Loading...
1998 12 17 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORlC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at .the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA DECEMBER 17,1998 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman DeMersman at 3 :30 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Present: Commissioners Irwin, Puente, Wright and Vice-Chairman DeMersman. B. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Commissioner Wright requested on Item 28, Page 6, a last line be added to read: "Ms. Williams inferred that the Commission was dictated to by staff." It was then moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Wright to approve the Minutes of November 19, 1998. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Reoort on Archaeolo!!ical Monitoring for the La Quinta Resort Homes project. I. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, the report was accepted for file as presented. Unanimously approved. B. Monitoring Reoort for Tract 28458 - Bella Vista. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIHPC12-17-98.wpd -1- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17,1998 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, the report was accepted for file as presented. Unanimously approved. C. Interim Archaeolol?Y Report for St. Francis Church Temporary Parking Lot. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Irwin had questions about the walkway area and whether it was to be a protected area. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand answered that it was her understanding that the agreement was the walkway would be taken out. 3. Ms. Betty Williams, representing the Church, interjected that the walkway area would be excluded; and would not be impacted. 4. Commissioner Wright asked if most of the project would be on the lower graded area. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand replied that the temporary lot would be on the lower area of the parcel, next to Washington Street. 5. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any further questions or comments. There being none it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Wright to adopt Minute Motion 98-011 accepting the Interim Archaeology Report for a Temporary Parking Lot located on the west side of Washington Street, south of 47th A venue and north of 48th A venue for Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church by CRM Tech, Bruce Love, PH.D. Unanimously approved. D. An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Map 25691. a 10+ acre parcel located adiacent to Miles Avenue. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked for questions and comments from those present. Commissioner Irwin asked to reserve her opinion until after the developer made his presentation. 3. Michael Smith ofWamer Engineering, representing the developer, stated the archaeologists had given them a clean site and they were asking that no further monitoring be required. Most of the project will be utilizing fill dirt that will be imported from an area that has be surveyed. They therefore, do not see a need for further monitoring. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIHPC12-17-98.wpd -2- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17,1998 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The developer, Jim Snellenberger, stated 90% of the trenching would be in the fill. Mr. Smith concurred and added any utility trenching would be in the fill areas. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked for comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Irwin stated her concern that they would be working in a very sensitive area ofthe City of La Quinta and it is unknown when the Lake Bed receded, where the original settlements or campsites were located. She would be hesitant about giving a "carte blanche" approval and not require the monitoring. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked ifthe areas that go below the fill could be identified. Mr. Smith answered he would supply the City with a map identifying the areas. Planning Manager di Iorio asked if the developer could provide monitoring in those areas as it would be one of the conditions. The developer replied he could. Commissioner Wright said he would be comfortable with any trenching or digging that is done in non-fill areas. In areas where there will be fill, it would be like a capping the site. Planning Manager di Iorio reiterated that a condition would be added that required the developer to provide monitoring. The developer and representative concurred. 10. Michael Smith went on to ask why the monitoring would be required a second time as this project was using import fill from an area that had been monitored. 11. ......__.-~____ _u _ .. ....__.. _H Planning Manager di Iorio stated that if they would define the area it would help with your contract. Mr. Smith asked if it could be made a condition to the map prior to construction. Planning Manager di Iorio stated it would be prior to grading. 12. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any further questions or comments. There being none it was moved and seconded by Commissioners WrightlPuente to adopt Minute Motion 98-012 accepting the Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Map 25691 with the condition that the developer provide a map of the area that is not being filled, and requiring it to be monitored. Unanimously approved. C:\Mv DocumentsIWPDOCSIHPCI2-17-98.wpd -3- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 E. Tentative Tract Map 28964 - Feasibility Assessment for Phase III alternatives for potentially significant cultural resources. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. She also added that two sites had been determined to be potentially significant for listing on the National Register. At the last meeting, the Commission requested the applicant prepare a feasibility study to evaluate the two resource mitigation alternatives as discussed in the CEQA Guide]ines. Those alternatives are: ]) preservation of the two potentially significant sites through avoidance by various means; and 2) data recovery through 100% salvage excavation program. In response to the request by the Historic Preservation Commission the applicant submitted a letter of the proposed excavation, a letter regarding the projected financial loss, a memo from the engineer regarding cut and fills, and a map with the quantitative artifact and site location information overlaid on the proposed subdivision. Staff reviewed the information and provided a recommendations in the staff report. Staff wanted to devote the time to the key concern of the preferred alternative in CEQA which is Alternative One. Staff is recommending additional information regarding redesign to leave some of the potential significant areas as open space and also to address a combination of in situ preservation and data recovery. Not everything would be preserved and what was not preserved would be 100% excavated. The staff report discusses several options to redesign the project to avoid some of the potentially significant site areas, pursuing reducing lot sizes and moving lot lines, and reducing the 42- foot width of the proposed streets. The General Plan specifies streets to be 36 feet in width with parking on both sides. A recent General Plan Amendment allows street width to be reduced to 28 feet with additional parking to be provided elsewhere. A 32 foot width would accommodate parking on one side. There is also some consideration of re-designing the circulation pattern as it may be possible to preserve some sites with a cap featured in a landscape setting with conservation easements. Staff is recommending the applicant re-design the proposed Tentative Map to preserve the potentially significant sites. 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated that if there were no questions of staff, would the applicant like to address the Commission. 3. Mr. Dick Oliphant, applicant, stated they had received a copy of the staff report and reviewed it with their consultants. He then asked Ms. Leslie Irish of L & L Environmental to address her concerns regarding the staff report. 4. Ms. Leslie Irish, Principal Archaeologist, L & L Environmental introduced Ms. Julia Casperzak, field director on the site, and stated Ms. Barbara Hal], project archaeologist was unable to attend due to family illness. Ms. Irish C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIHPCI2-17-98. wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17,1998 commented on the Conditions of Approval. First, is a procedural question as it appears that the recommendation by staff on Condition #1 is that the. applicant submit a redesign of the tract to the Commission for review prior to proceeding to Planning Commission. It was her understanding they were still in the phase of analyzing the feasibility of preservation as opposed to mitigation and that mitigation was what staff had recommended? Is it appropriate to require the redesign at this point in time since they are still analyzing the feasibility of preservation as opposed to data recovery. In addition, they have been working with staff to resolve Condition #5 regarding the Native American consultation for the Phase 3 component of the work be coordinated through, and in compliance with, the Native American Heritage Commission. It has now been determined by the Riverside County Coroner that the bones recovered from the site are not officially identified as human. Therefore, the Native American Heritage Commission was never contacted and the next of kin never identified. While they have Mr. Mark Benitez on the site acting as a consultant and making recommendations, this condition would then be somewhat inappropriate to this project. What has been agreed to is that they would comply with any requirements the Commission had that are applicable to the project. Then there are a number of conditions in the staff report that are either a writing assignment for our firm or some combination of writing assignment for Robert Bein Frost, the engineers, and I think they will probably speak to the feasibility, but I would like to reiterate my point that L & L continues to feel that excavation of this site is appropriate for this project and they have proposed 100% mitigation of the site. Although some have expressed a concern that this site be preserved for a variety of reasons, the developer has stated they do not think it is feasible. Therefore, they are still recommending mitigation at 100% of the significant sites. This is over and above what CEQA actually requires which is 3% to 5% of the site. Their desire is to explore the site, recover the data, analyze the material recovered, and utilize that information. 5. Mr. Oliphant introduced Mark Benitez from the Cabazon Tribe. Mr. Benitez introduced Judy Staub, Cultural Programs Director for the Tribe, who has been doing the cataloging and tracking of artifacts found on the site. 6. Mr. Oliphant interjected that Mark Benitez has been their Native American representative overseeing the project. He asked Mr. Benitez to give his opinion. 7. Mr. Benitez stated their position was to a liaison to the archaeologist on the site. In his opinion they are to lend advice, observe, and see what the site may be holding as far as any type of cultural remains. He has been doing this type of work for about three years and has seen a number of sites. His work has primarily been with Bruce Love who has been working extensively in this area. Most of his experience has come from on-the-job training to understand C:\My Docurnents\WPDOCSIHPCI2-17-98.wpd -5- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17,1998 all the different aspects of archaeology. This particular site, from what he has seen in the area, isn't much different than any of the others that have been developed. The lower section of the Coachella Valley is probably one of the most sensitive areas in the whole Valley and would require a more thorough and thoughtful recovery process due to the fact that the cremation sites on those locations are definitely identifiable. This location appears to be a sparse location. A large gathering of a village would have a much more intensive locations, or remains that would give a true presence of the inhabitants of the village that stayed at that location. 8. Mr. Oliphant stated some studies had been made since the last Commission meeting with their engineers. They looked at the project to see if it was feasible to re-design and made some suggestions, but they do not work. They are here to graphically demonstrate why it will not work. In addition, they have made efforts to do alternate layouts without much success. Mr. Bob Ross, Vice President ofRBF Engineers, is here with exhibits to demonstrate some of the problems with this particular site regarding preservation. 9. Mr. Ross stated that since the last Commission meeting they had looked at a couple of exhibits showing a cross-section across the two areas that are considered for preservation. When you look at the cross-section there is a large dune approximately 25 - 26 feet in height. The cross-sections show what was proposed on the original tract as far as elevations, in relation to the existing' ground. Marked in pen are the two areas considered for preservation. The first area is on the side of the dune. We anticipate cutting down this area to the pad, or approximately six feet. In the second area, it is a fill area of approximately ten feet. If you look at preserving those two areas and maintaining the lot configuration, the fill site will be difficult. It couId be capped. On the cut area, you would lose several lots and create some cut slopes outside the preservation area. Then the other area of concentration would be 100% recovery. After looking at this we went back and taken the City's comments, we came up with the schematic of what the Commission was asking. 10. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand stated this was true. Staff had worked on this design with the City's Public Works Department and carne up with some ideas. What they are looking at is taking the cul-de-sac, extending it and tying it in with the street section. This could possibly preserve the ridge. 12. Mr. Bob Ross explained this was the cut area, elevation-wise of the City streets. It shows this concept would not work because it would be cutting away approximately eight or nine feet which creates a two-to-one slope or 16 feet horizontally. ' This would put you into the preservation area. What they did was create a different configuration that would keep the lots essentially the same size, reduce several lots in area, and remove three lots from the lot C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIHPCI2-17-98,wpd -6- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 count to 75 or 76. This would require some cut slopes. The area to the west would appear as a large mound, approximately 10 feet above the surrounding lots. This area, assuming you could cap it, you would want approximately 10 feet of fill to create an open space area between the two cul-de-sacs. This would be nine feet, ten feet up above the adjacent lots or relatively close to the graded lots height due to the ten feet of fill on from the existing ground. 13. Mr. Dick Oliphant stated that in studying the different layouts created by the engineers, it became evident that the project becomes financially difficult. In addition, it becomes a project that has real difficulty as far as trying to preserve the historic sites. Building lots with a ten foot high sand dune behind it within the middle of the project is not feasible. The slopes blend into the two lots on either side making them essentially unbuildable which causes them to lose more lots and on the other side. This that becomes a ten foot fill or a cap situation which is different. They could bring it up to lot levels. They have already lost at least two lots and probably three, now with the slopes they lose two more lots for a total of five. This makes the project impossible financially to survive. They would be giving up essentially half-a- million dollars or more in revenues. These lots will start selling roughly about $110,000 to $150,000 each. One of the reasons for the large lots is to eliminate the common area. People can put their amenities on their own lot. So, it defeats a lot of what we're trying to achieve financially in fact it makes it financially not possible. They believe the recommendation of their consultant to mitigate the areas above the requirements of CEQA is a very generous offer, but preservation becomes something that's just physically and . financially not feasible for this project. 14. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Irwin asked if the skeletons that they found had been proven to be human or animal? Ms. Leslie Irish replied they have not been proven to be animal and are not identifiable as human. There is not enough material to be able to identify them. They have a memo from the Riverside County Coroner which states there was some burned bone and pieces of bone that were recovered, but none of them are large enough to be identifiable as human. It does not mean they are not. It just means that legally these are not identifiable as human. 15. Commissioner Puente asked the applicant to explain the statement in the report about the human cremation remains, or how do you identify that they are human remains. Ms. Irish stated that in other cases there are other factors that might be used to be determine that it is actually a burial. Unfortunately, in this case because of the motion of the dunes the area was eroded and C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIHPCI2-17-98.wpd -7- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 deflated and additionally eroded so that whatever it was that was originally there was almost gone. There were some fragments on the surface on a slope and in the course of a drainage area that were recovered. But most of what was originally there is now gone. 16. Commissioner Puente stated that in their report a number of findings were listed as being found in this area. It seemed to be very rich with deposits and appeared to have a lot of activity. Ms. Irish replied that this was actually referring to was an analysis of the surrounding area. With a records search they pick up anything within a certain radius and report it in our report. 17. Commissioner Irwin asked about the representative of the Native American people and ifthere was a representative from the Cabazon Indians and is he a member of the Heritage Commission? Mr. Mark Benitez stated he is not. 18. Commissioner Irwin questioned why the Cabazon Indian Tribe is working on this project area when traditionally this has been a Torres-Martinez area. She did not know if it made any difference, but as far as artifacts who had ownership rights. She questioned why a representative of the Torres- Martinez Tribe was not involved. Mr. Mark Benitez stated it was his understanding the Torres-Martinez Tribe did not come this far west and that was the reason the Cabazon Indians were brought onto the scene to make a recommendation. 19. Commissioner Irwin stated it was her understanding that the Act of 1970 stated artifacts were to return to the Native American people and I have a concern about it being returned to the proper group. 20. Mr. Benitez stated that as far as he knows, from Washington Street probably to somewhere near Coachella on the west side, but because the Cahuilla people have reservations that extends all the way into Mecca it is pretty extensive central location in the Valley. He was not sure exactly, where Torres-Martinez leaves off and the Cabazon Indians begins. 21. Commissioner Irwin asked staff if they agreed. Associate Planner, Leslie Mouriquand stated she was not a authority on the territories and believes traditional territories changed through time. 22. Mr. Benitez stated he would supply a map of the Coachella Valley showing the different territory boundaries of each of the Bands. The Agua Caliente Band has traditionally been involved with providing advice on archaeological resources from Washington Street to Palm Springs. C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIHPCI2-17-98.wpd -8- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 23. Commissioner Irwin stated she has a real concern about the bones that have been found and would rather assume that they were human and find out that they were animal rather than assume that they are animal and then find out at another point they are human. 24. Commissioner Puente stated if the bones have not been identified as human does that means they're not going to conduct further research to identifY the bones? Ms. Irish stated the law requires that when human bones are . potentially identified on the site that we contact the Coroner. The Coroner makes the determination of whether or not they are human bones and they contact the Native American Heritage Commission. If they're not identifiable as human there is no contact made and no requirement for a notification of next of kin occurs. The Native American Heritage Commission does not recommend monitors or consultants. They only recommend next of kin. So, in this case, a memo from the forensic anthropologist with the County of Riverside was submitted regarding her original work report which was handed out at this meeting. It further clarified the issue as to whether or not the Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission would be involved in this project. The issue that is not resolved has more to do with who takes control of these bones and where they are ultimately re-interred. It is not our current plan to continue testing because the Coroner has stated they are not identifiable. The only way to identifY these bones as positively human would be DNA testing. We have not recommended that, because there is nothing in the law that compels us to do that and I guess the question would be what would we be trying to accomplish by identifYing the bones? If, under the law, the indeterminate status of the bones does not change because they are not identifiable by the Coroner, we intend to hand them over to the Native Americans and allow them to do what they want with them. What would we be gaining by spending the additional funds? 25. Commissioner Puente inquired about what level of jurisdiction the project site fell in. Ms. Irish stated it is private land and no Federal jurisdiction. 26. Commissioner Puente asked what governing laws apply to the archaeological sites on this land; Federal or State? Ms. Irish stated that only on public land do you apply the Federal laws. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say that. There are Federal laws that effect developable land, but in this case, they're not changed by the presence of human bones. 27. Mr. Jim Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group, asked if there was a zooarchaeologist looking at the rest of the bone material. Those bones should be provided to him to see if he can identifY them as non-human. Ms. Irish stated there is a possibility, I mean I probably would do this. ("'-\1...(" nnr.llmf!nt~\WPDOCS\HPC12-17~98-wpd -9- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17,1998 28. Ms. Irish asked what they would gain by doing this? Mr. Brock stated you are evaluating an archaeological site. Every piece should fit together to form a big picture. 29. Leslie Irish stated this would enable them to designate them in their report and possibly determine, by additional testing whether or not the fragments were actually human bone. That is a possibility. It is not necessarily absolute. 30. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated his concerned that he was listening to someone who purports to be an archaeologist concerned about archaeology, saying "what do we gain?". Archaeology is about understanding previous cultures, it is part of a bigger picture. To simply say "Eh, they're bones" and you don't care what kind of bones they are really disturbs me. 31. Ms. Irish responded that was not her intention and she did not believe that she said she did not care about it. What she said was, what would they be accomplishing in this event. I think we need to weigh the scientific value of analyzing bones against the cultural value of returning them to the Indians and allowing them to do what they want with them. Now, it's true that if we went and analyzed these bones further we would know, possibly, whether they were human or not. What I am saying is I am not sure this is something we should care about. I'm just saying that analyzing these bones and subjecting them to scientific analysis is, in itself, sometimes as offensive to Native Americans as it is to just allow them to re-inter them in an area that they designate as appropriate. It was not my intention to indicate that I do not care whether or not these bones are actually human. I'm just saying that my actions probably won't change as far as the ultimate deposition of the bones. 32. Commissioner Irwin stated she thought the sensitivity of the area is more extensive than just the bones. The bones are part of it, and are important to us, but we are trying to understand the lifestyle and what was here before us. The City of La Quinta has decided to research its archaeological heritage and learn as much as we can about who was here and how they lived. This Commission is very serious about this endeavor. Every aspect of this report is important to us. 33. Commissioner Puente stated the although the bones have been found in an area where there was so much prehistoric activity and human remains appear in places where some human activity has been conducted. This is then an indicator that the bones may be human and you stated at our last meeting that a human cremation was found. It is my understanding that you are now stating the bones are of no significant value for additional analysis; they are just bones and not that important. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIHPC12-17-98.wpd -10- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 34. Ms. Irish stated that legally this distinction has been made; they are not identifiable as human. The site is still significant. It does not change the designation of the site. 35. Commissioner Puente stated she had been doing research to become more aware and familiar with the legal disposition of bones. What she discovered was that there should be something like an Archaeological Resources Protections Act permit issued under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act before removing any bones or any other artifacts. How does this fit in with your Coroner order to remove the bones? She has spoken to one of the representatives of the Torres-Martinez Band and she has made me aware that there is a new Federal Repatriation and Discovery Law adopted in January, 1998, that affects human remains on either Federal or private owned land. It is suppose to address the issue of any artifacts with Indian remains whether or not it belongs to Federal or private land. Sites are to be considered sacred site and the appropriate Indian tribe is to be notified. 36. Mr. Jim Brock stated this is taken care of when the Coroner is notified that bones have been discovered. 37. Ms. Irish stated she would be willing to research this law and see if it was pertinent. However, she is not presently aware of any change in the law and after speaking with the Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission and they did not inform her of any new changes in the laws pertaining to human remains in an archaeological context. 38. Commissioner Wright stated he believes this could be a very rich site. He understands the developer's financial concerns. It would either make or break the project, but unfortunately too many projects have gone forward in this Valley without an archaeological study and an enormous amount of information has been lost regarding our past and the past of the Coachella Valley. As mentioned by Commissioner Irwin, the City of La Quinta has gone forward to maintain the integrity of its historical past. He stands by what was stated at the last meeting and he completely agrees with staff s recommendations on all the points with the exceptions of the ones made regarding the Native American Heritage Commission. He does not believe a project should be evaluated on its financial concerns when it comes to an issue of costs versus preservation. In regard to discovery he thinks the City needs to hold firm. 39. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated he had read the report numerous times trying to understand the concerns of the developer. His conclusion was the same as Commissioner Wright. His only exception would be the elimination of Condition #1, the re-design. Commissioner Wright concurred. C:\My DocurnentsIWPDOCSIHPC12-17-98.wpd -11- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 40. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated the applicant had shown this was not feasible. In regard to the remainder of the conditions, he would agree with staffs recommendation. They are appropriate and needed. 41. Planning Manager di Iorio stated she would like to ask a question about the re-design issue; specifically looking at the design and area that needed to be cut. Did the applicant address the problems in the fill areas? Mr. Bob Ross discussed the areas in question and solutions that had been introduced. 42. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if Mr. Ross had looked at those areas in regards to lot sizes. They could add another lot by reducing the lot size from 19,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet to allow for open space 43. Mr. Bob Ross stated they were trying to keep the original lot size to retain a certain price for the lots. The smaller lots will not bring as much money. 44. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio acknowledged the change involved, but stated the City was looking at maintaining the lots at a minimum of 15,000 square feet and above. This would retain one lot for open space area with the fill and possibly gaining another lot by reducing the lot size. 45. Mr. Ross stated the reason they have 19,000 square foot lots and 42 foot wide streets was to keep it from being a cookie-cutter type of subdivision. 46. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio pointed out that the City encourages smaller streets because it's more of a neighborhood atmosphere and brings the landscaping out to the street. This design concept proposed by the applicant differs from what the City has adopted in the General Plan Amendment to reduce street widths and reduce the amount of asphalt. This project is therefore, in opposition to what the City is trying to accomplish. Discussion followed regarding possible redesign alternatives. 47. Mr. Ross concluded there would be a net loss oflots. It would be a gain of one lot, but a sacrifice on the comers resulting in additional flag lots 48. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if the Commissioners wanted to delete Condition # 1 or leave it in. 49. Commissioner Puente believed the most important conditions were #4 and #5. 50. Discussion followed as to whether a zooarchaeologist should analyze the faunal remains and whether there should be a condition recommended for proper identification of the bones. 51. Commissioner Irwin asked where the bones would be stored. Ms. Irish stated C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIHPCI2.17-98.wpd -12- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 they would be re-interred, but if the Commission wanted a condition requiring them to make an analysis first, this could be accomplished. 52. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand asked if the applicant was proposing that all bone be re-interred? Ms. Irish stated they would be sending the bones out for analysis. If the City would like them to send the potentially human bones out for further analysis to determine, by whatever method is most appropriate, then they could do that. 53. Commissioner Irwin asked what the method would be used for excavation of the artifacts to avoid mixing the artifacts. Would they be using a backhoe or hand excavation? Ms. Irish responded they apply a grid and tied it to a survey locations so we know precisely where each unit is on the ground. Then do the collection with every bag being identified with that grid number, identifYing what it is, and at what level it was retrieved. 54. Commissioner Puente asked if the bones had been collected. Ms. Irish stated the bones were collected in part on the day that the Coroner was there and then in total by the next day after some more excavation was done to make sure that everything had been recovered. There was a possibility more material could be below in the drainage courses, but the upper areas were all excavated and whatever bone was there had been recovered 55. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated he would like further clarification of the Indian Band boundaries to be sure they were returned to the rightful owners. 56. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Irwin to adopt Minute Motion 98-013 approving the Feasibility Assessment for Phase III Alternatives for Tentative Tract Map 28964 as amended: a. Delete Conditions #1 and #6. b. Add new Condition #9: The applicant shall provide current tribal boundaries for the purposes of correct disposition of any human remams. c. Add new Condition #10: The potentially human cremation bone material referenced in the Phase II Interim Testing report and subsequently determined, "not large enough for a positive identification", as human by Consulting Biological Anthropologist Debbie Gray shall be submitted with all other bone material to a qualified zooarchaeologist for study and possible identification. The results of this study are to be included in the final Phase III data recovery report. C:\Mv DocumentsIWPDOCSIHPC12-17-98.wpd -13- Hi'storic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL I. Commissioner Wright commended Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand for her article in the CRM Magazine. Commissioner Irwin suggested the City Council be given a copy of the article. VII COMMISSIONER ITEMS I. Commissioner Wright asked if the City Council was still looking to fill the empty positions on the Commission as he had been approached by Stewart Woodard, who had served on the Planning Commission, who stated he was very interested in serving on the Commission. 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman informed the Commission that he would be resigning from the Commission as he had accepted the position of the Executive Director of the Hayward Area Historical Society. The January, 1999 meeting would be his last meeting at which time he would tender his resignation. Commissioners wished him well and congratulated him on his promotion. So, I'll give my official letter of resignation at our next meeting. 3. Commissioner Wright commented on two articles in the local newspapers, the Desert Sun and Los Angeles Times, about the Indio neighborhood and historic buildings in Los Angeles. One article in particular dealt with a neighborhood where they are doing spectacular things and asked that they be put on file. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners WrightJPuente to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next scheduled meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:52 P.M. Unanimously approved. Following the meeting a training session was held where Mr. Jim Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group spoke regarding Archaeological Method and Theory; the A venue 48 Corridor. C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIHPCI2-17-98.wpd -14-