Loading...
2003 04 03 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Special meeting held at the La Ouinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Ouinta, CA April 3, 2003 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Leslie Mouriquand at 3:03 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 Irwin, Puente, Sharp, Wright and Chairman Mouriquand. Staff Present: Planning Manager, Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT:None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: None. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Archaeoloaical Testina and Evaluation Report for Site CA-RIV-6769 (Tentative Tract 30487) Applicant: Santa Rosa Developers (David Brudvik) Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Michael Hogan, Principal) 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. Commissioner Sharp asked about the significance of the rocks found at the site. He asked if they had something to do with an Indian Encampment. Applicant, David Brudvik replied the original Site Survey stated it was a historic site, but actually had date palms with an old trailer, dune buggy, and well site with people living there. The rocks were related to the contemporary site and not an Indian Encampment. IICLQADMFSI IPLANNINGlCAROL YNlHist Pres ComlHPC 4-3-03A.doc 1 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3. 2003 3. Chairman Mouriquand asked if anyone from CRM TECH was in attendance to answer questions. Mr. Brudvik replied he had recommended monitoring and thought Mr. Hogan would not need to attend. 4. Chairman Mouriquand asked why monitoring was not recommended in the archaeology report. Although it seemed appropriate, she would like to hear what the CRM TECH representative would recommend. She also asked whether the report had been submitted to the local tribe organizations for their comments. Staff replied this information was unknown. 5. Commissioner Irwin stated she agreed with requiring monitoring. Mr. Brudvik stated he had contracted with CRM TECH to do the monitoring. 6. Chairman Mouriquand stated she was impressed with the report. She also commented on how the reports were getting better as far as discussion and research. She stated she just wanted to go on record she thought the research design discussion was excellent and wanted to see this kind of information in every report. Mr. Brudvik commented he would be using this firm on all of his future projects. 7. Chairman Mouriquand stated she would like to know about the ceramic analysis and how the significance determination was made, but since there was no representative in attendance she did not have a problem with the report as long as the monitoring was required. Mr. Brudvik indicated that the Public Works Department stated they would not issue a grading permit until they had a copy of the monitoring contract. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Irwin to adopt Minute Motion 2003-004 accepting the Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report for Site CA-RIV-6769 (Tentative Tract 30487) with monitoring as requested by staff. Unanimously approved. B. Archaeoloqical Testinq and Mitiqation Reoort for Site CA-RIV-6134 (St. Francis of Assisi Church) Applicant: St. Francis of Assisi Church Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Michael Hogan, Principal) IICLaADMFS1\PLANNINGlCAROLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 2 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3. 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. Commissioner Sharp had a question as to where the property was located in relationship to the Church. Commissioner Wright replied it was between the Church and the Arts Foundation property. 3. Commissioner Irwin asked that the staff indicate what will happen to the collected archaeological and paleontological resources and all of the reports where monitoring occurs. Staff replied it had not been added to staff reports as the report stated the artifacts were being given to the City. 4. Staff stated they would be included in the recommendations even if recommended in the body of the report. 5. Chairman Mouriquand asked why the report was done in 2001, and the Commission was just getting it. Staff replied the project was on hold until just recently. 6. Commissioner Irwin asked why monitoring of trenching was not being required. As this report was not current, it did not include all the recommendations the Commission currently requests on all reports. 7. Chairman Mouriquand asked if this report was to modify an existing set of conditions. Staff replied no, it was for a Phase II testing. 8. Commissioner Irwin made the recommendation to include the same conditions of approval from the first report the Commission heard (Tentative Tract 30487), the standard for future reports. Staff stated the report conclusion indicated the recommendation for on and off- site earth moving but it could be added in the recommendations. 9. Chairman Mouriquand stated the report states the older occupation was a pre-ceramic one. She said that was a significant statement to be made since there was no discussion in the report to justify it. She added it was commonly thought ceramics entered this area around 900 AD. So, if this was the case, this would be 200 years later. She also said the old adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" needed to be considered here. Just because no pot sherds were found, doesn't mean that ceramics were not utilized at that time period. She said she did not see where that was discussed. She IICLQAOMFS 1 IPLANNINGICAROL YNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3. 2003 was concerned the report jumped to a conclusion that could not be substantiated. More testing at additional sites would be needed to confirm this conclusion. 10. Commissioner Irwin commented there have been several sites dating previous to this one and it would be interesting to look at those sites and find out what was found because as it is all in the same geographic area. 11. Chairman Mouriquand said it was time to put the pU2zle together to see what sites there were in the City, for the record, this was a very significant statement, but the conclusion was premature. Other than that, it was a good report. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2003-005 accepting the Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report - Site CA- RIV-6134 - St. Francis of Assisi Church Property with the addition of the following conditions: A. The site shall be monitored during on and off-site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological and paleontological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth-moving or clearing permit. B. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the area covered by this report. C. Collected archaeological and paleontological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self- seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid- free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to the final inspection. Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. Unanimously approved. \\CLOADMFS1IPLANNINGICAROLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 4 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 C, Work Proaram 1. Planning Manager, Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Mouriquand suggested staff research the possibility of mitigation banking as a form of accruing funds to publish brochures, plaques, and other items for public education. A legal nexus could be crafted and a development fee could be charged, as a mitigation measure. The money would then go into a fund for historic preservation. Staff replied they would check with the City Attorney about the possibility of pursuing that procedure. 3. Chairman Mouriquand asked for comments on Item Number One - Updating of the City's Historic Structure Inventory. 4. Commissioner Sharp asked if the definition of what is historic was anything older than 50 years. Staff replied that was the current definition along with a coding sequence of level of importance. Staff explained further the survey was to be updated to include any houses that were 50 years old but eliminating those buildings which were not relevant. 5. Commissioner Sharp stated the Commission needed some parameters. Staff replied there was a coding system listing the properties by relevant importance. 6. Chairman Mouriquand commented the criteria used in the first inventory was the Secretary of Interior Standards. Anything subsequent to that survey would have to follow the same Federal standards. 7. Commissioner Wright was concerned that properties were missed in the first inventory. It would be a priority to include any properties that were missed. He was concerned about how to prevent any further demolition permits from being issued for properties without first checking with the Commission regarding their historic importance. Planning Manager Orci replied guidelines were needed to identify these properties and to set up a protocol of review for all \ICLOADMFS1IPLANNINGlCAROLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 5 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3. 2003 City Departments prior to the issuance of demolition permits, as well as the residents and applicants, so they would be aware of what is necessary to develop on historic properties. 8. Commissioner Wright stated he thought it was entirely up to staff. Staff agreed the City needed to be aware of these sites. but it was also their responsibility to alert residents and applicants of their property designations and how that would affect them as far as development and demolition were concerned. There is currently no procedure set up to check on, or block, demolition of historical sites. 9. Chairman Mouriquand stated staff needed to prepare a composite map identifying those properties, within the City, classifying them under some coding system and distribute the map to all departments in the City to have it become routine for every department to check. Staff concurred. 10. Chairman Mouriquand stated the map ought to be a high priority since it could be a foundational planning tool. It could be a part of an inventory request in a grant proposal. There would be the added advantage of possibly being able to craft a tourism brochure with appropriate properties listed. Property owners would then be contacted to see if they would like to have their property listed on the map. 11 . Commissioner Sharp asked if there was any incentive for the property owners to be on the map. Staff stated they had not addressed that question. They were trying to make certain the Commission was in agreement that funding was needed to update the inventory. Tools would need to be utilized to transmit the inventory in some graphic format, and to have it available at the City, to share with applicants. Then we would need to develop implementation procedures on how to preserve and allow development to occur on noteworthy properties. 12. Commissioner Irwin stated it should be done on a one-on-one basis without a strict overall standard. IICLOADMFS11PLANNINGICAROLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 6 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3. 2003 13. Chairman Mouriquand stated that basic procedures could be outlined. Staff concurred the public needed to know they would have to come to the Historic Preservation Commission first. Currently there was no such procedure in place. 14. Commissioner Wright agreed and added the first thing was to educate City departments as to the commission's responsibilities. This process can begin with a template for future reports. An excellent example would be the recommendations included in Business Item #A. 15. Planning Manager Orci suggested there be a template set up of standard conditions that can be adjusted for the various cases. However, monitoring could be standardized. 16. Commissioner Irwin wanted to make sure the three recommendations included in Business Item #A were considered standard for all assessments. Commissioner Wright added the reports have to be consistent. 17. Chairman Mouriquand commented not all cases require monitoring and the Commission should allow staff flexibility to assign appropriate conditions. 18. Commissioner Irwin stated it was the Commission's prerogative to expect or reject, add to, modify, and delete conditions, but if the standard conditions are always included the developers would know what is expected of them. 19. Chairman Mouriquand asked staff to prepare a standardized list and customize the conditions as needed similar to the process used by the Public Works Department. She added these conditions need to be included in the Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring Plans and the project conditions of approval as well. This would ensure the conditions are followed all the way through the project. 20. Staff asked Commissioner Puente for clarification on her question about thresholds and standards. Commissioner Puente said she would like something printed delineating what was considered historic and what guidelines were to be followed, as well as an explanation of the coding staff mentioned. 21. Chairman Mouriquand said the Commission follows the State and Federal Regulations as well as the City's Ordinances. She suggested the Commission might want to review those regulations at a future meeting. IICLQADMFS11PLANNINGICAROLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 7 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3. 2003 22. Commissioner Sharp asked a question about historically significant properties that didn't fall within the 50 year guidelines. 23. Chairman Mouriquand said there were exceptions to the 50 year rule. This was where the guidelines applied. There could be a younger structure of architectural or engineering significance, and it could be included in the City's inventory. This would afford them the same protection as any other historically significant structure. 24. Planning Manager Orci stated what was needed was to identify the relevant City Code provisions and then the State and Federal requirements. He gave an example of a home in the Point Happy Ranch. 25. Commissioner Wright said this was one reason why it was important to have everything listed, in the inventory, that was 50 years old or older. The Commission would then have the authority to make decisions on those structures which were not historically significant. Staff agreed but added it was the procedures which needed to be clarified once a structure was identified on the survey. 26. Commissioner Irwin said the Commission should be responsible for making those decisions. Chairman Mouriquand said staff should present their recommendations and the Commission could make their decision from those recommendations. 27. Chairman Mouriquand suggested an in-house training session involving key members of all departments. Educating everyone on what was on the survey and procedures to follow if they were presented with a historic property. Commissioner Puente added a reference booklet would be very helpful in educating the City staff. 28. Chairman Mouriquand asked for comments on Item Number Two _ Apply for a CLG Grant to Pay for Inventory Update or Other Project. She said the Commission needed to look at the Historic Preservation Ordinance. It might even be possible to apply for and receive a CLG grant to hire a consultant to review and analyze the Ordinance as well as update it. She also suggested the Commission recommend to Council adding an Implementation Plan that would establish priorities and identify sources. She suggested staff begin working on a proposal for funding with monies beginning in the Federal fiscal IICLOAOMFS11PLANNINGICAROLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.OOC 8 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 year what would be in October. Staff would then have 12 months to complete their project and make a final report. The project could begin in the Fall of this year. Staff agreed to begin working on the proposal which would come back to the Commission before being finalized. 29. Chairman Mouriquand asked for comments on Item Number Three - Prepare and Distribute a Brochure that Serves as a Self-Guided Driving Tour of the City's Historic Features and Discuss the Prehistory. 30. Commissioner Puente said possibly a booklet could be put together describing all the regulations and coding on what is considered historic. This brochure could include the Historic Features and prehistory. 31. Chairman Mouriquand then went to Item Number Four in the Work Program - Hosting A CLG-Sanctioned Training Workshop. She suggested outside participants could be invited. Commissioner Wright commented they could invite people from other cities. Chairman Mouriquand added the City would be perceived as a leader in teaching other local cities about historic preservation and what the responsibilities and laws were. 32. Chairman Mouriquand then went to Item Number Five in the Work Program - Prepare a Composite Map of all Cultural Resources Recorded Within the City. She commented there could be a lot of academic research potential from this project as well as its use as a planning tool for various City departments. There was also the potential of obtaining grant money for this project. 33. Chairman Mouriquand then went to Item Number Six in the Work Program - Completion of Historic Context Statement. She commented this was an ongoing project that needed to be completed. She added if it was done by an outside entity, such as the Historic Society, or the Museum, there would be potential for the document to be published. It would be primarily a research tool which should be referenced in staff reports. One of the things she looked for when she reviewed reports was this reference and it had been some years since she'd seen any reference to that document. There are currently two copies of it in the Eastern Information Center and they were valuable documents for both the historic and pre- IICLQADMFS11PLANNINGICAROLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 9 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3. 2003 historic periods but they needed to be finished, then adopted by Council for use in research. 34. Chairman Mouriquand then went to Item Number Seven in the Work Program - Follow-up on Mitigation Monitoring for Projects like the Tradition that were Conditioned for Annual Inspections, etc. The reason the Traditions was named was because there was a capped site in that project. The conditions of approval for the project required an annual inspection to check on the integrity of the cap. The City should be doing this on an annual basis to see if the cap is still holding together. There are highly significant pre-historic sites over there and the way we preserve them in situ is to put a sterile cap on top of them. They are not to have any structures or anything placed on top of them. 35. Commissioner Irwin said there was also a site at Burning Dunes at Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street, as well as one at the Miraflores project that also needed to be inspected. 36. Chairman Mouriquand directed staff to go through the Conditions of Approval for the last five years to prepare a list of all capped and re- buried sites requiring annual inspection. She added the property owners needed to be informed the sites would be under continuous monitoring. Staff agreed to bring a list back to the Commission for approval. 37. After further discussion it was concluded the Commission would set up an annual inspection protocol and staff would prepare a map of sites designated as important. The map will be for internal use only, not for public distribution. The map, and an information packet, could be given to property owners to advise them of what they could and could not do on those properties. 38. Chairman Mouriquand then went to Item Number Eight in the Work Program - Survey for Sites that are in Imminent Danger of Erosion or other Destructive Threats, especially on City-owned Properties. Prioritize and Stabilize or Mitigate Sites as Needed. Commissioners agreed a list of City-owned properties was needed. Staff was directed to find out whether any of the properties had been surveyed and if they had historical resources on them. These properties could be included in an inspection tour once, or twice a year. The properties, with resources, could be flagged so due diligence \\CLUADMFS1IPLANNINGICARDLYNIHIST PRES COMIHPC 4-3-03A.DOC 10 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 procedures could be followed and the Council would be informed if special preservation requirements were needed. 39. Chairman Mouriquand then went to Item Number Nine in the Work Program LM - Plaques and Related Material for Self-guided Tour. 40. Commissioner Irwin asked if this only included the identification of historic properties. Staff replied that was correct and ask if the Commission wanted to provide some level of standardization of what requires a plaque and what doesn't. 41 . Commissioner Wright stated it should be open-ended and done on an individual site basis. 42. Commissioner Sharp said there should be some designation as to size and style. 43. Commissioner Irwin commented on the statue, at Point Happy. 44. The Commission then decided to have staff prepare a list of possible sites, include pertinent details, have the Commission approve it, then recommend approval to the Council. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Irwin to adjourn this Special Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on May 15, 2003. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4: 18 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: (/1 l-t'liJU ![k! /;['v Carolyn Walker Secretary 11