HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDmandevillewalterc6DATE: January 3, 2011.
TO: City Council
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo?Yv
Jay Walter, Public Works Director
.•
O COUNCIL
DCDDDIR
O CrrYMGR
o FITDIt
o AM CM
cFIRECHW
o ATTORNEY
o PWDHL
u CIX"JORIG
n POUCECH[W
o PID
n PARRBARECDHL
C TRIBUNE
G UnLDIR
c NEWTBM
o HRDIR
o nOCnYNM
c COUNCIL BCC
o c17YMGR
a CLERK
BY: Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development H_'
Michael McGuire, Engineer, Public Works j UM
SUBJECT: La Loma Adobe Stabilization Project
Council member Carpenter raised the following question:
In light of recent discussions and adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and
Guidelines, are we treating this City owned Historic Resource in the same manner we would if it
were privately owned? I raise this question because of the public's concern about 'financial
hardship" and concessions that are allowed because of it. If this were to come before the CHC
and eventually the City Council from a private owner because of neglect, would we be willing to
forgo the most sensitive part of the adobe to protect the major part of the resource based on
financial constraints? I'm not suggesting that we would treat it differently, I just think we need
to address it publicly so there is no misunderstanding as to why we are not requiring the entire
stabilization to proceed. I just want to make sure we are consistent with the 'process" in dealing
with neglected resources, as it could quite possibly set a precedent on how we deal in the future
with other similar situations.
In reference to the release of liability should the entire adobe wall collapse, would we willing to
support this forgiveness in a privately owned stabilization project that would come before us? I
certainly understand that time is of the essence, however this has come from years of neglect
because of lack ofprioritization. Would we be as equally understanding if it weren't City owned?
Responses:
Funding prioritization for repair work:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were earmarked for repairs to both the
Rosa Butron Adobe on Dana Street and the La Loma Adobe on Lizzie Street. Before the funds
were released, the City needed to make immediate repairs to the Butron Adobe in order to
address a leaking roof and other site concerns. These repairs had been anticipated to be paid for
by the CDBG grant but since the work preceded the award it was not eligible for reimbursement.
Therefore, all of the $110,400 in CDBG funds was re -designated for repair of the La Loma
Adobe. This triggered the need to develop a new project description, conduct additional
environmental review which involved State Historic Preservation Office review, and finally
County concurrence before actual construction and bid documents could be developed and
reviewed through the City's architectural review process.
As part of the Financial Planning process for 2009-2011, Administration Department staff
conducted outreach in the neighborhoods surrounding the three City -owned adobes: the
Rodriguez Adobe in the Edna -Islay area; the La Loma Adobe on Lizzie Street; and the Rosa
Butron Adobe on Dana Street. Public input regarding potential uses of the adobes was sought
and the report was presented to Council for consideration during the goal -setting process.
Ultimately restoration of the adobes was not identified as a Council goal or other important
objective however Council endorsed the use of CDBG grant funds to be used to stabilize the La
Loma Adobe. As discussed during hearings on the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the City
prioritizes funding through a public goal -setting process every two years as the budget is
developed. Complete restoration of the adobes has not been identified as a City goal.
Liability release and economic hardship consideration for work on City -owned adobes:
Every aspect of a City project including construction bid documents and contractor responses are
conducted within the public realm so that any interested citizen can understand the project being
undertaken, how it will be constructed, how much it will cost, and the source of the funding. In
this particular case, the bid returned and the potential bidder comments made clear that the
contract provision requiring complete rebuild of the adobe in the event of wall failure during
construction created a liability for potential costs that exceeded the grant amount available for
the project. Public Works staff worked with the Engineer who developed the plans for the adobe
repair to develop a revision to the project scope that would fit within the grant budget. The work
being done in conjunction with this grant -funded project does not preclude the City from
conducting additional work on the structure when funding is available.
The newly -adopted historic preservation ordinance does contain an economic hardship provision.
This provision allows an applicant who has requested to demolish a listed historic resource and
been denied to demonstrate that denial of the request poses an economic hardship. In this
instance, the City has not applied to demolish the La Loma Adobe but instead is seeking ways to
stabilize and repair the structure with the grant funds available.
The decision to modify the liability provision is occurring as part of a Council agenda item
subject to review and input from the public. This same approach to a privately -owned historic
structure stabilization project would be used where a request for condition modification to
accommodate specific circumstances was submitted. If a project came forward for consideration
as part of an enforcement action, staff would evaluate the project with the same focus: to save the
most historic portions of the structure with the funds available.
The current effort to stabilize the La Loma Adobe is focusing on the core of the adobe structure
in order to ensure the most significant portion of the historic structure is addressed. hi the
opinion of the contractors inspecting the job site, concerns were expressed regarding the risk of
wall failure of the deteriorated walls during a stabilization procedure. Using the grant funds to
address the most deteriorated portion of the structure would not cover the estimated bid amount
due to concerns of the condition of the wall. Council can direct staff to revise the project
description to address this portion of the structure only however additional funding may be
required to cover the cost of the work or the project may need to be revised to comprise a
demolition and reconstruction effort rather than a stabilization effort. Neither of these options
would address the need to stabilize the core of the structure.
G:\CD-PLAN\1KMURRY\City Council Reports\RedFiles\CarpenterAdobeRedFile.doc