HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-10- HSPB minutesCITY OF PALM SPRINGS
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 10, 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 11 1
Jade Nelson, Vice Chair X 11 1
John Williams X 11 1
Brian Strahl
Sheila Grattan
Shelly Saunders
X
X
X
11
11
12
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 8:15 a.m. on Tuesday, June
10, 2008 by HSPB Chair Sidney Williams.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: S. Grattan, J. Nelson, S. Saunders, B. Strahl, S. Williams, and J.
Williams
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, June 4, 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:
Bill Lewallen, President of the Royal Hawaiian Estates Homeowners’ Association, 283
East Twin Palms Drive, Palm Springs, talked about the Royal Hawaiian’s beginnings in the
early 1960s when Donald Wexler and Richard Harrison designed the 40-unit complex on a 5-
acre tract that emphasized a tropical island Tiki design with clean lines of modernism. A new
HOA Board in 2001 moved forward with preservation and restoration. He reported that Don
Wexler visited the property just before receiving his Star in the Walk of Stars and was pleased
to see how well the complex had been maintained. Mr. Lewallen thanked Jade Nelson for his
contributions to their restoration efforts over the years, and acknowledged HSPB members for
their commitment and service.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 2 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Board members asked for two corrections on page 11 of
the Minutes of the May 13, 2008 Meeting. M/S/C (J. Williams/Nelson) to approve the
Minutes of the May 13, 2008 meeting as CORRECTED – Vote 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent.
6. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: Chair S. Williams reported looking at other websites for
ideas for the HSPB web site, and provided copies of the Top Ten Myths of Historic
Preservation (Los Angeles web site). Chair Williams acknowledged and thanked John
Williams (2002-2008) and Jade Nelson (2005-2008), for their hard work and contributions to
historic preservation over the years. She also noted that Mr. Williams has termed-out, Mr.
Nelson is up for re-appointment, and there is one vacancy occurring when Mr. Riley
resigned for medical reasons.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: N O N E
8. CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL REQUEST(S):
A. Case #3.3262 Application by owners Barbara & Benjamin Anglin to demolish 1,748 s.f.
existing one-story single-family home built in 1922, with additions in 1940 (per
city/county records), and replacement with a single-family structure that better suited for
optimal lot use at 148 West Camino Descanso, Zone R1B, Section 17.
Staff Liaison Diane Bullock described the project as similar to a California Ranch
architectural style, but it has no significant design characteristics. Various parts of the
structure are in serious disrepair. The site has mature landscaping and the owners will
try to save and transplant a majority of the plants. It is a Class 3 Historical Site based on
the year built. The Board purview is to (1) issue a Stay of demolition, or (2) take no
action and allow the demolition to move forward. After analyzing the structure and based
on definitions of a historic site, the structure does not contain any significant architectural
style or construction characteristics that would argue in favor of defining it a historic site.
The project is exempt from environmental review, there were no notification
requirements for the application, and no public comments were received. Staff
recommends that the HSPB approve the application for demolition as presented.
Board members Nelson and Saunders reported visiting the site and both felt the
landscaping was important to save.
Board member J. Nelson moved to allow the application for demolition to proceed at 148
West Camino Descanso. Motion was seconded by Board member S. Grattan. There
was no discussion. M/S/C/ (Nelson/Grattan) to approve the application for
demolition as presented – Vote: 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Policy on Historic Markers:
(1) Updated Discussion:
(a) Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002
(b) Director of Planning’s May 30, 2003 Memo to HSPB
(c) Sizes, Style, and Materials (aluminum or bronze)
Staff Liaison Bullock explained that Board packets included what has been done by City
staff to standardize historic markers as they related to residential or commercial
properties. She outlined discussions and actions that have taken place from April 10,
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 3 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
2002 through the most recent Board actions in March 2007. The Board has the option to
change the policy and take it to the Planning Commission for their review and
determination or to maintain the current procedure.
Board member S. Grattan reported that she and Chair S. Williams met with three
members of the Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, who indicated they are the
appropriate organization for historic markers sponsorship.
Board member Strahl asked about HSPB #33 – and why there is more than one site with
the same designated number.
Staff member Moffett advised that six properties were all presented at the same time to
City Council under Historic Site #33, therefore, the City Council designated all six at
them same time under the same number.
Board member S. Saunders asked why the sponsors name is included on the markers?
Staff Liaison Bullock advised that in past practice, if an organization paid for the
markers, their name was shown as “sponsored by”. Within meetings and with new
Board members, there are often changes in various areas of HSPB’s standards of
operation. The Board has the option of maintaining, discussing, and making changes.
Board member J. Williams pointed out that the Board voted to offer the owner of
Invernada the 20” x 20” marker if sponsorship was obtained – but that did not happen.
Even though there are “procedures,” the Board needs to recognize that there may be
times when changes to certain procedures are in order based on case-by-case
circumstances. He stated that it was his belief that the Board did not approve the
Marker Procedures dated March 13, 2007, and it was never agreed that those property
owners who nominate their own properties would have to pay for their own
plaques/markers. He asked if all markers been installed? Staff responded that all
markers have been installed.
Staff Liaison Bullock referred to page 3, Item B from the April 10, 2007 Minutes stating
that “Board member Bud Riley pointed out that the Policy and Procedure for Plaques
was approved at the last meeting and suggested it be removed from the Agenda.”
Chair S. Williams recalled that the outcome of that discussion was all markers should be
funded by the Board. During the joint meeting with City Council, it was suggested that
the Board obtain additional funding and support for markers. The Board then asked the
PSPF and PS ModCom for their support.
Since questions have come up since March 2007, Director Ewing suggested putting this
on the July 2008 Agenda as it relates to sponsorship, the possibility of separating small
and large markers from residential and commercial buildings, and perhaps having two
choices so the Board can review for case-by-case decisions. He explained that placing
a marker on private property does require the property owner’s permission.
Board member S. Grattan asked that one policy procedure document be prepared that
provides all the issue, standards, etc. related to plaquing properties.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 4 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
Staff Liaison Bullock commented that if a marker is sponsored, the size and text would
be decided at the onset of the process. The only other discrepancy in locations of
installed markers is with the Grace Miller house. Chair S. Williams will contact Catherine
Myler and discuss this issue with her...there has been several instances of vandalism
which Ms. Myler is trying to get resolved.
Board member Nelson explained that the main reason the Board pursued sponsorship of
the Invernada historic marker was because the Council requested the Board go into the
community to get sponsors to help with the annual budget items and to get them more
involved in preservation.
B. Board Members Identification and Communication (in Public and to Legislative Bodies)
Director Ewing’s advice to Board members:
(1) When it is appropriate to identify yourself as a Board member (outside of this
group). When you accept a position as a decision maker authorized by the City Council,
a person takes on certain responsibilities, but you still have rights as a citizen to speak
your mind. A person also has responsibility to their office, their fellow Board members,
and to the City Council to respect the authorities that Council has given to them. There
is balancing to do on various obligations both to your own opinion and to the government
that you serve. It is probably best to represent yourself as a member of HSPB only
when you are specifically delegated to do so. The Board then knows what you’re doing,
has given you directions, and that’s the way to proceed. It is not inappropriate to say
you are a member of the Board, but if you are not speaking for HSPB, you should say
that as well (I’m not speaking for the HSPB Board”). If there is any possibility of
confusion between your own opinion and your status as a member of a board or
commission, it is better not to say that you’re a member of a board or commission when
you speak your mind. You don’t want to use your position on the Board to represent a
point of view that the Board has not endorsed – members must be very careful of that.
You want to make sure that the public understands where your opinion is coming from –
be cautious, be careful, and if there is any doubt in your mind – chose not to represent
yourself as a Board member or include a big caveat on your statement by
saying...”While I am a member of the Board, I am here speaking for myself, this is my
own opinion, the Board has not endorsed it ...”. Summary -- Individual discretion with
respect for the responsibilities.
Board member S. Grattan expressed concern that it is clearly not appropriate for Board
members to go out in the public, as a representative of this Board or use a title of this
Board, and talk about issues that have or may come before the Board.
Director Ewing further advised that a Board member does not want to speak about
something in advance of taking action on it, where it might reveal that a member(s) has
made up their mind before there has been a Staff Report or a Public Hearing as it may
be identified as having prejudiced their own decision. The worst case, a member(s) can
be asked to refuse him or herself from a decision because their mind has already been
made up. As a Board member, you are to come to a decision without having made a
conclusive personal decision until all information has been received, public testimony
has been heard, and all documents, information, displays, etc. have been presented.
Only at that time should you, as a Board member, identify to the public what your
position is. To do so in advance, tells a neighbor or applicant...”I can’t get to this person”
– that Is not what open government is about. Caution is this: As a Board member of
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 5 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
HSPB, you are to arrive at this meeting making decisions that come before you with an
open mind. It raises a question about your being open-minded, if, two weeks earlier you
had stated a different opinion.
C. Board Motion is required to Initiate the Class 1 Designation Process for the Koch
Casablanca Adobe at 590 South Indian Trail, for HSPB #68 as discussed at the May 13,
2008 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Property Owner A Sophianopoulos, introduced himself and thanked the Board for
considering designation of his property at 590 South Indian Trail as a Class 1 historic
Site.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED.
Board member J. Williams moved to initiate the Class 1 Historic Site designation
process for the Koch Casablanca Adobe at 590 South Indian Trail as HSPB Historic Site
#68. The motion was seconded by Board member Saunders. No discussion.
M/S/C (J. Williams/Saunders) to approve motion as stated above - Vote: 6 yes,
0 No, 0 Absent.
10. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS:
A. Subcommittee Report on Public Outreach – Sheila Grattan
Two HSPB Board members and three PSPF members met, and it appears there
are strong feelings about what HSPB’s responsibilities are. “Public outreach is not
the function of this Board” was a statement that came up at this meeting. To
paraphrase Board member Nelson’s comments about the Council request at the
joint Study Session - - “the Council directed HSPB to engage in public outreach and
felt it was important for this Board to pursue.” Considering a lot of residents do not
understand historic site preservation, and property owners actually have fears about
it, it is important to discuss all issues that were raised at that meeting so everyone is
in concert as to what HSPB is supposed to be doing. Of all the projects that the
Public Outreach Subcommittee has been working on – one of them was to revise
the Palm Springs Brief History and Architectural Guide. The Board was so
impressed with the Palm Springs Preservation Foundation’s 4-color “Class One”
Brochure (worked on by Board member Nelson), it was thought that it might be
worked into a potential joint effort project for HSPB to help support publication of the
next version of PSPF’s Class One brochure. After discussion with the President of
PSPF, it was determined that PSPF would be happy to sell HSPB excess inventory
at cost. Issues raised were: (1) HSPB should not print or reprint the City brochure
(Architectural Guide) – and that PSPF should take over; (2) One of the PSPF
members explained that she had originally designed the Architectural Guide and
there were no addresses in it, as opposed to the Foundation Class One brochure.
She and the committee did not feel it was appropriate, and that if HSPB reproduces
it, there should not be any addresses; and (3) No new photos should be used.
There was discussion of Outreach, and it was the opinion of the PSPF members
present that HSPB should not be involved in Community Outreach, that it was not
the function of HSPB, and HSPB should only be engaged in historic markers.
HSPB members were then advised that HSPB’s new web site would be the
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 6 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
appropriate place to post historic and preservation information that HSPB approved.
This Board member was also advised that HSPB should not have a 501C(3) that
was recommended early last year, but the Subcommittee has received no further
information. There was discussion about having people pay for and/or sponsor
historic markers and that it was not appropriate for any commercial companies to
make those kinds of donations. The conclusion of the group was that PSPF is the
appropriate group to be named as sponsor on any historic marker. HSPB member
Grattan reported asking several questions one being “if PSPF would put their
suggestions and statements in writing”. Ms. Grattan felt that it is appropriate for
HSPB to decide what HSPB policy and authorities are and not have outsiders telling
HSPB.
Board member Nelson commented that City staff has advised HSPB that the City
owns this Palm Springs Brief History and Architectural Guide, and it is up to the City
to update and produce this Guide. If the statement made at this PSPF-HSPB
meeting that PSPF was going to take over that – it seems inappropriate to him.
Board member J. Williams asked about the rights to the photographs and if the
Guide can be reprinted without obtaining new written permission?
Chair S. Williams clarified that Tracy Conrad wrote the original brochure when she
was a volunteer at the Historical Society. She used photographs and Historical
Society records and photos from Julius Shulman. Since that time Julius Shulman
has given his archives to The Getty Institute. There is a question about the use of
the photos. HSPB felt that the Class One brochure produced by PSPF was
preferable than re-doing the Architectural Guide and PSPF was offering to reprint it
at their own expense after further research. The future reprint of the Class One
brochure would include the newly designated historic sites and PSPF would provide
it to the Visitors Center. Then at some future time, at their own expense, would
revise the Architectural Guide.
Director Ewing stated he did not have past information or know how that would
work with an old brochure, where HSPB had permission to use the photos at the
original time of printing and how that relates to reprints. The majority of
Architectural Guide photos appear to be from the Palm Springs Historical Society
and only a few are attributed directly to Julius Shulman. This is a question for the
City Attorney and staff will research. He read from the back of this brochure which
states:
“This brochure is published by the City of Palm Springs Historic Site Preservation
Board (HSPB). The HSPB meetings regularly at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz
Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California.
Call the Department of Planning and Zoning at 760-323-8245 for meeting dates and
times.
Contributors to this publication include Richard Patenaude, Carl Prout, Tony
Merchell, Peter Moruzzi, Jim Isermann, and Tracy Conrad. Edited by Tracy
Conrad.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 7 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
Special thanks to Julius Shulman, Buzz Waltz, and Lisa Romerein for the generous
use of their photographs, to Sally McManus for her kind and invaluable assistance,
and the Palm Springs Historical Society for the use of their archives.”
Based on everything printed this is a City publication. That is not to say that HSPB
still has photo permissions – staff will check. The PSPF and HSPB ultimately have
a common purpose that need each other very much – this should not be forgotten.
Whatever clarifications of roles and responsibilities, it is very important not to break
an important relationship when the real purpose is to be out in the community
advocating and preserving historic resources in Palm Springs.
Board member Strahl expressed concern that HSPB needs to continue working on
the Architectural Guide as a City and HSPB product in whatever format is deemed
appropriate.
Board member Grattan commented that it would be appropriate for another joint
meeting between HSPB and PSPF to address issues and concerns that were
evident during this recent meeting.
Director Ewing explained that HSPB cannot give up it’s authority to designate to a
non-governmental agency. The Palm Springs Preservation Foundation cannot take
over the functions of the HSPB. The City Council has directed HSPB to do
outreach, but it may be important to discuss, between HSPB and the Council, what
their expectations are of that outreach. Is that outreach to be limited to the issue of
seeking out and identifying historic resources that should be evaluated for
designation? That is a rather narrow outreach function, but is very much directed to
HSPB’s formal authority to investigate and recommend designation. If it’s a broader
outreach, then it might overlap and have the potential of spending resources twice.
Clarification may be needed as to what roles each can play to support each other,
and what roles to avoid overlapping so resources are not wasted. At root, Council
has given HSPB outreach directions, but how broad or narrow may be a question
that needs more direction or clarification. Focusing on existing and future Class 1
and Class 2 properties is safe.
Director Ewing advised that the Board can direct staff to investigate what it would
take to print whatever supply is immediately needed. Meantime, staff could
investigate the issues associated with copy rights or photo rights, can they be
resolved, etc.?
Board member J. Williams asked if the letter to the realtors went out and if there are
Class One brochures to include in the mailing? Staff has not had time to send
these letters and the Class One brochure is on hand. Mr. Williams further
commented that the question now is - should this Board do outreach beyond the
Class 1, 2 or 3 properties? He suggested that HSPB continue to do this type of
outreach. HSPB does need to work closely with PSPF, because the Class One
brochure is the best historic informational brochure available in Palm Springs.
Working together is important to enable the public to have the best piece of
literature related to historic properties in Palm Springs. HSPB is about Class 1
Historic Sites and the PSPF Class One brochure is ‘about Class 1 Sites’.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 8 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
Board member Nelson reiterated that at the May HSPB meeting that this Board
moved to order as many of the Architectural Guides as the budget would allow.
That has been done, decided, and should move forward. The Visitors Center sells
upwards of 600 Guides annually and they have agreed to the new cost of $1.50
each for reprints. He also asked...”.why doesn’t the sale of these brochures go
back into the HSPB budget.”
Director Ewing explained that new permissions may be needed before reprinting.
Staff will get an answer and if it is clear to go, the reprint will be started. If a reprint
is not appropriate based on photo permissions, then a decision can be made by
HSPB and staff how to move forward....do we shoot new photos, do we seek
permission from the people who now have rights, etc.? He asked that the important
issues brought up in the meeting of PSPF and HSPB be identified as two, three or
four items and an agenda developed so both organizations can work toward
building a cooperative and lasting relationship and a good foundation.
Chair S. Williams asked to discuss the 5013(c) as a related issue.
Director Ewing stated that HSPB does not need to be a 501(c)3 organization
because the City, as a government, provides all the same benefits for donors as a
501(c) 3. HSPB can receive donations and the same benefits accrue to the donors.
This is a very straight forward issue as staff is informed by the City Attorney.
Board member Nelson asked if HSPB at some future time decided to allocate a
certain budget for having a community event, inviting the public to commemorate a
new publication and HSPB was selling it – would that money come back to HSPB,
go into the General Fund?
Director Ewing advised that where people donate money for a charitable purpose --
selling a product is a different matter. Government does not have “enterprise funds”
– everything goes into the General Fund and comes out of the General Fund and it
is the budget that guides the spending priorities. If the Council approves the HSPB
budget that includes funds for preparing a publication that is sold – those dollars are
allocated and planned for by the budget, prepared according to the budget, the
items are ordered, they go out into the community, the money that comes back in
from the sale goes back into the General Fund. There is no separate account for
HSPB, Policy, Planning fees, etc.
Board member Nelson then asked about the Public Arts Commission’s very large
budget, and what if the HSPB comes up with an idea or a way to have a similar kind
of benefit, and a revision is made to the Ordinance related to a blighted building
(Class 3) or a historic building and it stipulates that certain portions of that fee
comes back to HSPB? It is done in much larger cities, and it seems like a way to
counter-act all the demolition by neglect and blight. It might also be an incentive for
an owner to maintain their property so they wouldn’t have to pay such a fee.
Director Ewing explained that Public Arts has a revenue source dedicated by
developer fees, that is held in an account for the purchase of art under an
Ordinance that says...”all developers pay a certain amount into the Public Art Fund
and that can only be used for public art...” However, if they wanted to create a
Public Arts brochure – that would be a General Fund item and would come out of
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 9 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
and go back into the General Fund. Under the Quimby Act, a law that allows cities
to charge developers money to buy park land, the money is collected from all new
construction and goes into a fund that is specifically reserved to buy park land.
There is nothing like that in HSPB’s budget. The blight or neglect fee would certainly
require an amendment to the Ordinance. The City has been looking at a number of
responses that could be put into the Vacant Building Ordinance regarding the
general maintenance and neglect of vacant property.... a separate issue from
historic resources. The whole issue of vacant buildings is one that concerns
Council, and some things that are being looked at. There may be more to come on
the Vacant Building Ordinance – a copy of which was in your board packets.
Whether the Council would be willing to take fees, say inspection fees or any other
kind of fees that might be required, and allocate some of those fees to HSPB would
be their call.
Board member J. Williams asked that in the case of PSPF sponsoring the marker
for Invernada – does that money go into the General Fund even though it comes out
of the HSPB budget? If that is so, then getting sponsorship for markers doesn’t
really help HSPB get more markers since there is a fixed budget...unless more
appropriations from the City is approved in the HSPB budget.
Director Ewing reiterated that the budget paid for the marker, PSPF paying for the
marker would be a reimbursement to the City. The sponsorship issue is something
that still needs to be worked out.
Board member Strahl commented that he also believed that if HSPB had more
sponsors for the historic markers, then more markers could be purchased for the
properties. If the sponsor’s funds for the markers go back into the City’s General
Fund and HSPB’s budget is continually reduced – then it doesn’t matter. This
needs to be addressed so everyone understands the process.
Director Ewing indicated that staff will research and report back.
B. Work Program and Budget Planning for 2008/2009
(1) Work Program Discussion
The Board packets provided a copy of the fiscal 2007/08 Work Plan and the Public
Outreach and Education Plan 07/08 - which was reviewed for what was planned,
what was accomplished, and what is yet to be worked on.
Accomplished Short Terms items:
(1) Education/Awareness;
(2) Outreach: Historic Markers – generate sponsorship via written requests
(3) Education/Awareness: November Historic Commission & Newspaper contact;
(4) Outreach Follow-up with property owners;
Work-in Progress:
(3) Continue outreach to media for on-going articles;
(5) Education/Outreach – Contact Realty Board;
Long-Term Work Goals (1+ years):
(1) Outreach to remaining owners, etc. in ongoing;
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 10 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
(2) Outreach/Education: City’s 70th Anniversary events - No City events were
planned.
Long-Term Yet to be done:
(3) Education: Realty Board meetings,
(4) Outreach/Education: City’s 75th Anniversary- work on closer to event
Board member Grattan worked on the 50th anniversary, still has materials, and
offered past materials if needed
(5) Outreach: Coordination with Arts Commission:
(6) Outreach: Front Page link on HSPB City’s website;
(7) Education: Tour for City Council – invitations have been extended - staff is
working with Martha Edgmon, Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Council -
awaiting final details and responses from members – will report back when
finaled.
ONGOING ITEMS: (recurring) - all items 1 thru 9 as listed on the 9.11.07 Work Plan
documents.
Board member Saunders suggested that members review all the Long-Term Goals
between now and the next meeting so they can be prioritized with additional issues
identified and added to this Plan for 2008/2009.
Chair S. Williams offered the following suggestions for planning the new fiscal year:
(1) CPF Conference in April 2009 – HSPB members should have a presence there
and actively participate. This should be included in the 2008/2009 budget.
This is a major event to the City of Palm Springs.
(2) Budget for 2008/2009 Discussion
Board member Strahl asked who the letters were sent to under (2) of the
Accomplished goals. (PSPF, PS. ModCom, and P.S. Historical Society), and what
about the list of various organizations that should be contacted? There were about
15 philanthropic organizations on that list, i.e. Bank of America, Wells Fargo (both
have museums) and have funds set aside -- perhaps they have funds available for
other preservation issues.
Chair S. Williams commented that the contribution issue is an “on-going” program,
and the Board could brainstorm, prepare a list, and contact any number of
organizations for potential donations. She asked that Board members review all the
work items and prioritize them for discussion at the next meeting. The Work plan
needs to be defined and how much everyone is willing to devote to accomplishing
the tasks, before working on the budget.
(3) Future Designations – List of properties
Board member Nelson commented that during June in the past all Board members
have prepared their goals or suggestions for historic properties and other items. He
feels that it is important during the next three weeks for the Board to work with staff
to provide those individual prioritized lists so there can be a combined list that five or
six items can be the focus of next year’s Work Plan (future designations). One
property that was nominated last season was Moorten’s Botanical Garden. The
owner would like it removed from the nomination list – owner assured him that it will
always be there. He wants the Board’s consideration in making the Town & Country
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 11 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
a top priority based on the recent development plans that includes the T & C. The
Cary Grant house was under consideration by the Board for the Class 1 process –
which apparently is being sold.
Chair S. Williams mentioned the Kocher Samson Building should also be added to
the list for Class 1. She was contacted by Don Wexler, Architect, who is interested
in HSPB looking at the Palm Springs International Airport – particularly the west
façade that he also designed and is interested in having it considered for Class 1.
Director Ewing pointed out that the Board went through a process last year that
generated six properties – he proposed going through the same process again
including those properties because they may still be the same six properties or not.
The Board can complete a new priority list to see what properties come up this year
based on information that has come forward since the six properties of 2007/2008
were suggested.
Staff Liaison Bullock pointed out that the six potential properties from September
2007 were considered by this Board, but they have not been nominated to start the
Class 1 designation process.
Chair S. Williams reported that the Kocher Samson Building report has been
written. She summarized what is expected from the Board for the next meeting:
(1) Work Program Suggestions for 2008/2009
(2) Budget Program for 2008/2009
(3) Individual lists of properties to be consideration for potential
designation – from any source.
(4) Web site: The HSPB web site design and link is of major importance. Staff
reported that James Smith, the City’s IT Manager, will lead the program to re-
design the City Web site.
Chair S. Williams requested that HSPB assist and participate with items,
events, and other informational materials. The HSPB Web site has the
potential to reach a much broader audience in its preservation goals.
Board member Grattan asked for a ‘HSPB link’ on the City’s home page as
quickly as possible.
(5) CPF Conference in Palm Springs April 16-19, 2009
C. P.S. Preservation Foundation - Jade Nelson
William Kopelk is the outgoing President, and a new President will be elected in the
near future. There are several hundred members in PSPF.
D. P.S. Modern Committee - John Williams
PS Mod Com presented an alternative plan to the City Council related to the Town
& Country Center at their June 4, 2008 meeting. It can be seen in the archives of
the City Council meeting under Public Comments.
E. P.S. Historical Society - Sidney Williams
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 12 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
Jeri Vogelsang, new Director, reported that PSHS closed the two museums for the
summer May 25 – they will re-open Friday, October 17, 2008. Staff is available
Monday thru Friday year-round, by appointment, for research and photo requests.
Sally McManus retired June 1, 2008. HSPB thanks and applauds Sally for all the
work she has provided for the Board. She served 25 years as the Director and will
be honored with a City Proclamation designating June 18, 2008 as Sally McManus
Day at the City Council meeting at 6 p.m. on that date.
F. Architecture and Design Council - Sidney Williams
No report
Board member Saunders suggested that old and new Board members be considered for
representatives of the Standing Committees (i.e. C thru F above) and asked for this to be
included on the Agenda once the new Board members are sworn in.
11. STAFF & OTHER REPORTS: A. Baristo Lofts – Santa Fe Federal was Scheduled for June 9, 2008 Architectural Advisory Committee meeting (yesterday). Chair Williams attended. B. Council Historical Tour Update – Staff Liaison Bullock addressed this earlier in the meeting. She asked member Grattan if she would share the 50th anniversary information to assist working on the City’s 75th anniversary. C. 501-C3 Non-Profit Organization Discussion – Craig Ewing discussed above D. Updates on:
(1) Orchid Tree Inn - Staff Liaison spoke with the developer, the Frey building
was demolished based on a request from the Building department’s determi-
nation that it was not safe. The insurance investigation into the fires is still
underway, so the developer cannot move forward until that is resolved. Their
current plans are to abandon the condo idea and re-open as a hotel, but cannot
until the insurance status is finalized. They continue to work with Code
Enforcement and the records reflect they are maintaining the property on a
monthly basis. Their intention, if opening as a hotel, is to maintain the court
yard bungalows. The Frey building cannot be restored based on the current
condition, and if they were to re-build it, they would have to follow current code
standards that would completely change the entire look of the building. They
have no further plans right now. Board members will be emailed information
about the expiration dates of the permits.
Board member Strahl asked if the investigation covers the entire site, because
there are several buildings on that site, only one of the buildings that burn –
why would this investigation blanket the entire site when the building that was
burned has been demolished? Can this question be posed to the City Attorney
– the rest of the property could be used as a hotel. There’s only a slab at the
burn site.
Director Ewing advised that there are two fire investigations at that site – and it
does not make sense to move forward when the ultimate outcome is unknown.
Staff is relying on other departments confirming this is not an unusual outcome
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 13 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
in terms of an investigation, the time it takes, potential disputes, and other
issues. It’s an unfortunate situation, at worst a drag on the neighborhood, the
local economy, and something beyond staff’s control at present.
(2) La Serena Villas – The appeal hearing will go to City Council Meeting of June
18, 2008 and a staff report has been submitted which will be available Friday,
June 13 on City’s web site.
(3) ATM Shelter at Washington Mutual Bank – Staff met with a representative from
Washington Mutual Bank who presented plans for the new ATM Shelter. The
plans have been submitted to the Building department and they are currently in
plan check. Staff spoke with them about lightening the glass so the smoky film
would not take away from a view of the front of the building. The original plans
included mullions between each piece of glass. Staff requested connected
glass without the mullions which will reduce distraction.
Board member J. Williams asked if this is the same plan the Board reviewed
some time ago, and since this is now a Class 1 Site, do changes such as this
need to come before HSPB?
Staff Liaison Bullock advised that this ATM project originally started before
becoming a Class 1 site, and the proposal to make these changes was done
before it was designated.
Director Ewing advised that Washington Mutual would now be subject to a
Certificate of Appropriateness if there were significant changes. Staff looks at
all angles and at what falls below the level of significant changes. To expedite
projects, staff can approve at staff level and this is not a significant change and
was approved.
(4) Town & Country Center - Chatten-Brown Letter. For information staff included
the letter sent to Planning that has language related to the Town & Country
Center to keep the Board aware.
Staff Liaison Bullock was unable to write the Casa Cody Inn staff report this month
because of time constraints completing the La Serena Villas appeal staff report.
The list of New Proposals was requested by the Board; however, providing project
information before the project is ready to move forward raises many questions and
consumes staff time. The project mentioned above will come before this Board
when it is ready to move forward.
The Board Chair is sent a copy of the Bi-weekly PETS project list (new
cases/projects) which gives new project information and if any of the projects
generate questions, staff will assist.
12. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board member Nelson thanked everyone, said he has enjoyed working with everyone for
the past three years, has learned a lot and feels privileged to have served on this Board.
Historic Site Preservation Board Page 14 of 14
Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Meeting
Board member J. Williams commented that his term is up this month and expressed his
thanks to everyone, thanked Bud Riley and hopes he is watching, and special thanks to
Chair S. Williams and staff.
Board member Grattan added her thanks to everyone and especially to the Desert Sun
Reporter who attends most all these meetings and who truly cares about preservation – and
the news coverage is very good.
13. ADJOURNMENT: Board member J. Williams moved for adjournment, seconded by Board
member Nelson – 6 Yes, 0 No at 10:31 a.m. to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled
HSPB meeting on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. in the large conference room at City
Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Bullock, Associate Planner
HSPB Staff Liaison