Loading...
2003 10 16 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING The Regular Meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California October 16, 2003 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairperson, Leslie Mouriquand at 3:05 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Puente, Sharp, Wilbur, Wright, and Chairperson Mouriquand. Staff Present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Martin Magana, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Sharp to approve the Minutes of September 18, 2003 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Continued - Point Happv Ranch Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. Applicant: Madison Development Paleontological Consultant: McKenna et ai, Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Location: West side of Washington Street, south of Highway 111 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 1 6, 2003 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairperson Mouriquand introduced Jeanette McKenna, Consultant. 3. Consultant McKenna was in attendance to clarify any issues and or redundancies in her report. She asked if there was a request for more documentation on the Bradshaw Trail. She stated she had the historic map which showed the trail, but there was no physical evidence of the trail left on the property. She asked what additional research the Commission wanted. 4. Chairperson Mouriquand replied there was no more physical documentation to do. The Commission was interested in looking at more discussion about putting the site in a regional context. She stated this might be the last opportunity to request complete documentation for the historic and prehistoric time periods of this property. The Historic Preservation Commission is a Certified Local Government and has the right and privilege to nominate this property to the National Register. It is the Commission's opinion this is one of the gem, historic properties within La Quinta and is requesting a complete and adequate discussion of all the time periods and the cumulative historicity of the property with the idea it could be nominated to the Historic Register if it is determined to be eligible. 5. Consultant McKenna commented she was trying to separate the prehistoric discussion from the historic. She asked if the Commission wanted the trail, as an entity, addressed to the National Register, or if that argument was only for the historic component. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it was more for the historic component. 6. Commissioner Wright asked if there was photographic documentation of any historic remnants of the trail on the property. 7. Consultant McKenna replied there was none. She noted historic maps and the general history show the area was 2 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 traversed as late as the 1850's when those maps were produced. Consultant McKenna stated this was documented in an earlier report. She stated the recommendation for monitoring was made because the entire Valley should be declared sensitive and there's a chance something may be found pre-dating the 1858 map. 8. Commissioner Wright commented this information was adequate. 9. Planning Manager Orci stated the Commission had indicated they would like the reports included, especially regarding the Bradshaw Trail, the stage coach line, the wells, and the adjacent villages and trails. 10. Chairperson Mouriquand stated the report needed more discussion which should include the layers of time, the trails, the roads going through, and the fact this was an earlier circulation area connecting all the villages and stage stops together. It was considered highly significant. 11 . Consultant McKenna asked if the Commission was looking for a more detailed report regarding the pre-Point Happy discussion. Chairperson Mouriquand replied that was correct. 12. Commissioner Wright added they also wanted the available history on the area surrounding the property, such as the information regarding the stage line. 13. Consultant McKenna asked if any of the information was available in the City's Historic Context Statement. 14. Chairperson Mouriquand stated there were things of value in the Context Statement and added there should be two copies of this report on file in the Eastern Information Center. 15. Consultant McKenna said she had seen a handwritten map, from CRM Tech, with ownership names and she had used that map to obtain information for her report. 3 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 16. Chairperson Mouriquand said there was a 1917 ownership, by parcel, map available at the City of La Quinta. The master is at the Coachella Valley Museum, in Indio. 17. Consultant McKenna stated she would have to go back through all the reports but felt she had covered the whole ownership and didn't believe there was any further research necessary on the ownership. 18. Chairperson Mouriquand agreed and added there could be more research on particular individuals who were connected with the property; i.e., Chauncey Clark, and Happy Lundbeck. The Commission was interested in any information that would be helpful in making a case for eligibility for the National Register. 19. Consultant McKenna replied her research showed the Clark ownership was more significant than any association to Lundbeck. Happy Lundbeck was in the general area, but not directly associated with this property other than having owned it at one time. But the Clarks were the ones responsible for altering and developing the property. Mr. Clark's presence was very limited and Mrs. Clark was actually responsible for most of the improvements. The local people, that occupied the site, were more representative of what was going on than the property owners. 20. Commissioner Wright asked if the Consultant had spoken to Louise Neeley. 21. Consultant McKenna replied she had a brief discussion with her. She was provided with some materials, and given the names of two other people to contact on background as Ms. Neeley was leaving on an extended trip to Europe. Ms. McKenna then asked if the Commission was actually looking for a National Register nomination package, or the research for a future nomination package. Chairperson Mouriquand replied the 4 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 report would be the first step in the nomination process. Ms. McKenna confirmed the Commission was looking for a technical document with all the information needed for a future nomination. She asked if the research comes back negative what would the Commission's position be. 22. Chairperson Mouriquand stated the Commission would take the recommendation as advisory and proceed accordingly. 23. Consultant McKenna stated her concern was the research showed most of the physical remains on the property were significantly changed and there is nothing representative of the Clark period. Whole features, such as the corrals, the horse track, and the stables are completely gone. She would need to interview folks who actually lived there, or near by to get additional information. The property is unique in that there was such a long period of time represented. She asked if the Commission was more concerned about the Clark period. 24. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it was the totality of the prehistoric and historic time periods and the cultural value of the property. 25. Consultant McKenna asked how much of the modern period did the Commission want included. 26. Chairperson Mouriquand replied through the 1960's. The property has a lot of symbolism as far as a cultural landscape. The Commission does not wish to single out a particular time period as more significant than the other, it's the composite package of value on the property. 27. Consultant McKenna stated she understood the National Register approach to the research. The property could be declared National Register eligible because of the association of certain persons to the property. If it was potentially eligible, this would not preclude development of the project. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it was not the Commission's goal to stop or alter the project, but just to completely document it and if it affords certain statuses, then the City may be interested in pursuing a National Register nomination. 5 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 1 6, 2003 28. Consultant McKenna stated she was wondering about timing, and if there is any particular reason the work could not proceed in tandem with the development of the project. Chairperson Mouriquand replied there is no reason why construction/development could not proceed. 29. Planning Manager Orci asked if the Commission wished to establish some thresholds for the project regarding receipt of permits prior to the completion of the review. 30. Chairperson Mouriquand replied monitoring would be needed. If the results of the monitoring yield something important this should reflect on the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 31. Consultant McKenna asked if she could proceed on the maps, or with just the plan check. Staff replied she would be allowed to proceed. 32. Commissioner Wright stated the Commission did not want to hold up the project. That was not their intent. A Certificate of Occupancy would be acceptable. Staff stated this would satisfy recommendation number one in the staff report. 33. Consultant McKenna asked if the Commission wanted to see a final document after grading, or one that addresses the National Register issues prior to the grading, and amend the report if something were found during grading; or does the Commission want two different reports. 34. Commissioner Wright said it could be one ongoing report. Staff added it would have to be completed before the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 35. Chairperson Mouriquand added that was correct and asked when the Certificate of Occupancy was expected to be issued. Staff replied it depended upon the project schedule, but it should afford time to prepare the documents. 6 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 36. Applicant Rick Wilkerson was introduced. He stated they planned on submitting site plan and grading permits in another month and a half. They are estimating 60 to 90 days for the City to process the paperwork and then they will start construction. Construction should take six months. He estimates 10 to 12 months until the first Certificate of Occupancy is requested. 37. Consultant McKenna said if the on-site monitoring was conducted during the initial grading times, before actual construction that would allow almost six months to complete everything. 38. Planning Manager Orci stated he saw two is.sues. First the completion of the report and second, providing the technical data for National Register eligibility. 39. Consultant McKenna asked if the Commission wanted her to re-do the Phase I report or continued to complete the packet. Chairperson Mouriquand answered just an addendum, or subsequent report. 40. Consultant McKenna replied it could all be incorporated into the final technical report which would address the National Register and generate an entirely new report based on the additional research, the oral interviews, the results of the grading monitoring and any new information obtained. 41 . Chairperson Mouriquand stated it might be worthwhile to have Ms. McKenna come back with a progress report regarding the new data obtained from the monitoring. 42. Consultant McKenna said she anticipated she would be doing site plans if any pre-history was found. 7 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October t 6, 2003 43. Planning Manager Orci stated this brought up a third issue which is the results of the monitoring program which is part of the CEQA analysis and the Environmental Assessment. This is typically handled on an administrative level. Does the Commission want to leave the monitoring to staff. The Environmental Assessment and monitoring program can be independently reviewed, separate from the National Register eligibility and the technical report. It can then be reviewed and a threshold placed that prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy a Phase I, or addendum to the Phase I shall be completed. These should possibly be considered as three separate thresholds in order to move the project on. 44. Consultant McKenna suggested keeping the project as straightforward as possible. The Phase I report can be upgraded in the next four to six weeks prior to grading. If the Commission is satisfied with the upgrade of the Phase I report, the National Register research can begin and we can complete the monitoring report. We can then report the results of the monitoring program virtually immediately. In between the time of the end of the monitoring and issuance of an Occupancy Permit, both the monitoring and the National Register documents could be completed for review. Issuance of the Occupancy Permit would be dependent on the Commission's comments and satisfaction with the documents. 45. Commissioner Wilber agreed and added the consultant was very conscientious in her approach in the reports already completed. 46. Commissioner Sharp agreed an interim report would help the Commission monitor the progress of the project. 47. Consultant McKenna stated an update could be available by the next Commission meeting. 48. Commissioner Puente agreed, but wanted to discuss the historic gate. 49. Planning Manager Orci asked if the Commission wanted one interim report on Phase I as well as the National Register eligibility. 8 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 50. Consultant McKenna stated she would complete the Phase I report first, including the preliminary research for the National Register. She said they may not have all of the Oral History done, and would need to get direction from the Historical Society as to what format should be used as far as their system criteria. We will extrapolate from the Oral History material needed for the Phase I report and carry it further for the National Register since the Phase I is still a CEQA document. 51 . Planning Manager Orci said he would like to set a threshold to keep the two issues separate. If the Commission agrees we would want to wrap up the Phase I independent of the National Register eligibility prior to the first issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Then this Commission would review National eligibility requirements independent of the Phase I. Also, would the Commission like to review the monitoring, or would they allow the staff to do that? 52. Chairperson Mouriquand replied the Commission would be interested in looking at the monitoring report. 53. Consultant McKenna stated their monitoring policy was to have one or more monitors as well as taking more photos than necessary. The monitors are usually on site in the morning, when the grading starts, and they stay until grading is over. The schedule is accommodated in the field, and certain things are to their discretion. If it's too active an area to adequately cover additional personnel may be brought in. If something comes up we have the authority to halt activity in an area until we can come to a conclusion whether it's something that can be handled under the monitoring program, or will require some sort of an alteration of the activity and schedule. Does the Commission want to be involved or called when something comes up in the field? 54. Commission Wright suggested she contact a staff person. 55. Consultant McKenna asked how much discretion she had if evidence of the Palm Grove, or the pre-historic trail were found, and would the Commission want to visit the site. 9 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 56. Chairperson Mouriquand said the City's policy in conditioning every project is when monitoring is required they also require monitoring of the related off-sites which can include trenching, utility lines, and road improvements that are adjacent and part of this whole project development. So, what we want monitored is not just within the confines of the building envelope but the trenching and any project related improvements. 57. Consultant McKenna asked if there is an off-site storage yard, would she need to monitor that area. Chairperson Mouriquand replied yes. 58. Planning Manager Orci added the Commission might want to add the standard Conditions of Approval which indicate trenching and off-site grading are included in the monitoring. 59. Consultant McKenna asked what the City's policy was on requiring, or not requiring Native America participation. Were they needed on site, or only to be called in when something of Native American origin is found. 60. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it was usually on an on- call basis. If the Tribe was insistent on having a monitor there, then we would want to work cooperatively with the Band. We don't condition projects to have full-time Native Americans monitors present. 61. Consultant McKenna replied she would proceed on the basis if something is located, the Native Americans would be contacted. 62. Chairperson Mouriquand said they would probably be called for anything after the pre-historic period, such as human remains. 63. Planning Manager Orci stated Principal Planner Sawa had brought up one of the standard conditions which is the final report on monitoring is submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first production home building permit. Typically, after mass grading an applicant will want to do the model complex and that procedure is started immediately after grading 10 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 while they're finishing up the monitoring report. If it is the Commission's desire we would like to maintain that protocol unless directed otherwise. The only difference being it will be submitted to the Commission instead of the Community Development Department for review. 64. Consultant McKenna stated if the monitoring contains a negative finding, the report will be done immediately. It would only be delayed if artifact or, site forms need to be prepared. 65. Planning Manager Orci added the report also requested the balance of the standard conditions be required such as curation. 66. Consultant McKenna asked what should happen to any artifacts, if found. 67. Chairperson Mouriquand replied the City has adopted Curation Policies. The City will determine what to do with the artifacts. 68. Consultant McKenna added the Commission can make the decision whether or not any historic remains need to be kept or de-accessioned. She then asked if a draft of the Amended Phase I was needed by the next meeting. Staff replied the Commission would need to discuss that and coordinate with staff. 69. Planning Manager Orci said there was one other item to discuss and that was the gate issue. Staff was recommending they work with the applicant to locate the gate in an appropriate location, under the Commission's direction. 70. Chairperson Mouriquand stated the Commission wanted to leave the gate in situ and re-design the entryway to accommodate the gate. 11 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 71. Applicant Wilkerson asked to address this issue. He showed a picture of the gate in question and asked to read into the record a copy of the letter received from Christopher Kiernan (copy attached). He added, as a backdrop to this letter, the name Point Happy was probably only known by a few people in this whole Valley. Madison Development re-invented the name Point Happy, kept and promoted the Point Happy name as an area that is of interest for tourists to come by and see. When they purchased the Point Happy Ranch they understood the gate was not old and was new. They appreciated the history of the site as well as the name and decided to retain the history in the name of the development - The Estates at Point Happy Ranch. They have consistently promoted the idea of Point Happy being a place that occurred in time and want people to know that when they buy a home here, shop, or eat at the Point Happy Commercial Center, this is part of the history of this area. The street names chosen, Clark Court, Bradshaw Trail, and Heritage Way continue this heritage. He asked Why they had to preserve a gate and look that wasn't even in existence until 1977. He felt it was enough to maintain the area with "Point Happy Ranch" included in the name and to have the new gate state that. He did not wish to have an wooden sign at the entry. He added, in respect to the Kiernan's, they offered to put the gate in the retention pond, which is inside and on private streets. They just don't feel they should be held to a guideline that has no bearing in history regarding that specific gate. 72. Chairperson Mouriquand replied there is a permit indicating whether the gate is of a historic resource. If not, that may need to be corrected. In regards to the Point Happy Ranch, the name is widely known. If the developer has evidence this is not a historic gate then the Commission will be happy to look at the letter. The Commission would then have to do further research to see if this is gate does need to be preserved in situ. 73. Consultant McKenna stated she thought the oral histories and photographs would clarify this matter. 12 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 74. Applicant Wilkerson said they have tried to promote the name of Point Happy. They would like to offer a compromise in keeping with the theme that we are trying to produce here. First of all, the gates are rusted out and the entrance is small. We have worked on an idea with Ron Gregory, to reproduce a section of the gate to make it bigger, more elaborate, but basically the same look, to cover the entire entrance. The gates would be the same type of gates. As you drive through they would open one on each side. We would put the name Point Happy Ranch in the gate. I don't think a wood painted sign is the look they want. A plaque would be placed on the gate stating it is a historic location. 75. Commissioner Wright said if the eXisting gate was produced, or built, in the 70's, he didn't think anybody on the Commission would have a problem with what was suggested. If the gate was made in 1977 there's no reason to keep it in the front area as it is not historic. 76. Applicant Wilkerson suggested they obtain an affidavit from Mark Kiernan as to the year it was built. 77. Commissioner Wright replied he knew Chris Kiernan and he was a good source of information. The Commission, however, would like to go back and check the oral history as well as look at the early photographs of the property. 78. Consultant McKenna said it may be the gate is actually a replication of something that was gone for awhile and was brought back. 79. Chairperson Mouriquand stated the County started issuing building permits in 1950, and a building permit may have been issued for the gate's construction. She suggested looking at the County's building permit archive. 13 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 80. Consultant McKenna said she usually did more photography than necessary for her reports, and they would be available to be archived. All of the reports will be sent to the Historical Society and the Information Center. All the criteria for compliance with the Historical Society and the City will be met. One of the main goals of the interviews will be to verify what the physical remains on the site represent, including the gate. 81. Commissioner Wright stated he liked the idea of keeping the Point Happy concept alive, but the gate did not need to be included if it was not historic. 82. Commissioner Wilbur stated the information on the gate should be validated by one, or two other sources. If the gate is not historic, then there should be some other symbolic representation of the Point Happy idea. 83. The applicant's representative Ed Alderson, asked if the Commission would like to see the plan when it is available. 84. Commissioner Wright said they would. He added the gate does not have to be replicated exactly. He felt the project should retain the same type of feeling the property had in the 1920's. 85. Applicant Wilkerson agreed that was the same type of atmosphere they were trying to keep. 86. Commissioner Sharp said he saw no artistic value in the current gate. He was concerned about the location of the existing gate in relation to what was planned inside. He suggested they make a gate that says Point Happy Ranch in the Spanish or Tuscan style, possible with some tiles on it. 87. Commissioner Puente said she agreed they should find out about the date of the gate before making a decision. 88. Chairperson Mouriquand suggested they table the issue of the gate until they have further information. 14 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 89. Consultant McKenna said she would make sure the research is included in the amended report after she researches the permits. 90. Planning Manager Orci suggested the applicant research the data as soon as possible. If this is not an original gate or does not have significant historical value the Commission may want to direct staff to work with the applicant to replicate the gate entry unless it is of historical significance. The matter will then be brought back to the Commission for review. 91. Chairperson Mouriquand and Commissioner Wright concurred. 92. Applicant Wilkerson asked if he could go ahead and process the final map. 93. Chairperson Mouriquand replied the Commission was seeking additional substantiation on whether the gate is historic before proceeding. 94. Consultant McKenna said she would check the building permits which would show the approved design and the date it was approved. She will provide the information as soon as it is obtained to help staff schedule a meeting to discuss the matter further. 95. Applicant Wilkerson commented the gate was never useable as an entrance. 96. Chairperson Mouriquand replied the Commission was not requesting that option. The Commission's concern was with the historicity of the gate. The concern was retaining it in situ. It would not be a functional gate, but to move it to the back part of the property would deny the public the opportunity to continue to view this historic resource. The Commission is suggesting the gate component itself be incorporated into a perimeter wall treatment. 97. Commissioner Wright added the request was based on the fact the gate was historic. 15 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 98. Planning Manager Orci commented for the purposes of CEQA the gates need to be preserved on site, with no specification as to where. The Commission can add additional information indicating it is a significant historical resource with the location to be decided at a later date. 99. Chairperson Mouriquand stated the important aspect was the documentation because, in the future, the gate may be considered historic. It has been documented and that is what needs to be done. However, if it is documented as a historic gate, the Commission would like the opportunity to confirm, or refute, that and have the opportunity to reconsider what is to be done with it. The County records should provide adequate evidence of when the gate was built. 100. Applicant Wilkerson asked if the gate has some historic significance would it be acceptable to incorporate the gate into the boundary fence for public view. And if it isn't, would they have to do anything except what has been previously discussed. He wanted to know if there was any reason to hold up getting a final map, considering the agreements discussed. 101. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it shouldn't hold up getting a final map as long as the design accommodates preservation in situ, should that be the determination. 102. Applicant Wilkerson stated that was fine as long as the gate was moved. 103. Chairperson Mouriquand replied in situ meant "in place"; without moving it. There seems to be no reason why the project cannot be re-designed to accommodate that request. 104. Applicant Wilkerson replied they felt the historic tree was of more significance than anything else. They eliminated two lots to retain the tree. The gate could be moved down, but there would still be an entrance that preserves the tree. 16 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 105. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it may not be structurally feasible to move the gate. It might be wiser, in the long run, to leave it where it is. 106. Consultant McKenna commented she would need a day or two with the County records. On the off chance the gate was built without a permit she would rely on other information from the Historical Society or photos that can be dated. She commented that maybe the Kiernan's had photos of the property when they bought it that showed the gate wasn't there. That would help verify the dates. 107. Planning Manager Orci summarized the discussion into the following points: 1. if the gate is not of significant historical value, staff is directed to work with the applicant to design a gate similar to the present gate; 2. to modify the CEOA document indicating the gate is of no significant value; and, 3. if the gate is historical, the CEOA document will not be altered and will indicate the gate is to remain on site. He asked if that was sufficient for CEOA documentation purposes. 108. Chairperson Mouriquand said it was fine for CEOA purposes, but added as far as what staff was asking, if the discussion in the Environmental Assessment was going to be adequate, because it didn't state in situ, it should designate preservation on site which could be anywhere in the project. She asked the Commissioners if they wanted language to state specifically "in situ". 1 09. Commissioner Wright said he was not comfortable with the phrase "on site". It is too vague. He said the Commission would need to discuss the location of the gate if it is historic. He did not wish to have it placed in the common area. 110. Commissioner Puente asked if the matter could be discussed after the revised report was received. 111. Commissioner Wright commented on the way the gate at Tradition was handled. The gate was not moved. The road was moved and documented historically. 17 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 112. Chairperson Mouriquand said there was not enough information to conclude the CEQA document and go forward. These documents could not be completed until Ms. McKenna could determine the date the gate was built. 113. Planning Manager Orci stated this project would then be delayed because the CEQA finding had not been adequately addressed. 114. Consultant McKenna suggested this might be answered as soon as she checks the County records. 115. Commissioner Wright added Ms. McKenna could deal with staff if the gate is not historical. There is no reason to come back to the Commission. 116. Consultant McKenna asked if there was no permit she would advise staff and let them know she would need more time to investigate the date the gate was constructed. 117. Planning Manager Orci stated Ms. McKenna could work with staff. He then re-stated the Commission's direction that the project can move forward if the gate is not historical, delete that item from the CEQA document and move the project forward. If it is found it is of historical significance it will be brought back to the Commission. 118. Applicant Wilkerson thanked the Commission. 123. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2003-012 accepting the Point Happy Ranch Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment with added conditions as follows: a The applicant shall provide an Addendum to the Phase I report which includes additional information on trails and any other significant historical aspect of the property. b. The Paleontological Consultant shall concurrently continue the technical report on eligibility criteria for the National Register. 18 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 c. The Phase I Report shall be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. d. The technical report independently by the Commission at a future date. shall be Historic considered Preservation e. 1). If the gate is not of significant historical value, staff is directed to work with the applicant to design a gate similar to the present gate; 2). To modify the CEQA document indicating the gate is of no significant value; and, 3). If the gate is historical, the CEQA document will not be altered and will indicate the gate is to remain on site. Unanimously approved. B. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citv's SilverRock Ranch 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the Kennedy House had been documented before it was torn down. 3. Staff replied it had not been since it was not considered historic. 4. Commissioner Wright commented the Kennedy house had been vandalized and had been in very poor condition. There was nothing left that was salvageable. 5. Chairperson Mouriquand said the house had been empty for years, but it would have been to nice to have had the property documented prior to demolition. Staff asked why a non-historic building would be documented. 6. Chairperson Mouriquand stated that there are times when buildings have cultural value without being 50 years old. Sometimes they provide information for settlement patterns, or contribute to the history of the area, etc. 7. Commissioner Wright commented the Commission would have preferred photographs be taken of the site before demolition. 19 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 1 6, 2003 8. Chairperson Mouriquand commented what may not be considered historical today will, in time, reach an age criteria that would make it historical. 9. Planning Manager Orci said he believed the house did not contain anything of significance architecturally, or as a significant settlement. 10. Chairperson Mouriquand said the property was originally a homesteaded ranch, although the Kennedys were not the homesteaders. They were subsequent owners and there is history in the property. There was a large map produced several years ago including this historic property. Since there was no attempt to do research, or documentation, we have lost an opportunity to document some of our history. 11. Planning Manager Orci replied the report indicates that the residence was completed post-1950's, and it contains no features of any historic significance 12. Staff stated this report was done while the building was still standing. 13. Chairperson Mouriquand asked who prepared the report. Staff replied Ms. McKenna 14. Chairperson Mouriquand said the Ahmanson house and the related structures were approximately 42 years old now. Legally they have not reached the 50 year mark, but are part of a certain settlement era with some historic value to the latter period of settlement in La Quinta. If it had been a 50 year old building we would probably have evoked the Federal Standards as we did with the Tradition Club (Hacienda del Gato) for adaptive re-use. If this building is to be used as a temporary clubhouse, what impact would there be to the structure during and after it is no longer being used for that purpose? 15. Staff replied the Redevelopment Agency has not yet decided what would happen to it after its use as a clubhouse. A lot would depend upon what the architect found structurally, seismically, etc. The building was documented, but was never included in the report. 20 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 16. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the City was going to go through a Seismic structural analysis before the building would be used as a temporary clubhouse. Staff replied yes. She asked if depending upon the outcome of the study would that determine whether it would be used as a temporary clubhouse. Staff replied that was correct. She also added there was a possibility the house could be demolished. Staff replied that was not a current consideration. Chairperson Mouriquand asked how long the building would be used as a temporary clubhouse. Staff replied a maximum of two years. 17. Commissioner Wright asked if there were plans to retain the immediate grounds and the pool. Staff replied the pool would probably be eliminated. There is a need for temporary golf cart storage, parking, and access to the clubhouse. If it is used it would be retrofitted and brought up to State Seismic standards. The design of the temporary clubhouse would be such that it could be used for other functions after it is no longer a clubhouse. It may even be used as a community building, but that decision has not yet been made. 18. Commissioner Wright asked if the pool could be turned into a putting green, like the one at The Tradition. Staff replied the pool would be covered as the design plan shows a lake being put in this area. 19. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the pool would be removed and replaced with a golf course lake. Staff drew a diagram showing placement of the clubhouse, pool and amenities in the area. She then asked if there was intent to keep the building and use it for something else. Staff replied yes. She then asked if all the outbuildings would be demolished. Staff replied yes. 20. Commissioner Wright asked if those structures were salvageable. 21. Staff indicated that the project is progressing. The Palmer Group will be doing the first golf course. Grading is scheduled to begin the first part of January, or February of 2004. The City is trying to have the course ready for play by January, or February of 2005 depending on the growing season for the Bermuda. If the grass season were missed, then it would not be opened until the Fall of 2005. 21 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 22. Commissioner Sharp asked about a specific area on the map. Community Development Director Jerry Herman replied it was previously planned as youth group golf course, but was taken out of the plan and its use is currently undecided at this time. It could possibly be used for parking for scheduled events, and has many potential uses. 23. Chairperson Mouriquand asked about mitigation of the site. Staff replied there will be an on-site monitor during all the grading and trenching activities. 24. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the Commissioners felt any kind of monitoring was warranted for the temporary use of the house. She then asked if the house would be modified, including possibly tearing down walls. Staff replied there would be no exterior modification, just interior to meet the ADA, Code, and Seismic retrofit requirements. 25. Commissioner Wright requested they save as much of the interior as possible because that was one of the most attractive features of the site, including the wood beams. Staff said they may have to take out some walls because more room may be needed then what the current rooms allow. The Agency was authorized to negotiate with an architect and staff will not have any information until an architect is hired. 26. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the architect could make a presentation to the Commission as to what changes were proposed. Staff stated they could not commit one way or the other. That was a decision the Agency would have to ultimately make, but would refer the request to them. 27. Commissioner Wright stated he would like the City to do as much documentation as possible, prior to any building alterations. This area is very historic and important to the City of La Quinta. There's a lot of history in the Ahmanson Ranch. We should save as much as possible. He stated it would be nice if the architect could give the Commission a small presentation on what was going to be done to the house. Staff stated they would forward the request. 22 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 28. Chairperson Mouriquand said the Secretary of Interior Standards would typically be the criteria applied to an adaptive re-use of a valid historic structure or resource; bearing in mind not every structure has to be 50 years old before it can be deemed a significant property for preservation and proper treatment. This Commission is interested in seeing what exactly will happen to the structure. 29. Planning Manager Orci added this building was surveyed, and it was not accepted or included because nothing noteworthy was found for the building 30. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if that was based on the Mellon survey. Staff replied it was. She replied it is our right and privilege as a Certified Local Government to deem anything to be of a cultural or historic significant to the City. It does not have to be 50 years old before it is deemed locally significant. 31. Commissioner Wright asked if it was possible to document the house with photographs before anything is done. Staff replied that it was. He asked if the house, the pool, and the whole area could be photographed. 32. Chairperson Mouriquand added no matter what happens to the house there would be photo documentation including all the outbuildings, inside and outside and a site map. 33. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners WrighUPuente to adopt Minute Motion 2003-013 to adopt the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City's SilverRock Ranch as presented with the recommendation that photographic documentation be included in the City's Historical database and a presentation be made to the Commission, by the designated architect, of the updated plans for altering the Ranch house. Unanimously approved. C. Historic Preservation Commission Work Proqram 1. Planning Manager, Oscar Orci, gave an update on the Work Program, which included the following points: a. An updated issue of the Historic Modifications will be made to the once all comments are received. Context Statement. Historic Context 23 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2003 b. Comments received from the Commission will be incorporated into the survey. It will then be sent out to the list of interested parties. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Sharp to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on November 20, 2003. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:34 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by, (IiliiJ-tLjx) lC)d.lbiL; Carolyn Walker Secretary 24