Loading...
1999 06 17 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 17, 1999 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Wright at 3 :31 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 Barbara Irwin, Mike Mitchell, Maria Puente, Judy Vossler, and Chairman Robert Wright. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/V ossler to approve the Minutes of May 27,1999, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Environmental Assessment 98- 367: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Review of a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the La Ouinta Resort and Club Real Proiect located at the northwest intersection of Eisenhower Drive and A venida Fernando, north of the La Quinta Resort and Club. Applicant: Landaq Incorporated. Archaeological Consultant Joan C. Brown for RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.; Review Archaeological Consultant Donn Grenda for Statistical Research, Inc. I. Commissioner Vossler withdrew from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Commissioner Mitchell thanked staff for their report and stated this report did not have any terms regarding curation agreements, nor did it list the artifacts collected. He then asked if the artifacts belonged to the land holder or if the C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC6-17-99. wpd -1- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 17,1999 City had a curation agreement in place. The City should require some form of a curation agreement to know the destination of the artifacts. In addition, the report states the Salton Sea separates the Imperial Valley from Coachella Valley and he is uncertain how that can be. 4. Chairman Wright introduced Mr. Ronald Bissell, Registered Professional Archeologist with RMW Paleo Associates, who clarified he is a third owner ofRMW and Joan Brown is their employee. He was involved in the report and the technical qualifications are the same. He then went on to state what was found on the site and elaborated on their recommendation. He questioned the review completed by Statistical Research Incorporated (SRI) in that Donn Grenda of SRI did not note any site visits and depended on what was found in their (RMW) report. Mr. Grenda concludes the four prehistoric sites are not worthy of test excavation and recommends no further research on the four sites. He questioned his reasoning for this recommendation and stated their conclusion that the lack of surface artifacts is evidence there would be no subsurface artifacts. This is faulty reasoning. Mr. Grenda based his conclusion on a study at March AFB which is a different environment and culture. He has done several excavations where there was very little surface indication that wound up having very complex subsurface deposits. These sites all had one thing in common; they are located in areas of definition, not erosion. Which is another area of disagreement with Mr. Grenda; his perceived lack of sediments. The sites are surrounded by sediments. There could be buried material. Mr. Grenda stated one potsherd was found when two were found. His biggest disagreement with Mr. Grenda is where he refers to one particular site, CA-RIV-6178, and states: "the sandy area south of the feature could contain buried artifacts." This is exactly the same conclusion they reached and Mr. Grenda is here making the same recommendation. In summary, no one can say whether or not there are any buried artifacts at the sites. If you do not accept the test excavations to go with the sites, and there is a buried deposit, the chances are very good they will be totally lost. In regard to the question as to why this could not be done during monitoring, it is impossible to remove the dirt with a backhoe/scraper in increments small enough to detect the artifacts. If Mr. Grenda's recommendation is followed, archaeological data could be destroyed. With their recommendation for minimal test excavation there will be a marginal increase in cost, but there is a better chance of determining whether or not there are any artifacts. 5. Commissioner Mitchell asked if they had spoken with SRI regarding their differences in opinion. Mr. Bissell stated they had not had the time as they had just received the report. Commissioner Mitchell asked ifhe would have any objection to shuttle test probes. Mr. Bissell stated they suggested controlled excavation in conjunction with a backhoe. C:IMy Document,l WPDOCSIHPC6-17-99.wpd -2- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 17, 1999 6. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated RMW was requested to supplement their report with the inclusion of research design question that would justifY the reason for a Phase II study. When asked for this information, staff was told by RMW that this is their recommendation and nothing would be added to the report. This is why SRI was asked to prepare the review. The City did not ask SRI to go out to the site due to budget constraints. 7. Mr. Bissell stated they do modifY their reports when asked by the agency/company when something is missing or the client believes it is weak. He questioned who would have made that statement from his office. Staff stated they were working with the City's consultant. Mr. Bissell stated there must have been some mis-communication. 8. Commissioner Irwin stated that considering the location, it is obvious from the surface that the "pot hunters" have been there and she is amazed anything was found. She definitely wants to see the site monitored as construction continues. She agrees with staff s recommendation. She asked if any shovel testing would take place. Staff stated the recommendation called for the first report to prepare the record and form. However, as the summary did not provide the justification for the need of additional testing and the City's consultant did want this information as part of the study, staff requested the second study. In doing the second study, the archaeologist did not visit the site, but used the forms from the first report to make the determination regarding the issues to be addressed. The recommendation in the peer review was to not follow through with Phase II for the prehistoric site, and only do the Phase II for the historic sites. Staffs recommendation agrees with the peer revIew. 9. Commissioner Mitchell stated he agreed with Mr. Bissell that grading is the worst form of excavation to expose subsurface material. However, he does not agree with a lot of controlled excavation as it is very expensive and does not expose as much of the subsurface as a shovel or auger. He concurs with staffs recommendation. 10. Mr. Bissell stated there are four archaeological sites that are in areas, or immediately adjacent to areas that have active definition. There could be artifacts in the sandy subsurface. They are recommending a minimal amount of testing to determine if there is anything below the sites. Mr. Grenda recommended only monitoring and that could destroy anything that would be below the subsurface. 11. Chairman Wright clarified the concern was only regarding the four prehistoric sites. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCS\HPC6-17-99.wpd -3- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 17, 1999 12. Commissioner Puente asked if expense was the issue. Mr. Bissell stated no, as the cost would be minimal. If a significant amount of material is found, they will come back with a recommendation for data recovery prior to grading. Where it could become expensive from the developers standpoint, is if an archeological site is found during monitoring and he has to stop his equipment while the site is explored. By doing the testing first, it prevents delays. 13. Commissioner Puente asked for staff s opinion. Staff stated the peer review provided the justification and did not recommend testing of the milling sites, but monitoring. 14. Chairman Wright stated he concurred with staff's recommendation. 15. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners WrightlIrwin to adopt Minute Motion 99-017 accepting staffs recommendation. 16. Commissioner Mitchell suggested testing for intact prehistoric deposits be added to the recommendation. Commissioner Puente agreed. 17. Chairman Wright stated he agreed with staff. Commissioner Irwin stated that since the City has had such good luck in the past with monitoring, she would stand with the motion as made. 18. Commissioner Puente asked what the cost would be for the Phase II excavation. Staff stated it would have to be given to the consultant for his review and determination. 19. Commissioner Irwin asked if Commissioner Mitchell wanted all the sites tested. Commissioner Mitchell stated he was concerned only with areas that possible could have subsurface impact. If there are substantial areas of sand deposition, he would like to have them tested. 20. Chairman Wright stated the site has been scavenged extensively and the milling site is next to the mountain and he cannot see how a scraper could work in that cove without tearing everything up. 21. Discussion followed regarding any potential development of the site and what equipment would be used on the site. 22. Chairman Wright moved to accept the report as recommended by staff. Commissioner Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Vossler absent. C:IMy Documentsl WPDOCSIHPC6-17-99. wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 17, 1999 Commissioner Vossler rejoined the Commission.. B. Environmental Assessment 99-383: Archaeological Assessment of Specific Plan 99- 036 and Tentative Parcel Map 29351; located northwest of the intersection of Highway III and Dune Palms Road. Applicant: Troll- Woodpark Company. Archaeological Consultant Bruce Love for CRM Tech. I. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Puente asked if a final report would be submitted. Staff stated it would be prepared and submitted to the Commission. 3. Commissioner Irwin stated she wanted the five items done as outlined in the report. 4. Commissioner Vossler supported staffs recommendation. Commissioner Mitchell and Chairman Wright concurred. 5. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 99-018, accepting the report as recommended by staff: C. Environmental Assessment 99-382: Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29288 and Conditional Use Permit 99-044; located northeast of the intersection of Adams Street and Miles Avenue. Applicant: Mark and Dorothy Hastings for First School of the Desert. Archaeological Consultant Bruce Love for CRM Tech. I. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Irwin stated the property appeared to have a catch basin and asked if a study was done when Miles A venue and Adams Street were constructed. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that when the record search was completed, nothing was found. The only sites recorded were not found in this area. Staff does not know how much land was moved at the time, and no studies were completed for the streets that long ago. 3. There being no further comments, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners PuenteN ossler to adopt Minute Motion 99-019 to accept the report as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved. C:IMy Documentsl WPDOCSIHPC6-17-99. wpd -5- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 17, 1999 C. Interim Report on a Portion of the Phase I Archaeolo!!ical Survey: located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. Applicant: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. Archaeological Consultant James Brock and Brenda D. Smith for Archaeological Advisory Group. I. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no comments, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners MitchellIPuente to adopt Minute Motion 99-020 accepting the report as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained some if the items received in their packets. B. Commissioner Irwin asked if the Curation Report would be on the next agenda. Staff stated they anticipated the Commission's review of the document at the September meeting. C. Commissioner Irwin asked if the next meeting could be on July 8, 1999. Discussion followed as to surmner meeting schedules. It was recommended to go dark in July with a regular meeting in August. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners IrwinlPuente to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on August 19, 1999. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. June 17, 1999. Unanimously approved. C :IMy Documentsl WPDOCSIHPC6-17 -99. wpd -6-