would cost a fortune to restore and may not be
marketable when repaired, restored, etc.
Vice Chair Nelson commented that this is a perfect case study of what has been happening
in Palm Springs in the last five years – the Potter Clinic, Orchid Tree Inn, and the former
Monte Vista Hotel – are just a few properties having historic value that have been
demolished, neglected, and in disrepair. Stopping blight, stopping demolition by neglect,
and saving valued historic properties was a large part of election campaigns over the last
several years. It appears that HSPB may have to keep dealing with issues like this project
of La Serena. There is not enough information today to make a good decision, the process
has not been followed, and when the permits expired HSPB should have heard about it
because it is a Class 3 site by nature of age.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 4 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
Board member S. Saunders commented that she drove by, stopped to inspect, and it is
a serious hazard. There are great properties adjacent, and the Board needs to pursue this
for the safety of the neighborhood and for everyone involved – it is a definite problem.
Staff member Bullock advised that the regulations only allow HSPB’s purview on demolition
for Class 3 sites. When an architectural approval application comes in, it is a staff
decision to approve, and/or take to the Architectural Advisory Committee or Planning
Commission based on the Code. It is not something that would be brought to the Board for
any kind of determination.
The requested Minutes from March 2005 were pulled from the file and copies distributed to
the Board for immediate review.
Board member Strahl summarized his interpretation from the Minutes of March 2005 as:
(1) When the original application came in for demolition, the only choice the Board would
have had at that time would have been to (a) issue a stay of demolition to elevate the
property to a Class 1 historic site, or (b) approve the demolition.
(2) That was the only purview the Board had at that time.
(3) The Board said at that time, we’re not going to work on doing research to elevate to a
Class 1 site, the applicant can proceed with the renovations.
(4) The applicant later demolished the #10 building per HSPB approval
(5) At the time of the original discussion and application, this property was not elevated nor
pursued for a Class 1 historic site designation by the Board.
Board member J. Williams commented that this project came to HSPB through a well-
respected Architect and it was a Class 3 site. They said to the Board...”we’re going to
maintain, love, restore this building, and make it part of our hotel. The Board did not take
action to nominate for a Class 1 site because the Board did not feel the need to and felt this
owner would take care of and maintain the property. This is very disappointing and is
happening with other properties. There has to be some way to stop this neglect of historic
and other properties – once this property and others are gone – they’re gone and the City is
left with empty lots that will sit there for years based on this economy.
Chair S. Williams pointed out that this is not just the renovation or restoration of the
buildings, but if they are demolished the entire character of the neighborhoods are changed.
Vice Chair Nelson commented that the whole point of preservation is identifying and
maintaining the context and fabric of existing structures – when built, everything west of
Palm Canyon Drive was small, Spanish Revival Mediterranean style bungalows with red tile
roofs. The City and residents are slowly losing these valued historic properties and heritage
piece by piece.
Board member Strahl commented that the Board has two options (1) Vote to nominate to a
Class 1 historic site and issue a stay of demolition for time to do the research, or (2) approve
the demolition.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: George Marantz of G & M Constructions stated that Code
Enforcement has been after this property for about five years. Building permits lapsed in
April 2008. Code Enforcement wanted it to be fenced, boarded up, and vagrants moved
out. Code Enforcement gave the owner two options -- repair or demolish. A Stay of
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 5 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
Demolition for three or four months will not solve the problem – the fire problems, the
derelict problems, the homeless problems - it will create a hazard for the Police to monitor
until October or November. The best time to proceed with the demolition is in the off-
season. Air Quality Control from LA asks for at least 30 days before a building is taken
down. The Board can ask for a 90-day Stay of Demolition, then it will probably not be
found significant enough for a Class 1 historic site. Ninety days go by, then wait another 30
days for AQC, then schedule the tear-down...it will be October or November before
demolition (in mid-season) -- in the Tennis Club area. The market is not there for many
developers to put money into renovation, restorations or new construction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED.
Board member S. Grattan suggested addressing this issue with all such properties and the
Board needs to be more in-tune with Code Enforcement. Staff and Code Enforcement’s
recommendation should be taken into consideration by this Board.
It was moved by S. Grattan, seconded by B. Strahl to accept the staff’s
recommendation to move forward with the demolition with the understanding that the
applicant will salvage the roof tiles and other items that someone else can use.
DISCUSSION: Board member Nelson agreed that elevating La Serena Villas to Class 1 is
very slim and would be a waste of time for the Board because of all the neglect and that the
character defining features are already lost. As a business member of the Tennis Club
Neighborhood Association, members and residents are always asking about that
property and are very concerned about what happens. Although it is a small piece of land, it
is part of the defining feature of that entire neighborhood. He expressed that it may not be
worthy of designation, but based on available information today is not the right time or
place for the Board to vote for demolition.
Board member S. Saunders commented that the Board and staff work hard in order to
make historic designations. HSPB has previously designated several properties of
significance. It should now and in the future be respected that appropriate research was
or will be done, so future Boards do not have to go back in time to re-research.
Board member J. Williams clarified that the Board does not designate Class 3 – they are
automatic based on being built prior to 1945. If Code Enforcement has been after the
owners for five years, why hasn’t this Board heard before now? This is very disconcerting
and a big disappointment. Better communication between City departments is needed. The
La Serena buildings appear to be beyond repair or restoration because they have been so
sorely neglected.
It was moved by S. Grattan, seconded by /B. Strahl to approve the demolition with
preservation of the roof tiles and others items that someone could use and to issue a
Certificate of Approval to the Applicant for the La Serena Villas at 148 South Belardo
Road – Vote: 3 Yes (Strahl, Saunders, Grattan), 3 No (J. Williams, Nelson, S.
Williams) - Motion failed.
Chair S. Williams called for another motion.
Vice Chair Nelson presented the idea of nominating the La Serena Villas for Class 2 Historic
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 6 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
Designation which would allow the demolition of the property, but would require the property
be memorialized by historic assessment, memorabilia, documents, historic marker, and
archived.
Staff member Bullock read from the Code that “archival file will be maintained, site is eligible
for plaquing ...”
It was moved by J. Williams, seconded by J. Nelson that the Board issue a 30-day
Stay of Demolition so research can be done, a subcommittee can talk with the
Historical Society, and talk with the architect who presented the previous application,
then the Board can make a decision at the June meeting. *
DISCUSSION: Board member B. Strahl asked for clarification on the time limits of a Stay of
Demolition --- Staff responded that the Code allows “...up to 6 months”.
* Motion was restated as shown above – Vote: 3 Yes (J. Williams, S. Williams, J.
Nelson), 3 No (Strahl, Saunders, Grattan). Motion failed.
Board member Nelson commented that research will probably indicate the property is
not significant enough to warrant Class 1 Historic designation, the owners will probably not
do anything further on renovation, he has mixed feelings. He does not feel the Board should
take action today to allow the demolition based on the information presented.
Board member Grattan itemized several items:
(1) facts in front of the Board show it will not be significant enough for a Class 1 designation;
(2) it is in such poor condition that it will have to be demolished;
(3) it is blight in the neighborhood;
(4) it is a fire hazard;
(5) it is occupied by vagrants and the homeless; and
but because the Board does not like the way it was presented or the way information was
provided, the Board wants to make everyone wait 30-60-90 days. She feels this is the
wrong use of the Board’s authority.
Board member Saunders commented that she did not hear the owner/applicant say they did
not have any desire to improve the structures. What she hears is that the economy
presents a financial situation that is not conducive to the owner renovating or restoring as
they would like or had planned to do. It is not the Board’s place to present opinions to the
applicant/owners as to what they should do or should not do with their property. They were
very clear that the financial situation does not allow them to do what is best for the building
and the neighborhood by removing the blight, making it a safe area – the view of the
mountains through that area is much more attractive than buildings in disrepair.
Chair S. Williams commented that perhaps the Board could meet with Building and Planning
staff to work out better communications in terms of code enforcement on historic structures
to avoid this type of situation in the future. A Subcommittee was suggested.
Staff member Bullock will meet and discuss with the Director of Planning for his
recommendations. Staff will email Board members.
Board member Saunders moved that La Serena Villas be nominated for Class 2 Historic
Designation with historical information maintained in the City’s archives, and the Board
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 7 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
take no action for a Stay of Demolition.
Board member J. Williams suggested finding out about the historic value of La Serena Villas
before making a decision. The historic information will be required if it is nominated as a
Class 2 Historic Site. He asked Board member Saunders to amend her motion to include a
Stay of Demolition until it is determined if the property has historic value to become a Class
2 site.
Board member Saunders will not amend her motion since some Board members already
feel it will not be saved. A Stay of Demolition is not good use of anyone’s time.
Board member Saunders restated the motion – To proceed with staff’s recommendation
of allowing the applicant to demolish the La Serena Villas at 339 South Belardo Road
and to research to determine if it is qualified for Class 2 Historic designation.
Board member Nelson amended the motion to – Follow staff’s recommendations, but with a
30-day delay (Stay of Demolition) to allow gathering of historic information, minutes, history,
archives, and a re-analysis at the June Board meeting.
Board member Nelson withdrew his amendment to Ms. Saunders’ motion.
There was no second to this motion.
Board member J. Williams stated in summary -– Staff has brought this before the Board, the
Board can initiate a Stay of Demolition, or proceed to elevate the property to Class 1 or 2
historic designation; but if the Board does nothing and takes no action whatsoever, it means
that this application for demolition is not being challenged and the demolition can go
through.
All three motions were considered and failed by 3/3 tie votes. No action was taken, which
results in allowing demolition of the buildings.
B. Case 3.1198- 800/816 North Palm Canyon Drive (El Paseo Building) – HSPB to
review a request by the applicant to change the material for the gates. Gate
Material and drawings will be supplied for review at the meeting.
Staff member Bullock described the proposed changes and materials. The project was
presented to the Architectural Advisory Board on May 12. They were in favor of new design,
cut steel, and materials, and made one suggestion to look into the striping of the parking
stalls. AAC preferred a more contrasting color for the stalls. The landscape designer
requested a final landscape and parking lot plan for AAC review. In recommendation to
HSPB, AAC was in favor of the project as newly designed.
Mike Sweeney, architect, explained that the parking lot will be asphalt, that it runs from
lot line to lot line, and is in very poor condition. Striping will be yellow highway paint and is
changing from a solid pattern to an outline pattern because of the glare from the sun. Stall
lines will be further researched.
The two gates will be 3/16” water-jet cut aluminum attached to steel tube frames and are
designed to provide structural support, fit with the building, ornamental, and designed to
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 8 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
provide security. They will be powder-coated black in color.
Mr. Sweeney answered several Board questions and commented that most ‘surprises’ have
been found and resolved to fit with the project plans.
Board member J. Williams ‘thanked” the architect and applicant and moved to approve the
changes as requested in the application, Vice Chair Nelson seconded the motion.
Staff member Bullock reminded the Board that the entire site was classified as a Class 1
Historic Site, so the changes to the parking lot need to be included in the motion.
Board member J. Williams amended his motion to read: To approve all the changes
as requested in this application. Vice Chair Nelson seconded the amended motion.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Subcommittee Report on Koch Casablanca Adobe Class 1 Application
590 South Indian Trail, HSPB # 68
Subcommittee J. Williams reported visiting the site and the Subcommittee members were
extremely impressed with the condition of the house and the fact that very little has been
changed over the years. The owners are very interested in having their property designated
a Class 1 Historic Site. The Subcommittee recommends that the Board proceed with the
Application to designate the Koch Casablanca Adobe Class 1 Historic Site HSPB #68 and
proceed to work on designating the Warm Sands Neighborhood a Historic District.
Staff member Bullock reported that the application is complete and can proceed based on
Board action today. The Casa Cody Inn paperwork for Council will be completed prior to the
Koch Casablanca Adobe process.
10. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS:
A. Subcommittee Report on Public Outreach – Sheila Grattan
She reported difficulty in obtaining requested information and will continue to pursue.
Board member J. Williams read from the report that the Subcommittee ‘contacted the
Council.” After discussion, Chair S. Williams commented that this will be on the Agenda
for June for further information and discussion.
B. P.S. Preservation Foundation - Jade Nelson
No report
C. P.S. Modern Committee - John Williams
No report
D. P.S. Historical Society – Sidney Williams
PSHS will close for the summer starting May 26, 2008.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 9 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
E. Architecture and Design Council - Sidney Williams
ADC is planning 2008/2009 season.
F. Work Program 2007/2008 – Budget Planning for 2008/2009 – Budget Subcommittee
Chair S. Williams suggested that the subcommittee and Board refer to the Work Plan
prepared for the 2007/2008 and report at the June meeting.
11. STAFF & OTHER REPORTS: A. Council Historical Tour
Staff sent an invitation to City Council to take the Robert Imber of P. S. Modern Tour. Based on
discussion, the Board agreed to pay for the Council Tours.
M/S/C (J. Williams/Strahl) moved that the City Council members be invited to take the
historic tour, and any member of the Board who wants to take the “other half” of the
tour, and to reimburse Robert Imber for the tour fees – Vote 6 yes, 0 No, ) Absent. (there
was no discussion)
Board member J. Williams asked if Invernada was offered the larger marker as the Board
discussed and voted at a prior meeting? Staff member Bullock reported that the Board and staff
had some time ago decided that residential markers would be 8” hi x 12” wide. Staff and Chair
reported that it was not offered to the homeowner because of several reasons based on:
(1) previously approved standards;
(2) it would be twice the cost of other residential markers;
(3) staff was unable to reach the homeowner;
(4) it is being paid for by another organization;
(5) revising the text would create a time delay;
(6) maintaining consistency in residential and commercial markers; and
(7) it needed to be within this budget period.
Based on these, staff and Chair made the decision to stay within the approved parameters and
order the 8” x 12” bronze marker for Invernada.
Board members J. Williams and Strahl questioned the Invernada marker not being offered to the
homeowner of Invernada as approved by Board vote at the April 8, 2008 meeting (copy of text
from Minutes attached for reference).
Vice Chair Nelson stated that the historic marker discussion re the old-style market/plaque for
residences was that two-thirds of the Class 1 properties have that old-style marker, and it would
be consistent to revert back to that style of marker. Also, obtaining sponsorship for the markers,
would free-up budgeted funds.
Staff member Moffett reported that the representative from the marker manufacturer looked at
the El Paseo marker and advised that the format would have to be redesigned, it will be two to
three times more expensive than the current 20 x 20 bronze marker, and would take
considerably more time to deliver.
Chair S. Williams commented that the Board was given direction by the Council to pursue
organizations in the community who would underwrite and sponsor historic markers. Approval
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 10 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
from the Preservation Foundation seemed like a very good match for the Invernada marker.
Several years ago PSPF prepared a Spanish Revival booklet and tour - Invernada was one of
their featured properties and this appeared to be a very good match – the time was right, etc.
Staff reported that sponsors’ names are on the markers to recognize their involvement; that they
paid for it; and to be consistent with past practice.
Vice chair Nelson suggested approving the markers and at one of the next meetings create a
standard that outlines the Historic Marker procedures.
Staff member Bullock advised that Planning Commission has already made and approved those
standards – Board will be given copies at the next meeting.
Board member S. Grattan asked for a discussion on marker sponsorship and how commercial
that may be. Would like to know if sponsors will buy one, two, or five markers on an annual
basis, will there be a fund that the Board can rely on, etc.
Board member J. Williams asked about the realtor’s letter and if the costs would come out of the
current budget. Staff member Moffett advised that the letter is ready, she has the addresses,
but time has not allowed everything to be prepared and mailed. Costs of postage are covered.
Board member S. Grattan asked about the vendor keeping a supply of markers on hand that
can be engraved as needed. Staff member Moffett advised that it may not be possible with this
vendor. The Board would have to pay for them up front for them to hold on the shelf for use as
needed. Staff will check.
M/S/C (Strahl/Grattan) moved to approve ordering blank markers for the vendor to hold
for use as needed - Vote was 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent.
Vice Chair Nelson suggested reviewing National Trust Preservation, such as Guide to Tax
Advantages and to purchase various booklets from any funds left in this budget.
Staff member Bullock reminded the Board that the supply of the Palm Springs Brief History and
Architectural Guide has been depleted. The Visitors Center buys and sells between 500 and
600 annually and have agreed to the new reprinting cost of $1.50 each. Reprints can be done
in 100, 200, or more segments by the City’s Print Shop within a 3-week period. This brochure
was developed and is sponsored by HSPB. Board members questioned why the funds go back
into the general fund of the City if HSPB pays for them – the funds from the sale of these
Guides should replenish the HSPB budget.
M/S/C (J. Williams/Saunders) moved to order as many Architectural Guides as the funds
in the remaining budget will allow - Vote was 6 Yes, 0 No, O Absent.
Staff will review this procedure with Finance and follow-through with the order.
12. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: A. Report by Chair Williams on the Conference in Napa Valley
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 11 of 11
CORRECTED Minutes from the May 13, 2008 Meeting
Chair S. Williams advised that the dates for the next annual conference TO will be held in Palm
Springs, have been changed to April 16-19, 2008. About 500 people attended the 2008
Conference in Napa, workshops and activities were inspirational and informative. Next year’s
Conference in Palm Springs will be very important to the City and HSPB.
B. Report by Vice Chair Nelson on the Conference in Napa Valley
Vice Chair Nelson reported that one of the speakers is the leader of a local Indian Tribe who
discussed very early history and how instrumental everyone is to every local environment, the
importance of working together, and how the land is tied to the cultures, history, architecture,
etc. The Conference was very informative, and there is lots of excitement about next year’s
Conference being in Palm Springs. Many people have never been to P.S. and are anxious to
see our historic features, architecture, and what preservation is being done here.
Board member B. Strahl asked for a report at the June meeting on the status of the Orchid Tree
Inn and any other historic designated building/property that has building permits out. He also
asked for an update on the 501-C3 discussed at a meeting several months ago.
Board member S. Grattan asked about a Host Committee for the 2009 Conference. Chair S.
Williams advised that there is a City Steering Committee.
Vice Chair Nelson commented that the Work Program for next year has not been discussed and
it is important that it be on the June Agenda.
13. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, it was moved and
seconded (Grattan/Strahl) to adjourn the HSPB meeting at 10:17. am. to the next regularly
scheduled meeting June 10, 2008 in the large conference room at City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Bullock, Associate Planner
HSPB Staff Liaison
Attachments:
1. Vacant Building Ordinance
2. Excerpts from the April 8, 2008 Meeting re Markers