Loading...
2005 10 20 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Ouinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Ouinta, CA October 20, 2005 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Allan Wilbur at 3: 11 p.m. He then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, and Sharp Absent: Commissioner Wright and Chairman Wilbur Staff Present: Community Development Director Douglas Evans, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Carolyn Walker II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp and Puente to approve the minutes of September 15, 2005 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Revised Cultural Resources Phase I Survey for the Costco Project: Applicant: HDR Engineering, Inc., for Komar Development Archaeological Consultant: Harris Archaeological Consultants (Nina Harris, RPA) Location: South side of Highway 111, midway between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road P:\CAROl YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1 Q-20-05.doc Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 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 commented this was a very active area, having had 22 different surveys from 29 prehistoric sites. He suggested the applicant proceed with caution. 3. Commissioner Puente said she found the report very informative and well done. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said she appreciated the additional information and detail in the report. She added Figure 7 was mislabeled and asked to have it corrected before the report was finaled. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-022 to accept the report as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Cultural Resources Phase II Test for the Costco Project: Applicant: HDR Engineering, Inc., for Komar Development Archaeological Consultant: Harris Archaeological Consultants (Nina Harris, RPA) Location: South side of Highway 111, midway between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road 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 for the definition of a kavenish. Commissioner Mouriquand replied this is one variation of the spelling of the Village of Kavenish. She added she did not see any mention of the Village of Koteviwit, which was in the Cove, and was referenced in Strong 1929. (Shown on Reference page. 5.) It was a very important ethnographic village site referenced in the Cove. Commissioner Sharp asked for the location of the village and Commissioner Mouriquand gave him an approximate location. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if there was an exhibit showing placement of the test units in the dune. Staff asked on which site. Commissioner Mouriquand replied it was the dune with the fire-affected rock (FAR). Archaeological Consultant, P:ICAROLYNIHist Pres ComlHPC 10-20-05.doc 2 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 Nina Harris replied the site recorded maps were included in the appendix. Staff replied the information was also included in the last few pages with the site units. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if there were three test units excavated. Ms. Harris replied yes. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the consultant followed the natural contouring. Ms. Harris said they did, it was very deflated, so they went around where the fire-affected rock was and in between the fire-affected rock and the dog scatter. 6. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if there were any structural or reed imprints. Ms. Harris said she found none. 7. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the 88 pieces found were good-sized. Ms. Harris replied no, the ones found were quite small. There were two larger chunks which looked like they had rolled out of a continually deflated dune. Commissioner Mouriquand said she thought very focused monitoring was warranted on this site. 8. Commissioner Sharp asked about the Garden of Eden mural and was told it was actually a piece of a label. Commissioner Mouriquand commented that Council Member Stan Sniff, or the Coachella Valley Historical Society, might be able to provide further information on this label and its background. Ms. Harris said she did check with Shields Date Garden, but the new owners were unaware of the local history. 9. Commissioner Mouriquand said she was satisfied with the additional field work and exploration of the sites. She appreciated the extra effort and evaluation of sites. 10. Commissioner Sharp commented on the pictures and said they are very helpful when they are in color. 11 . It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-023 to accept the report as submitted. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1 Q-20-05.doc 3 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 C, Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report for Proposed Tentative Tract 33801 : Applicant: Blake Jumper Archaeological Consultant: Vanessa Mirro, Applied Earth Works, Inc. Location: West side of Madison Street, 500 feet north of Avenue 60 1 . Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if there was any response from the local tribes. Staff replied only two letters were received. The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians recommended a Native American monitor be located on site. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if this was subject to SB 18. Staff replied it was not. 3. Commissioner Puente asked if the two abandoned structures were relevant to the project. Staff replied they were not. They were not being used. Commissioner Puente asked if the structures would be photographed for recordation purposes. Commissioner Mouriquand replied the structures were 45 years old and asked if there was any architectural significance in their design. Commissioner Sharp asked if the buildings were made of wood or adobe. Staff replied the client had advised staff the building was clad in vinyl siding. There didn't appear to be any styling or historical significance to the buildings. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the building was still standing. Staff replied the carport portion of the building was still standing. The Commissioners agreed the building did not seem to be of a date or style to warrant historical significance or recordation. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said she had no specific concerns about this project. She added if there was something interesting about the architecture, builder or 'developer then it could be photographed, but it didn't appear there was anything worth preserving or re-designing. Staff replied the client described the structure as falling apart and no longer structurally sound. 5. Commissioner Sharp said he was disturbed so many letters were sent out and so few responses were received from the Native American tribes. Commissioner Mouriquand asked about the turnaround time on the letters. Staff replied it was a short P:ICAROL YNIHist Pres ComlHPC 10-20-Q5.doc 4 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 turnaround time, The letters were due back at the time the revised reports were received. Commissioner Mouriquand added there were various reasons why there isn't a greater response. Commissioner Sharp asked if there were cultural reasons. Commissioner Mouriquand replied there were cultural, as well as staffing reasons. Commissioner Sharp wanted to make sure it was not due to indifference and the Commission would receive complaints. Commissioner Mouriquand said it could be indifference, but the tribes could not be forced to respond. The Commission was required to do their due diligence and give them the opportunity should they wish to respond. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-024 accepting the results of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for Proposed Tentative Tract 33801 as submitted. Unanimously approved. D. Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan For A 2.58 Acre Parcel: Applicant: Blake Jumper Archaeological Consultant: Vanessa Mirro, Applied Earth Works, Inc. Location: West side of Madison Street, 500 feet north of Avenue 60. 1. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Staff clarified why the client did not do a field survey of the site. Staff recommended they do a field survey for the Paleontological Assessment. The client was informed of the Commission policy but chose not to delay the project. They proceeded with the project and provided a letter saying their recommendations would be the same. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if that meant they would recommend monitoring regardless of whether there was something on the surface. Staff said yes, because it was a farm site. Commissioner Mouriquand said except there's the float effect because of the farming. Staff added Ms. Mirro was expecting and was unable to attend. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand asked for staff's opinion. Staff said, for Paleontological on site surveys, the Paleontologists don't collect resources at the time they do the survey and if articles P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 10-20-05.doc 5 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 are collected it is at the beginning of the monitoring. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if they went out just prior to look for any surface resources. Staff said yes. They do not collect all the shells they find, they collect a representation. This was not their preference but it is acceptable. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said, in terms of policy, the Commission has never had an applicant refuse to do a survey. Even with good justification, this is a policy question. 5. Commissioner Sharp added there was a precedence involved here. Staff replied that was why this was brought before the Commission as the client was adamant in their position and this was an opportunity for a discussion of the policy. 6. Staff suggested the Commission amend the first condition stating the applicant present a letter report at the conclusion of their field survey, if they found surface materials. Staff would be more concerned if this was an undeveloped site rather than an agricultural site. 7. Commissioner Mouriquand said it was possible to run into ancient lake deposits about a meter down. 8. Commissioner Sharp commented he understood it was a long drive for the consultant, but was disappointed they felt it unnecessary to appear before the Commission. 9. Commissioner Mouriquand said she agreed with the consultant, after considering all the facts in this case. She didn't have a problem with this case as long as there was an addition to condition number one for a letter report just prior to grading. 10. Commissioner Sharp was concerned this set a precedent. 11 . Commissioner Mouriquand agreed, but said it afforded the Commission an opportunity to adjust a monitoring plan if anything is found. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-025 to accept the Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan with the first condition modified to require a letter report prior to grading. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1 o-20~05.doc 6 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 E. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report for Proposed Tentative Tract 33802: Applicant: Blake Jumper Archaeological Consultant: Vanessa Mirro, Applied Earth Works, Inc. Location: Calle Conchita and Madison Street, about 1000 feet north of Avenue 60. 1. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp asked how many ranchitas were involved in this development. Staff replied the street has eight ranchitas, but only a couple were actual residences. The rest are vacant. Commissioner Sharp then asked if the developer was going to develop the whole area. Staff replied this was proposed to be an eight-lot subdivision. This particular site is only one of those lots along the street. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if they only had 12 to 15 % ground visibility. Staff replied that was correct. 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-026 accepting the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report as submitted. Unanimously approved. F. Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a 2.66 acre Parcel: Applicant: Blake Jumper Archaeological Consultant: Vanessa Mirro, Applied Earth Works, Inc. Location: Calle Conchita and Madison Street, about 1000 feet north of Avenue 60. 1 . Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand said with the ground visibility being so poor that even if they had gone out to do a field survey, chances of them finding much probably would have been pretty slim. She asked if staff had a problem with the applicant not doing a field survey. Staff replied as long as they did a field survey prior to monitoring, it was acceptable. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1 Q-20-05.doc 7 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 3. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the Commission should amend Condition #1 in the same manner as Item #0, requiring a report prior to grading. Staff agreed to the recommendation. 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-027 accepting the Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan amending Condition #1 to require a letter report prior to grading. Unanimously approved. G. Budget Allocations for Updating Historic Property Survey Request for Proposals (RFP: 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 Mouriquand asked if the Commission would review the RFP before it goes out. Staff replied the City Council would have to approve the RFP. Staff said they could bring it before the Commission, but, depending on cycles it could delay it. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if there was a particular deadline staff was trying to meet. Staff replied they would like to start and finish this in the 2005-2006 fiscal year. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand asked what area would be covered. Staff replied City-wide. She then asked about going back to areas previously covered with sites not included in the survey. Staff replied the consultant will not be resurveying sites. Commissioner Mouriquand said that after the first survey there were cottages in the Cove that had been missed and a list of those addresses had been prepared. Staff replied they would look into it and reviewed the parameters of the contract. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said the survey should include those structures which are of architectural or engineering significance even if they don't fit the age criteria. Staff replied the consultant should be able to locate those. There is then a process to solicit public input and all property owners on the list are notified of their options. 5. Commissioner Sharp said there's a lot of talk about annexing areas into La Quinta, how does that figure into the survey. Staff said they would ask property owners, particularly the development-related property owners, to provide the City with a survey as part of the annexation process. Anything pending P;\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1 Q-20-05.doc 8 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 development would need a historic survey, cultural survey and paleontology report. The City could look at a follow-up work program, after annexations, to add to the survey. 6. Commissioner Sharp asked if there would be a photographic record included. Staff replied they would require a complete State Survey form with records, a photographic record, literature search, and evaluation. 7. Commissioner Sharp asked for the report timeline. Staff replied the report would be due by June 30, 2006. 8. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the budgeted amount was adequate for what is needed. Staff said that is what is budgeted. They will interview one or two firms to obtain their scope of work, model that with some realistic input, and then send the RFP out. 9. Commissioner Sharp asked what would happen to the items that might not be completed due to lack of funds. Staff replied historic preservation is never complete. If there is more work needed, staff will approach the Council for additional funding in the next budget year. 10. Commissioner Mouriquand said she would like to see a copy of the RFP. Staff asked if she wished it as an agenda item or simply sent through the mail for comments. It would certainly save time if it could be mailed out. The Commissioners agreed it would be more time-effective if it was mailed out. 11. Commissioner Mouriquand said she would like a map included showing where staff thinks the areas are where the survey should occur. Staff replied there are no plans to include a map. Commissioner Mouriquand said staff needs to identify areas that have been surveyed and areas that need to be surveyed. Staff said they would give the consultant the list of what had already been designated. Commissioner Mouriquand said she would like to see the proposals with staff's recommendations come to this body prior to selection and hiring and suggested there be one or two Historic Preservation Commission members on the interview panel. Staff replied Council dictates the panels, but they would include the suggestion. Staff asked if the inclusion of one Commissioner would suffice. Commissioner Mouriquand said at least one person needed to be from the Commission. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1 O~20~05.doc 9 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Commissioners had requested clarification of a condition of approval for the gate at Point Happy Ranch. Historic Preservation Commission Minute excerpts were provided showing the Commission's recommendations. 1 . Commissioner Sharp said he understood the minutes to state the developer would submit a design and asked what happened to the gate. Staff replied when they did the research it was discovered the most recent gate was built in the 1970's and not historic. Staff was not aware of where the gate was currently being stored, but previous minutes stated they were going to have their landscape architect design something similar and include the name Point Happy. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand said she did not see why the gate couldn't be incorporated into the entry design somehow. The gates are not of historic age but, they are a symbol of the Point Happy Ranch. 3. Commissioner Sharp said the gates were too small for commercial vehicles to maneuver. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said she knew that but the Commission had discussed various options of how they could incorporate the gate, not necessarily serving as their primary functional gate but, as some sort of decorative element for that entry treatment. 5. Commissioner Puente said she thought the applicant was going to incorporate the gates into the project. 6. Commissioner Mouriquand said that was her recollection. The question is, where did it go, is it coming back, how is it coming back, and is it going to be incorporated into the decorative treatment of the perimeter fence or entryway. Staff replied they would keep the Commissioners posted on the disposition of the gates but, if the gates are not a historic item they are not within the purview of the Commission. Additional work was done relative to an oral history P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1O.20-05.doc 10 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Staff mentioned the update of the Joint Meeting with the City Council on October 25, 2005 at 6:30. Staff asked if there were any items to be added to the agenda. 1 . Commissioner Sharp asked if it was appropriate to ask about an update on annexation. Staff replied it was. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand asked about demolition concerns. In the ordinance there are some provisions regarding demolition. It may be an appropriate time to evaluate and update the ordinance for any potential revisions or amendments. The Commission has some concerns about the way demolitions are handled. If the Commission wants to re-do the Ordinance, it will need to be added to the work program next year. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if all the Commissioners needed to attend the Joint Meeting. Staff replied the full Commission would be expected to attend. 4. Commissioner Puente asked about creating a brochure that contained historic sites in La Quinta. She asked if this project could be initiated after the Historic Survey is completed. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the Commissioners wanted to discuss the budget. They could include the subject of a brochure, highlighting historic sites and places which could be a self-guided tour. Funds would be needed for publication. Staff said the design is the challenging part, the printing could be absorbed easily. Staff said they would include this on the agenda. B. Commissioner Puente asked the status of the Museum. Staff did not have the current status. C. Commissioner Mouriquand asked about the City's inventory of artifacts. She wanted to know if the City's collection of artifacts would be put on public display for interpretation and education. Staff said an inventory would have to be done as there is a need to evaluate the items to be curated. 1 . Commissioner Mouriquand asked how much was in the curation facility. Staff replied they had not checked recently. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1 Q-20-05.doc 11 Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2005 2. Staff added the work program has a definition of what should be done regarding curation but, this would not be included on the current agenda for Council. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the Library has opportunities for temporary exhibitions. Commissioner Mouriquand mentioned the glass display case in City Hall and the exhibits shown there. 3. Staff replied an inventory of artifacts would have to be done first. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said the Commission routinely conditions projects and reports to curate their materials with the City. She asked if the applicants were dutifully sending their artifacts in to the City. Staff replied they would look into the matter and report back to the Commission. D. Commissioner Mouriquand wanted to follow-up on the minutes of September 15, 2005. She asked if there was a specific reason why discussion on the Senate BiII18 program had not been brought up. Staff replied, this agenda was very ambitious and staff had to focus primarily on triaging their time. There will be a discussion of this matter at a later date, but the City has pretty good guidance on SB 18 since the City Attorney's office was on the State Committee that developed the guidelines. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp and Puente to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on November 17, 2005. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:22 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: f~r~ Secretary P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 10-20-05.doc 12