Loading...
1998 11 19 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 November 19, 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 Puente, Wright and Vice-Chairman DeMersman. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners PuentelWright to excuse Commissioner Irwin. Unanimously approved. B. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand 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 Wright/Puente to approve the Minutes of August 20, 1998, as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners WrightlPuente to approve the Minutes of October 15, 1998, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. An Interim Report on the Phase II Archaeological Resources Assessment of the 40+ acre site APN 649-100-015 City of La Ouinta (TTM 28964). 1. Planning Manger Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. At the request of staff, Vice Chairman DeMersman explained the basics regarding the NAGPRA law in regards to Native American participation and curation of artifacts. In his opinion staff's recommendation #2 did not need to be addressed by the Commission as this was an issue that is handled by NAGPRA. Native American human remains and associated grave goods must be repatriated under this law. P:\CAROL YN\HPC 11-19-98.wpd Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 1998 3. Commissioner Puente questioned Page 9 and Page 24 of the report and the depth of the findings. Does staff think objects could be found at a deeper level. Ms. Leslie Irish, speaking for L & L Environmental, Inc., stated she did not believe any items would be found any deeper. The deepest material recovered was 80 centimeters and that was unusual. Most material was found at a shallower depth. The listing on Page 9 are sites that surround this site within a one mile radius. 4. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated that in reading the report he did not get a sense of what kind of human remains were found. Were they significant or not? Ms. Irish stated they were fairly small fragments. It was a cremation that had been found and had eroded to the surface at a fairly shallow depth and made its way down the slope and spread out. The recover involved picking up all the material identified by the Coroner's Physical Anthropologist to be human and then any bone that was in the general area. 5. Mr. Oliphant, the applicant, informed the Commission that a blessing ceremony was also held on the site by the local tribe. Ms. Irish stated a tribal member was able to perform the ceremony at the site. 6. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked how significant was the site to the development, where are they located at on the site, and what impact would they have to the site. 7. Mr. Bob Ross, RBF Engineers, identified where the sites would be found on the tract. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if the width and length of the sites had been identified. Ms. Irish stated it was established in the report on Page 24. Staff asked that the depth be identified as well. With the existing topography and the proposed grade and what the differential is given the depth ofthe project, is what staff is looking for. It was important to have the depth differential in relation to the project between the existing topography and fill. Mr. Ross went over the topography of the site. 8. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked the consultant what more they hope to find and why they were recommending the additional work in the cremation area. Ms. Irish stated they went through a portion of the site, and then went higher in expectation that the cremation would be higher on the slope due to the erosion down into the wash. They cut through and got an amount of material from the higher end. They opened a section north of this site which was three meters by nine meters and found material in the lower range. Ifthey propose to collect the remainder they need to go south of this site to obtain cremation material that could have eroded off. 9. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if they find significant material and it needs to be preserved, how will that be done. Ms. Irish stated they do not have any n.\r"An......Tv-a.ntJTlr"lllnnO.._..1 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19,1998 objection to preservation. CEQA shows this to be the preferred method of handling archaeological resources. More knowledge might be gained from excavation later on. CEQA allows an analysis and a determination of feasibility for doing this and that depends on a lot of factors including the size of the project and what the site can bear in terms of removal of lots or inclusions of open space area. They have not done a feasibility analysis for preservation because the developer has indicated that is not something they want done. Staff has indicated that an analysis should be done, but the conditions do not call for this. Is the City requiring the preservation of the site or asking for more analysis? 10. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated there should be a feasibility report because ifthere is something there, it should be preserved. This Commission has been a flexible group when it comes to looking at development and issues of preservation within that development. There are also times when things need to be preserved. As a City we are losing a lot and we need to look at this issue a little more closely. It is his recommendation that they look at the feasibility of preservation, if it is warranted. II. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it is a part of CEQA and the environmental assessment and mitigation that the City can't require a study as a part ofthe assessment if it is going to have the opportunity to change the project. The City has to have the information now and have it approved before the environmental assessment can go forward. 12. Mr. Oliphant asked staff what they would anticipate finding that has not already been found and would need to be preserved. It was his understanding that what had been found could be collected. Ms. Irish stated they were proposing 100 percent mitigation of what they feel is a significant portion of the originally identified site. This is an acceptable alternative under CEQA. She feels the analysis has been made and they did not recommend avoidance because the results were fairly consistent. The subsurface material was consistent with the surface material. They are finding the same thing all over the site. The advantage to the mitigation as it offers the opportunity to answer questions or determine factors they might not have retrieved to date. The significance of the site is that it is a rich deposit with two contrasting time periods. Their recommendation is mitigation. 13. Ms. Barbara Hall, gave her credentials and stated she was an Associate Professor with the Riverside Community College. She has done a lot offield work in both the State of California and Arizona. Ms. Irish asked what her opinion was regarding preservation versus mitigation. Ms. Hall stated preservation is the better option, as in the future there will always be better techniques. There is a lot to be learned from the site which can only be learned from excavation of the site. They have tested the site and they have P:\CAROL YN\HPCII-19-98.wpd Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 1998 an idea of the limits, some idea of the formation structure process of the site. However, they have no real information of the subsurface remains in terms of location for future excavation. Ms. Betty Williams, applicant, asked if this could be done during the grading process. Ms. Hall stated that if it is excavated it should be done by hand to have good stratigraphic information such as grids and this could be done in a reasonable amount of time. 14. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand stated that excavating by hand is not associated with monitoring of grading. 15. Ms. Williams stated that as developers they have tried to work with the City in conducting the studies requested. In her opinion it has been extremely expensive and they feel the material that has been gathered and the report written, clearly identifies solutions to them being able to work on the site. A major factor is that there is a large amount of money that has been spent to bring the information that is before the Commission to date. To support Ms. Irish's statement would be repetitive of what has been presented and reported. 16. Commissioner Wright stated they have been flexible to help every developer in a timely and cost saving manner. He is concerned that there may be more here than what appears and would agree with Vice Chairman DeMersman on his original assessment. 17. Mr. Joe Loya, a member of the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation and spokesman for Native American Field Resource Crew who assisted with the consultant L & L Environmental, on the project, stated he did consult with Mark Benitez regarding the site and he was aware of him being present at this meeting. He shared with Mr. Benitez what happened on the site as far as him being the lead for spiritual and other areas. They are concerned about the site. There is a number of things that are there that have not been seen before. They have put together a Native American crew often people and are finding items that have never been seen before. They felt so moved with this project to the point that ifthings were not taken into consideration for their feelings, they would have to walk off the project. On reading the report, there was more than one Native American working on the site doing the excavation and he does agree with L & L Environmental, Inc., that they do need to look further into the site. He does understand the developers point of view, but they need to take into consideration what could be found. Items found can be a marketing item for the developer's project. 18. Ms. Irish asked if staff wanted the resume's and appendix of each of the workers on the site. Staff stated it was an option not a requirement 19. Commissioner Puente stated that when there is a site with human remains it P:\CAROL YNlHPCll-19-98.wpd Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 1998 is more important. The items found are from the people who were there. You can consider the economics, but they need to stress the preservation. 20. Commissioner Wright stated the Commission was created and became a Certified Local Government because of what our past has been. This Valley has been dozed under due to the lack of concern for these sites. He is in favor of following through with staff's recommendation. 21. Mr. Oliphant stated that from the conversations, it sounds like additional work is being required. If that is the alternative to preservation and collection, could staff give him some idea of the area involved. He would need this information to determine ifthe project would be viable. Ms. Irish asked what area needs to be done. Staff stated this is what staff has been asking for. They now have information and it is significant. The area has been reduced, in coordination with the project development does it fit and is there an opportunity for preservation for some or all of the material found. Maybe the remainder is mitigation through recovery. As staff does not have that information, they do not know how it fits with that area that is to be graded, what the ultimate grade will be, or what opportunities are left. 22. Mr. Oliphant stated that if they were to lose two or more lots, economically this project does not work. Staff stated this is why a feasibility report is needed. Mr. Ross stated if the areas are what he thinks they are, it is ten or fifteen lots. Staff stated that with previous tracts where there are sites like this, they have been able to define them and make a determination, to define the boundaries, and see if there is some work that could be done like possibly changing the grade. 23. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated that when significant sites had been found on previous tracts the Commission was given options. They are not being given an option on this tract. It is either this or that and the Commission wants some options. 24. Commissioner Puente asked if staff was asking for the hand excavation due to the importance of the site. Ms. Hall stated yes. Some areas are very shallow redeposited areas and part of the trenching is to define where the significant deposits are located. Staff stated this is what staff has been asking. Now staff is requesting how the existing topography is affected by the areas that are affected. 25. Wiliams stated that staff had done an overlay of the tract. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they do not have the grading, as it is the responsibility of the archaeologist and engineer. Ms. Irish stated the tract map was plotted on top of the topographic map showing where the sites were located. The P:\CAROL YN\HPCII-19-98.wpd Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 1998 grading analysis, however, was not been a part of the overlay prepared by staff. In their opinion, this is such a small project that to avoid the area, given the information presented by the applicant, it makes the project infeasible. While she has no objection to a further analysis, if the applicants have to avoid one or two lots, the project becomes marginal. As an archeologist she would like to see preservation where ever it is possible, especially when it relates to features. With the difference in the topography it is not possible to avoid and cap the site, especially given the fact that the applicant will have to compact the soil. If they want further analysis, she will do that, but the results will be the same. It makes the project stop. 26. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that one of the reasons staff has been in favor of preservation is the cost of 100 percent recovery. Staff is looking at preservation through CEQA as the alternative and to provide the City with other information. When you talk about feasibility, this should be considered. 27. Mr. Oliphant stated this tract has large lots and it to attract the higher priced market. Each lot is worth $108,000 to them. So to lose one or two lots it becomes a substantial loss and the project becomes infeasible. With the cost per lot being what it is, to spend additional money on recovery does not make sense. To spend $50,000 on a study would be less than losing one lot. 28. Ms. Williams asked what would satisty staff. Staff stated it is up to the Commission. Ms. Williams stated she would like to have some criteria so they can respond to. Ms. Williams inferred that the Commission was dictated to by staff. 29. Commissioner Wright responded to Ms. Williams comment by stating the Commission was not dictated to by staff. They take staff's recommendation very seriously. The Commission just finished a review of a project where preservation was a decided upon issue by the developer. It was a very congenial decision by everyone. In his opinion, an assessment is needed. 30. Vice Chairman DeMersman and Commissioner Puente concurred with Commissioner Wright's comments. 31. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand read Commissioner Barbara Irwin's comments into the record. "a. The City needs to keep the standards for cultural resource preservation as set with the Tradition Project and the Avenue 48 project. P:\CAROL YNlHPCII-19-98.wpd Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19,1998 a. The two significant sites on TTM 28964 should be capped and preserved. b. The human remains on the project should be buried on the project site." 32. Ms. Williams asked if this was typical. She thought the remains would be removed to sacred ground. Staff stated that in La Quinta, they have been re- buried on the project site per the wishes of the Native American representatives of that project. 33. Ms. Williams asked what Mark Benitez indicated. Ms. Irish stated she understood he would want them buried on a different site. 34. Ms. Williams asked for definitive guidelines to follow so they could provide the Commission with the information they wanted. 35. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated that the Commission wanted the feasibility and analysis of preservation as opposed to mitigation. How much area is involved on the tract site. 36. Commissioner Puente asked staff to consider preservation of the entire site due to the human remains. Staff stated the human remains would be excavated. 37. Mr. Tony Lavato, Torres Martinez Survey Group, stated that in the areas they worked in there were four or five bags of human remains. If you walk the whole section you find a lot of stuff. You need to look at everything not just the human remains. It is good to develop and it could make the developer look good if they were to help them preserve their history. Need to resurvey and test because if you walk around you find something everywhere. 38. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if the Commission was approving the interim report with staffs recommendations. She had a list to better define what the feasibility study would be for the preservation of the two sites: a. The potential depth of the sites. b. Feasibility study for preservation of the sites. c. Analysis of the economics of the preservation. d. The cost of 100% recovery of the two sites. 39. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 98-010 accepting the Interim Report on Phase II Archaeological Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 28964 with partial compliance with the requirements of CEQA with the modifications as follows: Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19,1998 a. Provide a list of all field crew. b. Provide a feasibility study for: I.) The preservation of the two sites including the sites relationship to the tract map as far as the topography and proposed grade. 2.) Its location with the proposed lots. 3.) The depth of the sites. 4.) The economic feasibility 5.) 100 percent recovery of the two sites versus the preservation of the sites. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated staff had submitted an application for preservation award in conjunction with The Tradition project for the Hacienda del Gato. II COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioners Wright and Puente went to the La Quinta Historical Society's Workshop on Archiving training and gave a brief report. B. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand stated the Commissioners were required to make a presentation stating how archival skills could be put into the planning process. C. Staff informed the Commission that on December 17"' training would be given by Mr. Jim Brock of Archaeological Advisory Group. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners WrightIPuente to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next scheduled meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on December 17, 1998. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:37 P.M. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROL YN\HPCI1-19-98.wpd