Loading...
2008 04 17 HPCt Historic Preservation Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.orq HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA The Regular Meeting to be held in the Study Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California APRIL 17, 2008 3:00 P.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2008-001 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Historic Preservation Commission on matters relating to historic resources within the City of La Quinta which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Historic Preservation Commission, please state your name and address and when discussing matters pertaining to prehistoric sites, do not disclose the exact location of the site(s) for their protection. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Approval of the Minutes for March 20, 2008. Historic Preservation Commission Agenda V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Cultural Resources Phase I Survev for a 4.84 Acre Parcel. Applicant: David Maman Designs Consultant: Terra Nova Planning & Research Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Associates (Robert S. White, etal) for Eilar Associates Location: South side of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion of the upcoming California Historic Preservation Conference in Napa Valley, California, April 23-26, 2008. Vill. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTI I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission meeting of Thursday, April 17, 2008, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, April 11, 2008. DATED: March 11, 2008 CAROLYI9 WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\AGENDA.doc MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held in the South Conference Room at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 20, 2008 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilbur at 3:02 p.m. who asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Puente, Redmon, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker, and Secretary Monika Radeva. 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 February 28, 2008, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Discussion of the status of the updated Historic Preservation Commission Timelines and Accomplishments Report. Planning Manager David Sawyer gave the Commission an update of the Timelines and Accomplishments Report. He asked the Commissioners to inform the staff if anything had been overlooked or omitted. PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\Draft Minutes 3-20-08.doc Historic Preservation Commission March 20, 2008 Allan Wilbur inquired about the bold print in parenthesis on some of the items listed on pages ten and eleven of the report. Staff replied that it was old information on those items and it would be updated. Commissioner Redmon had a question about the definition of the word "midden." Commissioner Wright said it referred to an old dump site. Staff said it is often used when referring to refuse from a tribal village, which over time grew and decomposed. Commissioner Wright pointed out the report mentioned Commissioners appointed back in 1994; however, it did not include any further mention of Commissioners who had been re -affirmed or appointed thereafter. He suggested that information be added to the report within the timeline. Staff agreed and said they would add the information. Commissioner Sharp thanked Staff for all their efforts on this project. Commissioner Wright suggested bringing the document to the Conference for reference. He added that some of the attendees may be interested in obtaining a copy of the report as it is a great reference of the City's accomplishments. Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification on whether or not the Commissioners were to hand out the report themselves. Commissioner Wright suggested they only obtain business cards from the attendees who were interested in further information and those be given to staff for completion. Staff agreed with the recommendation and added all corrections would be made and given to the Commissioners before the Conference. Commissioner Redmon did note the following corrections: a. Page 5, line two should read: Mitigation b. Page 9, lines 16 and 17 should read: Pointe at Point Happy Ranch — arborist does a complete count of every tree. B. Discussion of scheduling the completion of the Historic Context Statement. Principal Planner Stan Sawa gave the Commissioners information on the schedule they received. PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\Draft Minutes 3-20-08.doc 2 Historic Preservation Commission March 20, 2008 Chairman Wilbur asked if there were two statements. Staff said there was only one completed in 1997 and that it was being updated. Staff said they are moving forward on this document based on the comments received by the Commissioners. Staff requested the Commissioners advise them of any further comments on the Statement. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: Chairman Wilbur asked Staff for an update on the travel arrangements for the upcoming California Preservation Conference, which Staff provided. Discussion about the 2009 Historic Conference, which will be in Palm Springs and the possible addition of some tours in La Quinta. Commissioner Sharp referenced an article in the Los Angeles Times regarding the cancellation of a 5,553 residential unit project. General discussion followed regarding growth and traffic patterns in the Coachella Valley Commissioner Wright commented on the new low-income housing project on Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road. He said this project is being done in partnership with the City of La Quinta and the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition and promises to be a fantastic project and beautiful development. Planning Manager David Sawyer explained the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements placed by the State on every community, city, or county regarding the number of low income housing units that need to be built each year. He said the City of La Quinta goes the extra mile in its effort to comply with RHNA requirements and is far ahead of most cities in this area. Commissioner Wright commented that the City of La Quinta is a leader in trying to meet the RHNA requirements. Commissioner Redmon asked what the numbers were based on. Staff replied that there were a number of things they were based on and listed several. P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\Draft Minutes 3-20-08.doc 3 Historic Preservation Commission March 20, 2008 Vill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Redmon/Sharp to adjourn this Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on April 17, 2008. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:27 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Carolyn Walker Executive Secretary P:\Reports- HPC\2008\4-17-08\Draft Minutes 3-20-08.doc 4 BI #A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 17, 2008 ITEM: CULTURAL RESOURCES PHASE I SURVEY FOR A 4.84 ACRE PARCEL LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, WEST OF MONROE STREET APPLICANT: DAVID MAMAN DESIGNS DRAFT EIR CONSULTANT: TERRA NOVA PLANNING AND RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOGY CONSULTANT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, (ROBERT S. WHITE, ET AL), FOR EILAR ASSOCIATES BACKGROUND: The study area is a 4.8 acre parcel located on the south side of Avenue 58 west of Monroe Street. The property is a rural residential site with rows of older, un-maintained date palm trees at the northern half of the property and a field at the rear. An existing adobe home is located near the center of the project site. The City is currently processing a tentative tract map application to allow a single-family residential development on the site. As part of the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Phase I (survey level) Archaeological/Historical Resources Assessment was completed for the property by Archaeological Associates and reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission during their June 15, 2006 meeting (Attachment 1, Appendix C). The report found the existing adobe home to be historically significant because of two factors. The structure appeared to be a rare and well-preserved traditional adobe and therefore eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. Secondly, the report stated that the structure and its setting are locally significant because they represent a surviving example of an early stage of residential development promotions. During the June 15, 2006 meeting, there was considerable debate and discussion regarding the cultural resources report and the significance of the existing adobe home. The Commission ultimately decided to continue the item until after the completion of the draft environmental impact report (Attachment 2). P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\rpt tt 33848 Ph 1 Cultural - EIR.doc DISCUSSION: The Cultural Resources Report (located in Appendix C) includes a management summary, personnel qualifications, research design, and discussion of the project within a historic and prehistoric context, including local and ethnographic history. Supplemental historical research was later conducted for the Environmental Impact Report by the archaeologist in March of 2007, which can be found in Attachment 1, Appendix E. An archaeological and historic records search for the property was conducted at the Eastern Information Center located at UC Riverside. Other sources consulted include the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Historic Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historic Interest (CPHl), and the Office of Historic Preservation's Directory of Properties was also reviewed. Archival research included a review of land patents on file with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Sacramento and a title records check with the California State Railroad Museum Library in Sacramento. Several historic maps were examined in the map room of the Science Library at UC Riverside. General Land Office (GLO) Plat Maps were inspected at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) office in Moreno Valley including a 1903 GLO plat map. Other historical maps were provided for examination by the City of Coachella and the Coachella Valley Water District. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District provided historical aerial photos of the site for examination. A request was made of the Native American Heritage Commission for a check of their Sacred Lands inventory. The Sacred Lands inventory records search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources at this location. The consultant notified representatives of the Native American community but did not receive any replies. The records search indicated that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been recorded within the study area. The records search identified 11 archaeological sites, 9 prehistoric and 2 historic, located within a one -mile radius of the project site. No National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historic Landmarks (CHL), or California Points of Historic Interest (CPH1) sites were identified within a one -mile radius of the study area, though two residences within a one -mile radius of the site were listed with the Office of Historic Preservation's Directory of Properties. The on -foot field survey was conducted on September 28, 2005, walking parallel transects spaced 5-10 meters apart. The field survey resulted in the identification of an occupied, single adobe residence, situated within a remnant date palm garden at approximately the center of the project site, 220 feet south of Avenue 58. As a result 2 P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\rpt tt 33848 Ph 1 Cultural - EIR.doc of the identification of the adobe structure, further research was conducted including an interview and research of individuals associated with the property. Referencing the structure as the West adobe, the report includes a physical description of the structure, building materials used, and methods of construction. A portion of the exterior wall had been cut away near the kitchen to reveal a cross section which identifies the "poured" adobe construction method and materials used. Portions of the structure have been identified as wood frame construction added at a later date. The home site is identified as being an early example of an adobe housing development project. The report concludes that the potential for buried archaeological deposits exists and recommends monitoring during grubbing, brush clearing, and grading, and that the monitor be granted the authority to temporarily halt work until significance can be established. In regards to the West adobe, the report concludes that the structure is historically significant because of two factors. First, the structure appears to be a rare and well- preserved traditional adobe and is therefore eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources under the criterion that "it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3)." Second, the report states that the structure and its setting are locally significant because they represent a surviving example of an early stage of residential development promotions. The report concludes that preservation is always the preferred course of action and the structure has the potential to be restored. Since the structure is unable to be relocated and is situated at the center of the proposed development, the report recommends utilizing the HABS/HAER program to provide a detailed architectural and photographic record of the structure prior to demolition. Peer Review by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) As a result of the findings and recommendations of the report, the City of La Quinta requested a peer review of the findings made by Archaeological Associates (Attachment 1, Appendix D), which was conducted by Architectural Resources Group (ARG), a noted architectural firm specializing in historic preservation with extensive experience in evaluating adobe structures. ARG supplemented their findings with a statement from a structural engineer, who references that the California Historic Building Code can accommodate potential use of the structure. In their evaluation, ARG staff reviewed the report by Archaeological Associates and a letter report provided by the applicant's structural engineer, and made a site visit to the adobe on May 9, 2006. ARG confirmed that the criteria of the California Register of c P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\rpt tt 33848 Ph 1 Cultural - EIR.doc Historical Resources applies to the West adobe, confirmed that the structure retains a good degree of architectural integrity due to the large amount of intact original material, and agrees that the structure is a "rare and well preserved example of adobe construction in Southern California." ' As such, ARG concurs that the structure is significant on the local level and that it merits the criterion for listing on the California Register under criterion 3 (identified as criterion C in the report). They added in their peer review that the cultural resource report assessment makes a case for the significance of the West adobe under Criterion 1, in that the structure may be "associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California (Criterion 1)." ARG found that the report indicates the structure appears to be an example of an early residential housing development significant within the regional history and settlement of Southern California, but that the report did not state this as a finding. ARG concludes that the West adobe is significant at the local level under California Register Criterion 1 and 3, the structure is in good condition, and is a qualified historic resource under CEQA eligible for candidacy for the California Historic Building Code. Criterion for Eligibility to the California Register of Historic Resources 1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States, 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history, 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Conclusion The report finds the West adobe to be a historically significant resource as per eligibility Criterion 3 (identified in the report as Criterion C) of the California Register of Historical Resources. The peer assessment conducted by ARG found the structure to also be eligible under Criterion 1. This structure would thus be eligible for addition to the local register of historic resources. n PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\rpt tt 33848 Ph 1 Cultural - EIR.doc Section 7.040.030 of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code lists the responsibilities of the Historic Preservation Commission. It is the responsibility of the Commission to "render advice and guidance, upon the request of the property owner or occupant, on the restoration, alteration, decoration, landscaping or maintenance of any historic resource, including landmarks, landmark sites, historic districts or neighboring properties within public view," and provide advice to the City Council concerning "historic sites and areas to be considered for listing on La Quinta's historic resources inventory. " Recommendation: The submitted cultural resources report prepared by Archaeological Associates states that although preservation is the preferred action, it ultimately recommends the impact of the loss of the adobe home can be mitigated through the HABS/HAER documentation process. Archaeological Resources Group (ARG) has confirmed the findings of Archaeological Associates. The report further recommends qualified archaeological monitors, including a Native American representative, be present during ground breaking activities due to the potential of Native American cultural resources on -site, with the ability to halt work as needed and be equipped to properly store and catalogue any finds. The Draft EIR reiterates the findings made by both Archaeological Associates and ARG, pointing out the available project alternatives in Section V. Retaining the adobe home would require stabilization efforts in order to maintain the structural integrity during an earthquake and redesigning the proposed tentative tract map and hydrology design to accommodate fewer lots. In addition, there are existing non -historic additions and modifications that have since been made to the property. The Historic Preservation Commission will ultimately need to consider the significance of the property as a cultural resource in relation to the proposed project alternatives and recommended mitigation measures. Adopt Minute Motion 2008- , accepting the "Cultur 4.84-Acre Parcel as shown on Tentative Tract Map 33 Avenue, City of La Quinta, California," as prepared, subject to the following Conditions: A. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors, one of which shall be a Native American tribal member. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and redirect earth moving activities as necessary to identify and study any identified resource. The final report of monitoring activities shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first house on the project site. R PAReports - HPC12008\4-17-08\rpt tt 33848 Ph 1 Cultural - EIR.doc B. Collected archaeological 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 issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. C. No clearing, grading, or other ground -disturbing activity shall occur until: a.) A Historic American Building Survey (HABS) is completed for the property; and b.) A Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) is completed for the property. These processes shall be completed according to HABS and HAER established protocols and specifications, and shall include: a.) A series of high quality technical photographs of both the interior and exterior of the building using 4" x 5" large format black and white photographs (at a minimum of each of the elevations), medium format 2" x 2" color photographs and 35 mm color photographs, all processed and archived to HAMS specifications; and b.) The generation of pen and ink scale drawings of the elevations; and c.) The generation of a scaled pen and ink site plan; and d.) A more thorough written analysis of the building's architecture and construction. The studies shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. No site disturbance is to occur until the applicant has received written confirmation from the Planning Department that the HABS/HAER reports have been approved. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for any expenses required to engage professional specialist review of the HABS/HAER reports. Attachments: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tentative Tract Map 33848, including all technical reports within the appendices. 2. Minutes from the June 15, 2006 Historic Preservation Meeting 3 P:\Reports - HPCk2008\4-17-08\rpt tt 33848 Ph 1 Cultural - EIR.doc Prepared by: A ew J. Mogensen Incipal Planner PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\rpt tt 33848 Ph 1 Cultural - EIR.doc ATTACHMENT #2 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 15, 2006 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairperson Wilbur at 3:04 p.m. who then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Staff Present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Carolyn Walker II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Wright to approve the minutes of May 18, 2006 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Phase I Cultural Resources Survev Report For a 4.84 Acre Parcel Applicant: David Maman Designs Consultants: Archaeological Associates, (Robert S. White, Et all, for Eilar Associates Location: south side of Avenue 58, West of Monroe Street. 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. P PAReports - HPC\2008k4-17-081HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 2. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was only one house on the property. Staff replied yes. Archaeologist Robert White said there was another adobe house on a nearby property. 3. Chairman Wilbur commented he agreed with the recommendation of making a photographic record, but did not agree with demolition of the building. He asked if the building could be renovated and questioned whether the applicant could have known of the history of the structure just by looking at it. Mr. Maman replied he did not know there was a historic adobe on the property. He bought the property with the idea of demolishing the house. He added there had been some additions made to the house, and it was not in good condition. 4. Commissioner Wright asked if the property was being developed as a residential project. The applicant said yes. Commissioner Wright asked if the adobe had been substantially altered. The applicant said it had, plus it had been involved in a fire. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand asked the date of the fire and if there were records from the Fire Department. Applicant said the fire occurred approximately five years ago. Staff replied the City did not have records of the fire since this property was not part of La Quinta at that time. Commissioner Mouriquand asked when the property was annexed and suggested the applicant go to the Riverside County Fire Department for the records. 6. Commissioner Wright said this is an example of the problems experienced in accommodating a historic structure on a smaller project. The Commission has been able to utilize structures on larger projects, such as the Hacienda del Gato. They came across this problem on the Point Happy Ranch project. The alterations deteriorated the historical value of the property 7. Commissioner Puente asked if the applicant was planning on keeping the structure. Applicant replied no. 8. Commissioner Wright said it would not be economically viable for a 4.5 acre parcel to retain the structure. The Commission needs to look at all aspects of the project. He recommended photographic documentation and demolition. 9. Chairman Wilbur read a line from Page 46 which discussed the west adobe's condition and the problem with its location. Chairman Wilbur asked if it was possible to look into the L] PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 question of what could be done to maintain viability of the project. 10. Commissioner Wright reiterated the economic viability of the project. The applicant showed several suggested layouts showing the project was not viable with the adobe house on its present site. It is right in the middle of the project. He made reference to the Point Happy tennis house demolition and said 4.5 acres could not sustain this type of renovation and retrofitting cost. 11. Commissioner Mouriquand asked what was triggering the retrofit. Chairman Wilbur said the Addendum stated the building was unsafe and would fall down in an earthquake. Commissioner Mouriquand said the building has gone through a number of earthquakes and was still standing. 12. Commissioner Wright replied they made the La Quinta Hotel do the same thing and it didn't make any difference how many earthquakes it had gone -through. Commissioner Mouriquand said that was for public occupancy. 13. Commissioner Puente asked if the environmental review would include identifying this house as historical and require the developer to comply with specific conditions. 14. Commissioner Mouriquand stated the Commission should consider, as an option, that maybe this development should not be approved. Maybe this is such a significant resource that it should not be destroyed and the land subdivided. She said she would like to explore some other options of re -designing to preserve this adobe house rather than rushing into demolition. This home has incredible integrity and questioned what was triggering the retrofit. Staff said that's a statement from the applicant's structural engineer. Archaeological Associates has another statement from their structural engineer and they referenced the Historic Building Code. In discussion with City building officials, the Historic Building Code's purpose of retrofitting is to stabilize the building so you can safely exit in case of an earthquake. 15. Commissioner Mouriquand said she understood the Building Code, but wanted to know what was triggering this particular retrofit. Staff replied they were going by the information received from the structural engineer. Commissioner Mouriquand asked about other re -design options the applic@plt P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 has pursued. Staff said the applicant had some layout examples which Commissioner Mouriquand asked to have displayed. 16. Jonathan Hoy, Civil Engineer explained several layouts considered. 17. Commissioner Sharp asked the size of the structure. Staff replied about 2,500 square feet. 18. Mr. Hoy explained they had tried to keep the residence in the center of the parcel and design something that could go around the structure. He said the redesign created substandard lots that did not meet typical development standards regarding width and depth. Every exhibit had issues with substandard lots. 19. Commissioner Mouriquand asked staff if there was any way to grant a waiver of the standards so that preservation could be achieved. Staff replied the applicant could file a Specific Plan. 20. Commissioner Mouriquand commented there was a mechanism the client can go through to officially allow him to have a subdivision with different development standards for lot width and depths (substandard lots) which would make the re -design resolvable. She asked if the office addition could be torn down. Applicant said it has already been taken into consideration and there would still be a loss of four lots. 21. Commissioner Mouriquand asked what the applicant's Quimby requirements were. Staff replied they had not calculated the fees yet. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested staff investigate Quimby Fee credits and in -lieu fees. Staff replied it had been discussed that. Commissioner Mouriquand said if the structure were kept as a single-family dwelling would there be consideration, because of the opportunity to preserve the structure with covenants, that would meet the Quimby responsibility, although it would not be utilized as a public building. Applicant said they have spoken to the City and the City is not interested in obtaining this as a public building. 22. Commissioner Mouriquand said the development is not big enough to justify it's own clubhouse and this building could not be used as a clubhouse. The applicant said the City is not interested in owning the residence. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the applicant was interested in developing the building as a clubhouse. The applicant replied it would not be financially viable to maintain the building. 11 P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-0MHPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 23. Commissioner Mouriquand said the best way to preserve a building is to occupy it. She commented it would be best to have a family living in it; it would be a travesty to have the adobe demolished. She was in favor of preservation and looking at some creative ways to preserve the building. She suggested the applicant restore the house, sell it, get somebody interested in living in a "historic gem", because it has value due to its historicity. She then asked to look at the redesign. 24. Chairman Wilbur asked how many houses and lots were involved. Commissioner Wright said 12 or 13. 25. Commissioner Wright said the Commission needs to be careful about what it asks of everyone who comes to this Commission. They did not ask anything be kept in the Point Happy Ranch which he felt was very historical. On a piece of property this small, in a gated community, in a cul-de-sac situation, it's not a practical process. He said the Commission has to be consistent about what they ask because on the Point Happy project they did not ask, nor did we demand it. This is the first time this has come up in this situation, other than Tradition. 26. Chairman Wilbur said he wasn't a Commission Member for most of the processing of the Point Happy project. He did hear a lot about the loss of historic structures in that development. 27. Commissioner Wright said the City suffered losses on projects that were fairly large, such as the house on Madison Street that was demolished to make way for the road. The City is losing properties monthly in the Cove and no one is getting upset about those. He is very adamant about preserving historic structures, but if you have only 4.5 acres it also has to work for everybody involved. This subject wasn't even brought up on Point Happy, but the Commission is being adamant about this property. To be retrofit this building it would be approximately $875,000. To completely preserve this property, would not be financial viable. If the Commission insists on preservation, the developer will have to go to the City to purchase this property, because the developer cannot sell or make any money on this property. He said the Commission should look at the costs involved. 28. Commissioner Sharp said he agreed with a lot of what Commissioner Wright said and asked the applicant what design style was being used for the other houses being bl ilt. P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-0MHPC Minutes 6-15-06.doe Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 Applicant replied it would be Tuscan and would not match the adobe house. Commissioner Sharp asked if this would be a gated community and inaccessible to the public. Applicant replied yes. Commissioner Sharp commented he could see where the preservation of the adobe building would cause a problem. He asked if the building could be moved. The applicant said it is not feasible. He said it was a shame the applicant had not found out about the adobe building prior to the purchase of the property. The applicant said regarding the retrofitting of the property, they had a letter from their engineer and had to ask their tenant to leave. They could not be responsible for anyone living in that building. They could not retrofit it, they could not demolish it, and they could not let anyone live there. They are completely stuck. 29. Commissioner Wright said they cannot sell it now that it is a matter of record. He said his attitude would be the applicant go to the City and see if they want to purchase it, but other than that there are not a lot of options. 30. Chairman Wilbur said he thought they had gone to the City and the City wasn't interested in this property. Staff replied this was an interpretation as to what the City Council may do. This had not been presented to the Council and no official determination had been made by the Council. 31. Commissioner Wright said that would be an ideal situation; the applicants would get their money back and the City would get a piece of historic property they can turn into some kind of park. The property would not work for the applicant's development, and the Commission is stopping their development and tying their hands from doing anything. 32. Commissioner Mouriquand read an e-mail from Greg Butler of the Building and Safety Department, City of La Quinta, which said the decision to retrofit or demolish the structure was the applicant's decision and gave no official opinion from a structural engineer's report. The City is not mandating retrofit. 33. Commissioner Wright said it's not just about the retrofit it's also the fact when you develop a 4.5 acre parcel, you need to develop enough lots to make the project profitable. If the Commission's recommendation is for total preservation, this could turn the project into an undevelopable venture. It could make a great park if the City would purchase and develop it. 13 P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 34. Commissioner Sharp asked the applicant if the structure was demolished would they go ahead with the project. The applicant replied yes. 35. Commissioner Mouriquand said she disagreed. She said it is possible to redesign the project as shown in the two examples provided. She wanted to make a comment about the statement "making consistent decisions" saying whatever decisions this body has made in the past on preservation whether correct or not, in light of this Commission's duty, that's no reason to perpetuate making bad decisions. It is entirely possible for the applicant to have a money -making subdivision, on this size acreage and still achieve preservation. The client asked how Commissioner Mouriquand would recommend this be done. Commissioner Mouriquand said she would like to finish her comments as this was a public meeting. She continued by saying anyone who , buys property without thoroughly researching it is a fool. And she couldn't find it within her to make an allowance for a developer who buys a piece of property without doing thorough research as to what's on it and answering the feasibility and whether or not he wants to tackle the project. The Commission's purview is to seek preservation and those kinds of things. It's not to excuse poor purchasing decisions of property and then try to make an immediate decision at the eleventh hour and let the applicant demolish a historic property. She said that was not something she could ethically go with. The Commission needed to exhaust preservation options and other mitigation and money should not be an issue here. So she could not vote in favor of demolition of this structure, not at this point in time. There needs to be more research done and more exploration of the re -design of this project. Both of the examples shown are probably doable. 36. Commissioner Wright asked the applicant if he knew there was a Historic Preservation Commission in La Quinta before they bought the property. The applicant replied he did not. Commissioner Wright stated that the applicant purchased the property in the County, or Coachella, or Indio, this building would already be demolished. It was unfair to call the applicant foolish and to tell them this was a bad purchase, when they didn't know there was a Commission, nor did they know these properties were protected. They probably had no clue. They saw a property with an old structure and anywhere else in this Valley it would probably be demolished. I think the Commission needs to understand the dollar and the way the entitlement process works and what it takes to make money on a proj?V. PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 You can not take four or five lots out of a 13-lot development and make any money on that project. It is financially impossible. He said if Commissioner Mouriquand had a way to make the project financially viable he would love to know how she would do it. 37. Commissioner Mouriquand said the financial obligations of the applicant were not her concern. Preservation can be expensive and she still stood on her statement that a wise person purchases a piece of property after they have done research and some due diligence so they understand what they have. She said she still thought there were doable options that could be researched. She asked if there were any other adobes in La Quinta. 38. Chairman Wilbur replied there was a mention of one down the street. 39. Commissioner Sharp said that would be a good cause for preservation. His asked if this adobe was a good historic example, or just another adobe house. 40. Commissioner Mouriquand asked the consultant, Robert S. White, if this was a good example of a traditional adobe. He replied they believe this particular building was a surviving example of the last phase of traditional adobe construction in the Valley. He then detailed the features of this structure that were notable and explained this structure was actually a hybrid. 41. Commissioner Sharp asked if this was the last adobe in the area. Mr. White replied there is another adobe a short distance to the west, not on this property, but he had not had the opportunity to walk in and assess it. It appeared to be of later construction. Commissioner Sharp asked if the consultant had made a survey of other adobe structures in the City. Mr. White replied he had not. 42. Commissioner Wright said the City's survey was not complete and that was part of the problem, which also puts the burden upon the developers to decide what type of due -diligence they are supposed to do. This property is not even listed in the City survey because the property was annexed. He said the Commission definitely needs to be preservationists but they need to look at the Community and what the issues were now. 15 P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 43. Commissioner Sharp asked if this was 100% traditional adobe house, would it then have more value than a transitional house. Mr. White said not necessarily. He said personally, he found it interesting because it was transitional. He had not run across one quite like this one. 44. Commissioner Mouriquand said because of it's uniqueness it becomes more significant and valuable. Mr. White replied they do know there is an architectural nuance in this building which was probably the mark of the architect, or the builder, it was a reversed angle on the lintel above the doors and windows which are identical to the ones on the museum in Indio. Unfortunately they hit a dead end on locating the architect. They were fortunate enough to find someone who knew quite a bit about the way it had been put together and asked them who the architect was. They didn't know, but were able to offer the information that the laborers were local residents. 45. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was a picture of the lintel. Mr. White directed him to Page 38 of the report. 46. Mr. White said one of the primary goals regarding a building is who built it and when. They were able to find out when, and who commissioned it. It was a Mr. West, who they believed to be a physician from Los Angeles, but were unable to locate the architect. 47. Commissioner Mouriquand said before the meeting started she was able to go to the Community Development Department and view a series of photos taken by staff from an interior walk- through. She was extraordinarily impressed as to how nice the interior of this structure was. She asked staff if there is a way to share those photos with the Commissioners. Staff replied they could be printed up. 48. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was a plan for the house. Mr. White said they were unable to obtain the plans. The house was occupied by a tenant and numerous animals. 49. Chairman Wilbur asked if you take the adobe structure without the office and the garage, does it still affect your lots in terms of the same amount of space. Applicant said that was taken into consideration. 16 PAReports - HPC\2008N4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 50. Commissioner Puente commented demolition should be the last solution. There should be other ways to preserve the last of the few remaining structures of this type in La Quinta. 51. Commissioner Sharp said the only positive suggestion he'd heard was to turn the project into a park. 52. Commissioner Mouriquand said if the project was a private, gated community the public would not have access to it and it could not be used as a park. 53. Commissioner Wright said he meant the City should buy the whole property and turn it into a City park. It is undevelopable as it is. He did not think the Commission made a mistake with how they handled the Point Happy Ranch project, even though it was their wish to retain some of the very famous buildings, they still determined they should be demolished. It was given a lot of thought and consideration, but there was no reason for it to be there. The Commission ought to be concentrating on the homes being lost everyday in the Cove, including the adobes and houses built in the 1920's. He said the Commission needs to be consistent. 54. Commissioner Sharp said the homes in the Cove have frontage on the road and people are going by everyday, but this project is out-of-the-way. It needs to be preserved. 55. Commissioner Wright said preservation is a very important part of this Commission, but it also comes down to is it feasible and workable for all parties involved. Preservation works great for the City, but what do you do with this thing. This becomes a worthless piece of property for the applicant, and who's going to maintain it now that the applicant cannot get out of the property because of this public meeting. It is not developable. 56. Commissioner Mouriquand said she disagreed entirely and said the property was developable. 57. Commissioner Wright said it is not developable from a financial standpoint. He said Commissioner Mouriquand did not know anything about the financial standpoint of development and he did. Commissioner Mouriquand said she did know a little something about it. Commissioner Wright said he apologized, but said it is not financially feasible to develop this property as Commissioner Mouriquand suggested, and make a profit on eight lots. 17 P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 58. Commissioner Mouriquand said it was not the purvue of this Commission to accommodate a developer's profit plan. 59. Commissioner Sharp said the reason to preserve this building is due to its location but it may not be possible because property is so expensive. 60. Chairman Wilbur said earlier the Commission was discussing the option of getting some type of accommodation from the City. He suggested the applicant look at the design even more creatively with the possibility the City would be amenable to offering an accommodation to assist in preservation. 61. Commissioner Sharp said the applicant has already worked on a re -design and it didn't work very well due to the fact the streets need to go around. The designs are not attractive. 62. Chairman Wilbur said he thought the applicant should make an effort to try further redesign of the project while accommodating this building. He asked the applicant if that was possible. 63. The applicant replied they have done many layouts and none of them worked out. The layouts they presented to the Commission were the best ones available. The re -design does not work out financially or aesthetically. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if it did not work out financially, but still had possibilities for preservation. The applicant replied it does not work out financially. 64. Commissioner Mouriquand said the Commission does not enter into discussion of finances. She said the Commission was interested in preservation. 65. Commissioner Sharp said the discussion was not about money, it's about how you configure the roads while preserving this building. 66. Applicant said the project next door was beautiful and no one would want to buy their project with a house in the middle. 67. Commissioner Mouriquand said maybe there shouldn't be houses there. Maybe this is such a unique property it needs to be looked at in its entirety, not just the structure on it. 18 PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doe Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 68. Commissioner Sharp said, as a park, it works. 69. Commissioner Mouriquand asked staff if the question of obtaining this property had been considered by the City Council. Staff replied the City Council had not reviewed this project in any manner. 70. The applicant said they had discussed offering the property to the City and were told the City was not interested in the property. 71. Commissioner Mouriquand said this would be a decision to be made by the City Council. 72. The applicant said they had never dealt with this type of problem before and asked for direction on what to do since they are losing money every month. They are stopped on this property because somebody thinks this building is historical. 73. Commissioner Wilbur asked when the property had been purchased. The applicant replied a year -and -a -half ago. Commissioner Wilbur asked if the property had been annexed by La Quinta at the time of the purchase. The applicant said it was already in La Quinta. The applicant said this property with 17 homes would bring the City property tax about $200,000 per year. That is a lot of income lost to the City if this project is not built. 74. Chairman Wilbur asked staff for direction. Staff said they are looking to the Commission for direction, seeking recommendation, and the applicant is seeking advice. Chairman Wilbur asked if the staff would take this issue to the Council. Staff explained what the client had to do and the appeal options available to the Council. 75. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if there was an EIR. Staff replied no. Staff said an EIR could be done within six months. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if that would be a focused EIR. Staff replied yes. 76. Commissioner Mouriquand said she was in favor of waiting for the evaluation and discussion of the EIR before making a decision on this property. 77. Commissioner Sharp asked for an explanation of an EIR. 19 P:\Reports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 78. The applicant asked what the EIR would say. 79. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if it would go through SHPO. Staff said they would have to research this. 80. Applicant asked what would be different with an EIR. Staff explained an EIR would be necessary in order to go forward with the demolition permit and the project as proposed. Commissioner Wright explained that was not the Commission's determination, it was a CEQA requirement. The applicant said staff mentioned the structural issue was enough. Applicant said they were going to keep the building empty, board up the house and leave it empty until a decision is made. 81. Commissioner Mouriquand explained they have to go through a Certificate of Appropriateness which would come back to this Commission. 82. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested exploring the option of the City purchasing the property for various uses. She said she would like to know what Council's opinion would be. That is a decision only made by Council. Another option would be to explore an EIR. Another choice would be to maintain the property as an estate as a single family use, with preservation of the adobe, without the subdivision. 83. Commissioner Wright said he personally believes the City would not be interested in purchasing a two -million -dollar property. His recommendation would be to obtain detailed photographic records of the property prior to demolition. 84. Commissioner Mouriquand said she was in favor of the photographic documentation. At this point, she could not vote in favor of demolition and would like to review an EIR and reconsider this item after that review and have any other options presented that can be identified. 85. Staff said this body is a recommending body and the Commissioner will be making a recommendation to the City Council concerning historic sites and areas to be considered for listing on the La Quinta Historic Resources Survey, and for considering the project recommendation for how to proceed and that's what staff was seeking in the Commission's motion. 86. Commission Mouriquand asked if staff would be taking any aspect of this project to the Council before an EIR was dIse. PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 Staff said they will not be taking this to the Council until they have a Draft EIR. Commissioner Mouriquand commented the Commission was some months away from making a final decision on this project. If it has been determined an EIR is necessary, then the process needs to run its course. 87. There being no further discussion on this matter it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriquand and Sharp to continue this item until a draft EIR is available for review by the Commission. 88. Applicant asked if they have to wait until the EIR before going to the Council. Staff said this item procedurally will go to the Planning Commission and then the Council after the Historic Preservation Commission. Applicant said it would show there was an adobe house and then what. Commissioner Mouriquand said the applicant could then evaluate the options as presented and any others that can be identified as reasonable options. 89. Mr. White had a question regarding approaching the City Council about purchasing this property. 90. Commissioner Mouriquand said all they had now was a staff opinion and she didn't know if staff wanted to suggest this as a Study Session question, and that option can be determined as an option for the EIR. You have your various mechanisms for taking policy questions to Council. Staff said that was something the applicant could pursue and there are avenues to proceed. Applicant asked what were the avenues. Staff said they would discuss that with the applicant outside of the Commission meeting. 91. There being no further comments. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriquand and Sharp to continue this report until an EIR can be completed. AYES: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, Sharp, and Chairman Wilbur; NOES: Commissioner Wright. B. Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan For a 4.84 Acre Parcel Applicant: David Maman Designs Consultants: Robert White and John Minch for Eilar Associates Location: South side of Avenue 58, West of Monroe Street. 21 NReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc Historic Preservation Commission June 15, 2006 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. There being no further comments. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriquand and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2006- 008 accepting the results of the Cultural Resources Survey Report as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Commissioner Sharp asked the City's policy for travel expenses. Staff said it was included in the report which was distributed to the Commission, and read the section of the policy that was applicable. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Mouriquand read part of an article called "Mea Culpa: How I Infected Cultural Resource Management With Archaeobias" and gave a brief description. B. Commissioner Puente asked about the status of the Historic Survey. Staff said CRM was chosen as the consultant to do the survey and explained what areas would be covered and the type of work to be done. Staff expects the survey to be completed by the end of September and draft copies would be supplied to the Commissioners. The suggestion was made to include the Sphere of Influence area in the survey and to do a one -page flyer for real estate agents to inform them of the procedures necessary to develop a piece of historic property. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on July 20, 2006. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:37 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: aV Carolyn W er P4&&t- Secretary 22 PAReports - HPC\2008\4-17-08\HPC Minutes 6-15-06.doc