The POLITICALIZATION of The Scout House

  

BACKGROUND:

The City's Local Coastal Program, certified by the California Coastal Commission in November 2004, includes as part of the Land Use & Community Character Element, Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation, an Inventory of Historic Resources and supporting documentation in the form of California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory Forms (DPR 523s) on each historic residence, commercial building, object and district.

In May 2005, City Administrator Rich Guillen placed a "Consideration of an historic determination for an existing City-owned structure located in the Residential & Limited Commercial District" (Scout House, NE corner Mission & 8th Av.) on the Historic Resources Board's agenda. The Historic Resources Board decided to "place the Scout House on Carmel Historic Resource Inventory" (Ayes: Coss, Henney, Wendt; Noes: Lagerholm; Absent: Holz) Later, in July 2005, Guillen placed the "Consideration of a request to reconsider a previous decision to place a structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources" on the Historic Resources Board's agenda. The Historic resources Board reaffirmed their May 2005 decision leaving "the Scout House on the City Historic Register" (Ayes: Coss, Holz, Wendt, Henney; Noes: Lagerholm). Yet months later, City Administrator Guillen pledged to place the item on an upcoming 2006 City Council agenda. And Associate Planner Sean Conroy recently stated that the City Council would decide the Scout House issue soon.

THE DOCUMENTED RECORD:

Architectural historians Kent Seavy and Katherine Gualtieri evaluated the Scout House and determined the Scout House to be an historic resource. Architectural historian Sheila McElroy concluded that the Scout House may be an historic resource if Seavy augmented his original DPR Form 523; Seavy subsequently augmented the Scout House's DPR Form 523. Jones & Stokes, architectural historians, hired by Denise Duffy & Associates, affirmed the Scout House as a historic resource in the Flanders Mansion Property Environmental Impact Report (EIR). And the City Historic Resources Board twice concluded that the Scout House is an historic resource.

Interestingly, while the Scout House IS NOT listed on the latest Inventory of Historic Resources (dated 1/26/06), the Scout House's DPR Form 523 is among the 310 DPRs at the Planning Department, City Hall. Thus, City Administrator Guillen erred in placing the "consideration of an historic determination" and "consideration of a request to reconsider a previous decision" on the Historic Resources Board's May and July 2005 agendas by virtue of Seavy's completed DPR Form 523 on the Scout House; City Administrator Guillen should have followed the procedure for removing a resource from the Inventory. Specifically, City Administrator Guillen should have followed Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, Chapter 17.32 Historic Preservation, 17.32.070 Maintaining the Inventory D. Removal of Resources from the Inventory.

QUESTIONS:

Despite overwhelming written documentation by architectural historians that the Scout House is an historic resource, City Administrator Rich Guillen placed a "Consideration of a historic determination" and a "Consideration of a request to reconsider a previous decision" on the Historic Resources Board's agendas and pledged to place the item on a 2006 City Council agenda. WHY? Is the Scout House the latest example of a politically-motivated, pre-determined conclusion trumping overwhelming expert evidence?