Loading...
1999 03 18 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESER V A nON COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA MARCH 18, 1999 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Wright at 3:36 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Irwin, Mitchell, Puente, Vossler, and Chairman Wright. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was then moved and seconded by Commissioners IrwinIV ossler to approve the Minutes of February 18, 1999, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Environmental Assessment 98-375' Archaeological and Paleontological Assessments of Specific Plan 98-034 and Parcel Map 29052 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. He pointed out that the Paleontological Report states this area was once under the shoreline of the ancient Lake Cahuilla and there was a chance significant fossil remains could be located on this property and staff was therefore, recommending a monitor be on site for the excavation of the entire commercial site. 2. Commissioner Mitchell stated he had some concerns on the archaeological report for the 12-1/2 acre inventory and assessment. They were as follows: P:\CAROL YN\HPC3-18-99. wpd -1- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 a. The report states all artifacts were mapped and collected. If the three archeological sites are not eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, why were artifacts collected? The concern about collection is that it costs about $500 a square foot to curate artifacts. If they have been properly analyzed and assessed there's no reason to collect them unless a museum, the Torres- Martinez, or the landowner wants them. Specially, under California State Law the landowner is the owner unless there are burial remains, associated artifacts of burial remains, and items of cultural patrimony. Does Dr. Love have a curation agreement in place with a local museum or university; or, will the artifacts be given back to the landowner or the Torres-Martinez? b. Also, in Dr. Love's report, in the fourth paragraph, he mentions the raw materials used for the production of chipstone tools; however, no mention is made concerning the phase or reduction represented. In the initial phase of chipstone reduction you'll have cortex; the natural weathering and oxidation on the outside of the rocks. No mention of this is made as to whether it's the initial phase or the intermediate phase. No mention is made concerning the types of pottery represented and some of these sites have quite a bit of pottery, e.g., tizon brown, tumco buff, etc. The natural ingredients of these different types of pottery originate from different areas so it's important to know what types they are. c. Is this information available on the site records, or is the final draft of the report coming? Plus he mentioned some bones that were coming out of the test excavation units. And he didn't speciate the bone in terms of what it was. Most probably it was a rodent that died in the burrow. Many archaeological sites, when it's not cultural, turn up rodents that have died naturally. But, it should be investigated as to what they are. 3. Principal Planner Sawa replied stated Dr. Love did mention that a final report is forthcoming. 4. Commissioner Mitchell thanked him and continued with his questioning about a large site just barely on the north end of the 12-1/2 acre parcel, CA-RlV- 6149, which lies outside of the area of potential effect. What efforts have been made to preserve the balance of the site until it can be professionally assessed? If the site was taken as a whole, would evaluating both portions cause the site to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? In other words, if you take half of the site and another half of the site and you look at them separately, they may both be ineligible, but as a whole, they may be eligible. P:\CAROL YNlHPC3-18-99.wpd -2- Historic Preservation Conunission Minutes March 18, 1999 5. Principal Planner Sawa stated that Phase 2, on the balance of the property including this site, is also being done by Dr. Love. 6. Commissioner Mitchell asked if the elders from the Torres-Martinez and/or the Cabazon Band of Indians had been consulted regarding any cultural or religious concerns for this area? Religious areas may not have artifacts an archaeologist can see on the ground and must be determined by asking the Native Americans. He agreed with Dr. Love's assessment that these sites do not contain any intact subsurface cultural deposition. Given the paucity of surface remains, these sites may not be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Comprehensive site recordation exhausts the research potential for these archaeological sites. He commented he did not have any concerns about the Paleontological report. 7. Planning Manager di Iorio stated staff recommended the Paleontological study be consistent with the Archaeology Report as the initial report was brief, staff was asking for a format similar to the Archaeology Report. 8. Commissioner Mitchell replied his concern was the monitoring. There was a Holocene deposit discovered and he asked why monitor a Holocene deposit unless you planned on going very deep; possibly into a Pleistocene deposit or something older. 9. Commissioner Puente asked who appoints the Paleontology monitor for the area and what are the requirements for the position? 10. Planning Manager di Iorio replied the developer chooses the monitor and submits the contract prior to issuance of a grading permit. II. Commissioner Puente asked about the field crews who were taking part in both the Interim Cultural Resources Report and the Cultural Resources Report as they appeared to be different people from the Torres-Martinez Reservation. Was there any specific reason for that? 12. Commissioner Irwin replied Dr. Love had his regular crew, but trains others from the Reservation. She then asked how much of the project was actually the old orchard? 13. Principal Planner Sawa answered it was unknown, but it is thought to be the same project. There was nothing in the reports that stated specifically how big it once was. ]4. Commissioner Irwin then asked what an Anadonta fragment was. Commissioner Mitchell explained it was a freshwater clamshell. P:\CAROL YN\HPC3-18-99. wpd -3- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 15. Commissioner Irwin then asked if this is all Holocene, would this all be freshwater; including the snails. 16. Commissioner Mitchell replied the deposits in the paleontology study were Holocene, meaning freshwater. Holocene's only 10,000 years old. 17. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners MitchelllPuente to adopt Minute Motion 99-010 accepting staff's recommendations with the inclusion of Commissioner Mitchell's recommendation. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 98-378' Cultural Resource Survt:Y for the Jefferson Street Improvements between Avenue 54 and Indio Boulevard for the City of La Ouinta 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this project was a Capital Improvement Project not only for the City of La Quinta, but the City ofIndio and County of Riverside, as well. The contract required not only compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, but also the ability to be a part of Section 106 if Federal monies are received for development of any portion of the roadway. A cultural resources report was done that included the archeological, historical and paleontological resources reports. All were negative. The only other recommendation was monitoring of any grading or excavation below five feet for the paleontology, as everything else was documented. 3. Commissioner Irwin asked ifthere should be any concern about the three palm trees? Planning Manager di Iorio replied they would be relocated on site. She further explained the property was not losing its original context, as a grove, since only three trees were being moved. The context would still be maintained as they would not be moved out of the area. 4. Commissioner Irwin said it was important to look at all aspects of a project to be sure nothing was approved that would make changes of a historic nature. Planning Manager di Iorio assured the Commission that staff had been concerned about the canal and the bridge, but since they had been severely modified, the integrity was no longer there. 5. Commissioner Puente asked if staff had looked into a permanent preservation place for the specimens? Planning Manager di Iorio replied this had not been considered for this report, but the Commission could include a condition for a preservation plan. P:\CAROL YN\HPC3-18-99. wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 6. Chainnan Wright asked if a tree removal plan had been recommended. Discussion followed about the relocation of the trees. 7. Planning Manager di Iorio stated that if the Commission was concerned a Mitigation Measure could be added under Cultural Resources and carry forward with what is in the initial study. The document states, "although the project will relocate the three date palms". The Commission could request the three date palms be relocated in a comparable location to maintain the grove as a mitigation measure. 8. Commissioner Mitchell commented he didn't remember the wording in the report, but he thought this issue had been addressed. He wasn't sure if it was included under the cultural landscape or the natural landscape, but there was concern over the historic value of this particular grove and the fact there would be no adverse effect if these three trees were relocated. 9. Planning Manager di Iorio pointed out section, "Historic Resources", on page 60 of the Appendix, that stated "similar to the Sniff Grove, the Shields Date Palm Grove also qualifies as a potential City ofIndio cultural landscape and appears eligible for the California Register. Current plans indicate that at least three date palms within the Shields Grove require removal in conjunction with street widening... It is therefore recommended that the impacted trees be relocated either to another section of the Grove or be incorporated into landscaping along Jefferson Street." The Commission could add this as a Mitigation Measure and use the language from the Appendix. 10. There being no further comments, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners IrwinIPuente to approve Minute Motion 99-011 accepting the report with the following condition: a. "Similar to the Sniff Grove, the Shields Date Palm Grove also qualifies as a potential City ofIndio cultural landscape and appears eligible for the California Register. Current plans indicate that at least three date palms within the Shields Grove require removal in conjunction with street widening. Therefore the impacted trees shall be relocated either to another section of the Grove or be incorporated into the landscaping along Jefferson Street." Unanimously approved. C. Professional Archaeological Consultant Oualifications I. Planning Manager di Iorio presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. P:\CAROL YN\HPC3.18.99.wpd -5- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 2. Chairman Wright thanked staff for all their hard work in preparing this report a second time. He then asked the other Commissioners if they would prefer reviewing each item or address only those items that were not correct on the first report. 3. Commissioner Irwin suggested reviewing the document one paragraph at a time, then coming to an agreement. Staff pointed out that the Secretary of Interior Standards for qualifications had been used to make the report. The Commission could make changes that were unique, but they needed to know where the information originated from. 4. Commissioner Irwin asked if the Commission was required to follow the standards verbatim, or could they be adjusted as long as there was nothing contrary to the Secretary of Interior Standards. Staff explained that was what staff had done, especially in regard to the crew members. Specifically, were there were qualifications under CalTrans that had been removed. 5. Commissioner Mitchell stated he had no objections to the report. He had spoken to Dr. Love who had concerns because he was training tribal personnel and they did not have formal education. He further stated the archaeologists working on government property had to be certified and hold a Cultural Resource Use Permit. Those working on the site are responsible for their own personnel. He felt this was adequate as long as there was a way of notifYing the archaeologists that if they do substandard work they will receive a warning. If the offense is repeated they will no longer be allowed to work in the City of La Quinta. That is the best safeguard. In regard to meeting the qualifications and having everyone certified, it is a logistics nightmare. As long as the principal archaeologist is responsible for the report, assessing the archaeological survey, and both prehistoric and historic remains, there should be no problem. He had previously worked as a crew person before he received his undergraduate degree and was not certified. There were a lot of people who never had a degree who were fine archaeologists, and as long as there was someone there that was responsible for them, that was the only caveat in terms of qualifications. 6. Commissioner Irwin cautioned that she did not see any problems with what was contained in the report, but wanted to be sure all the bases were covered and nothing obvious was missing. 7. Chairman Wright commended staffon addressing the Commission's concerns and answering the letters from Michael Rodarte and Jerry Schaefer. P:\CAROL YNlHPC3-18-99. wpd -6- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 8. Chairman Wright stated his only concern was the number of Cahuilla Indians who had supervised field training in archaeology, but did not have formal academic training. He read the new document and compared it with the old document, side-by-side, and agreed with Commissioner Irwin. However, he too did not have archaeological expertise such as Commissioners Puente or Mitchell. 9. Commissioner Puente asked ifit would be possible to incorporate changes or addendums later on. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was possible. 10. Chairman Wright confirmed that, with staff's help the Commission could add, or incorporate items into the original document, but the Commissioners needed to approve this document as the standard. He also stated he thought this was a good basis, or backbone, for the City to build on and for future Commissioners to work from. II. Commissioner Mitchell made the point that with this type of document it is impossible to make everyone happy, or have a perfect document. Further, staff has done a tremendous job and if we find changes were needed, staff would be willing to assist in amending the document. He further added that for twenty years the Federal government has not had any requirements for crew members and there has never been a problem. And, if there were problems, the principal investigator would be eligible to lose his permit to work in La Quinta. This would create the impetus to make sure the report was correct. 12. Commissioner Irwin voiced her concerns about having the proper requirements for people working in La Quinta since there was so much coming before the Commission. It was very important to have people with the right qualifications working on our projects; including the crew members. She had no objections to this document. 13. There being no further comments, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 99-012 toaccept this report and recommend it to the City Council. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Wright along with the rest of the Commission thanked staff for the letter to Dr. Love. P:\CAROL YN\HPC3.18.99.wpd -7- Historic Preservation Commission Minules March 18, 1999 B. Planning Manager di Iorio told the Commissions plans were being made for a Preservation Foundations meeting to fulfill the Commission's educational requirements for the year. C. The Commissioners then discussed the March 2911> Point Happy Tour and the fact that Commissioners Vossler/Wright would be unable to attend. Following discussion the date was changed to April 1511>, to be held in conjunction with the regular monthly Historic Preservation Commission meeting. D. Commissioner Irwin commented on a conversation she had with members of the California Preservation Foundation regarding the upcoming Conference. She had suggested they contact the Palm Springs Historical Society or Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention. She then asked ifthere had been any further discussion about the Historical Society manning the book store. Since Commissioner Jim DeMersman had left the Commission it had not been receiving updates on the progress of the Conference planned for May 20th through May 23M. Planning Manager Di Iorio explained there had been a lot of confusion since Commissioner DeMersman had left. The Foundation is now trying to confirm what has been done and go on from there. She had also received phone calls from staff at the Foundation and confirmed they were still looking for help as they were having a problem with the short amount of time left and the fact they are coordinating it from out of the area. Commissioner Irwin said she would be contacting them regarding their personnel needs for the Convention Book Store. Planning Manager Di Iorio mentioned the Gala Event will be held at the hotel on May 22nd (Saturday); and she was trying to set up a tour of The Traditions as one of the cultural (landscape) workshops. She asked the Commissioners for their help setting up the tour. Discussion followed and Chairman Wright offered to assist Planning Manager di Iorio in the arrangements for the Traditions tour. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on April 15, 1999. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:33 p.m. February 18,1999. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: (l VC-ll~}c tt)a}!ce;v Carolyn ~ker Secretary