Loading...
2000 10 19 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Guinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Guinta, CA October 19, 2000 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Wright at 3:02 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 Irwin, Mitchell, Puente, Sharp, and Chairman Wright. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Sharp to approve the Minutes of September 21, 2000 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Phase I Historic/Archaeological Resources Survev for Specific Plan 2000- 050: located north of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive. Applicant: Santa Rosa Plaza, Inc. (Bison Hotel Group, LLC. - Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Bruce Love) 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. P:\CAROL YNlHPCI 0- J 9-00.wpd -1- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19,2000 2. Commissioner Irwin commented the Commission had developed a certain set of standards for monitoring concerning the grading and trenching. She had some questions as to the definition of trenching versus grading and the depths involved for each. 3. Planning Manager di Iorio explained each project was analyzed on a case-by-case basis and generally the recommendations of the archaeologist were followed based upon what the field survey uncovered or if there was archaeological sensitivity in the surrounding areas. The Commission has been asking that there be monitoring during trenching which has been done in other areas in the Cove. 4. Commissioner Irwin asked if trenching was specified and if the site included a mound, outside of the trenching area, what procedures would be followed? 5. Planning Manager di Iorio replied that would be up to the archaeologist since topography of the site is also important. 6. Commissioner Irwin also added the site was a former landing strip, and there was too much clay to grow anything. The recommendation stated monitoring during earth moving activities and she wondered if it would be better to use the word "trenching" . 7. Planning Manager di Iorio clarified the need for monitoring given what was observed, namely the topography and artifacts on record for the site, plus research done by the archaeologist. The recommendation for this project was if something was uncovered during the grading an archaeologist would be called to the site. 8. Commissioner Sharp asked that a definition of "trenching" be provided. 9. Planning Manager di Iorio suggested it may not be necessary to define grading, because trenching refers to the areas being dug for pipes or irrigation systems. P:\CAROL YNlHPCIO-19-00.wpd -2- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 10. Chairman Wright commented he felt it was better to look at each project on a case-by-case basis, adding specific conditions for each project. 11 . Commissioner Irwin said she preferred monitoring during the earth- moving activities with the option to be more specific if necessary. She stated the Commission has been trying to set up some standards for monitoring of sites. 12. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was going to be subterranean sites on the project; such as a swimming pool, and how would that affect the monitoring requirements. 13. Planning Manager di Iorio answered there was no proposed subterranean parking at this time, but there were plans for a hotel pool, appropriate to the size of the development. 14. Planning Manager di Iorio added there would also be a subterranean tennis court and wanted to clarify if the Commission wanted monitoring just for grading of the tennis court, or for anything that went below a certain level. 15. Chairman Wright asked what the standards were for other CLG cities such as Pasadena. 16. Planning Manager di Iorio was only able to define what was done in San Juan Capistrano, where she formerly worked. In that City they defined the depth based upon the archaeologist's recommendation and the sensitivity of the site and did define trenching as anything 18 inches below the Surface. 17. Commissioner Mitchell remarked the difference between trenching and grading was whether it was done with a backhoe or a scraper. If it was a significant sample of the site you can look at the sidewalls, see a profile of the stratigraphy which may suffice. He thought it best to monitor the site because you have a good idea of the geologic and the cultural profiling caused by the trenching and then go from there. If it's negative in terms of trenching, he would not recommend any more grading, but it was a judgement call according to the recommendations of the archaeologist. P:\CAROL YNlHPCI O-19-00.wpd -3- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 18. Chairman Wright asked Commissioner Irwin if she had any history of the site which would require the Commission to be more specific. 19. Commissioner Irwin replied she didn't have any specifics only that she would like to have the site monitored if trenching was to go beyond two feet. 20. Commissioner Mitchell interjected it may be advantageous to have an archaeologist with a geology background since he could see if the strata pre-dates any existence of man at the site. That might be one idea because unless you were looking for paleontology findings there would be no sense in an archaeologist being there. The backhoe trenching would give an idea if they need to come back with another recommendation in terms of how old the soil area is and if there was any possibility of human occupation occurring in these particular stratas. 21. Planning Manager di Iorio explained in some respects this process would be a Phase II testing because you're doing a backhoe trench as far as a Phase II would be concerned. 22. Commissioner Irwin observed at one time or another most areas of the Cove have been farmed and asked how far down a tractor's disc would have gone. 23. Commissioner Mitchell commented farming should not have that much of an impact to the soil since it only goes to a depth of four to ten inches and that same soil is being turned over and over. So it should not have a negative affect in terms of the provenience of artifacts as it doesn't necessarily move them off site or destroy them completely. 24. Commissioner Irwin thought there was a possibility the artifacts could be deeper if this was a former lake site. 25. Commissioner Mitchell suggested the Commission request a couple of test units be done. P:\CAROL YNlHPC IO-19-00.wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19,2000 26. Chairman Wright commented that might be less expensive and better for the developer instead of requiring an archaeologist on site for monitoring every bit of grading since it should be extensive. 27. Commissioner Irwin commented this project was important as we should begin to get more requests from developers in this same area. 28. Commissioner Sharp said he thought there should be testing done where the swimming pool and tennis court are to be constructed. 29. Commissioner Irwin expressed her concern that this area could be very rich in artifacts and guidelines, or standards, should be in place for this and all future projects in the area. 30. Commissioner Mitchell reiterated test holes could be dug and an assessment made at that point. 31. Chairman Wright agreed the Commission wants to be thorough, but not at the price of losing all new development. 32. Planning Manager di Iorio confirmed the recommendation was to provide a test excavation and asked if the Commission wanted a specific number, or leave the decision to the archeologist. Unanimous consent of the Commissioners was to let the archaeologist decide. 33. Commissioner Puente asked for clarification on developers' standards. .34. Commissioner Irwin replied the Commission had already been requiring developers to monitor, but the current discussion was about what the Commission's expectations for the future were, as far as standards or guidelines are concerned. 35. Chairman Wright asked if the Commissioners wanted to add this topic as a future agenda item. P:\CAROL YN\HPCIO-19-00.wpd -5- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19,2000 36. Planning Manager di Iorio said the current procedure was to look at each project as unique and individual because historically the monitoring of trenching for projects in the northern part of the City have all been negative. 37. Commissioner Irwin added we are now dealing with the Cove which is different than northern La Quinta. An example would be the area at Coachella Drive where artifacts were found which isn't that far away. 38. Chairman Wright asked the Commissioners if they wanted to continue looking at projects on a case-by-case basis or come up with a defined set of guidelines. 39. Commissioner Mitchell felt the Commission could rely on the professionalism of the archaeologist as well as the Commission's recommendations If the Commission has any concern they can recommend monitoring or testing to some level at that time. 40. Chairman Wright questioned whether the Commission should have a standardized set of guidelines and add to them on a case-by- case basis. 41 . Commissioner Mitchell stated that would be easier. 42. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 2000-024 recommending approval of the Phase I Historic/Archaeological Resources Survey for Specific Plan 2000-050; located northeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico with the following condition added: a. The applicant shall prepare a Phase II study consisting of test trenches as appropriate to determine if monitoring is necessary. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROL YNlHPClO-19-00.wpd -6- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19,2000 B. Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Phase II Testing program for Specific Plan 99-035: located generally on the north side of 54th Avenue between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street. Applicant: Country Club Properties - Archaeological Consultant: McKenna et al. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp asked how many golf courses would be included in this project. 3. Planning Manager di Iorio replied three. 4. Commissioner Sharp expressed his concern about recent newspaper articles referring to the water table and the fact that the area is sinking. He felt these concerns should be considered. 5. Planning Manager di Iorio advised him that would be rev.iewed during the EIR process under water resource analysis. Also the Water District is given a copy of the project to comment on as part of the review process. 6. Commissioner Mitchell asked about page 17 of Phase II, 1 st paragraph, where it mentions that some areas were not accessible. Were these areas no longer in the area of potential effect? 7. Planning Manager di Iorio replied some were and the archaeologist did go out and do a recent survey to determine if the building was historic or not, and it was determined not to be. 8. Commissioner Sharp asked what made these non accessible? 9. Planning Manager di Iorio replied the property owner did not receive full ownership until June and the archaeologist was not on site until the latter part of July or August. 10. Commissioner Mitchell complimented Jeanette McKenna (project archaeologist) on her professional and very comprehensive reports. He thought she had taken all the steps necessary and accepted her recommendation. I':\CAROL YN\HPClO-19-00.wpd -7- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 11. Commissioner Irwin commented she wanted the monitoring to continue. 12. Commissioner Sharp added he was impressed with the report. 13. Chairman Wright commented on the thoroughness of the study and agreed with Commissioner Irwin that monitoring was especially important due to the fact that the site is covered with vegetation and the report states "there could be some real finds under some of the large vegetation". He emphasized the project did need to be monitored. 14. Planning Manager di Iorio explained the monitoring would be included in the EIR as a Mitigation measure. 15. Commissioner Mitchell said he was concerned about the language concerning the earthmoving activities as opposed to formal grading and asked the general question if others had concerns in that regard. 16. Commissioner Irwin stated the monitoring should be on the initiation of all earthmoving activities. 17. Chairman Wright countered it should be in this area because it has been undisturbed and undeveloped. 18. Commissioner Mitchell reaffirmed the Commissioners' wishes were to accept the report with the proviso that the specific definition for monitoring of all earthmoving activities be included. 19. Commissioner Sharp then asked if there had been monitoring when PGA West was initially developed. 20. Planning Manager di Iorio replied an EIR was done for PGA West which required monitoring, so the assumption was that it was monitored. 21 . Chairman Wright commented as the City moves further east, there are fewer large sites left that may be as potentially rich as this site could be. P:\CAROL YNlHPCIO-19-00.wpd -8- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 19,2000 22. Commissioner Irwin related this site is surrounded by areas that have proved to be very rich. The Village area has never been tested so it is important to do some testing because the Indians were drawn to La Quinta because of the Cove, and the Santa Rosa Mountains. 23. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mitchell/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2000-025 recommending approval of the Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Phase II Testing Program for Specific Plan 99- 035; located generally on the north side of 54'h Avenue between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street with emphasis on continuance of monitoring. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Irwin reminded the Commissioners of the May conference in Barstow. B. Commissioner Puente asked for an updated list of the Commissioners. She then went on to share her recent experience in Spain and her visit to the Guggenheim in Bilbao. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Sharp to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to a specially scheduled meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on November 9, 2000. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:44, October 19, 2000. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: C~ J JJJh / tJfL~ C::Ty;J.rValker Secretary P:\CAROL YNlHPCIO-19-00.wpd -9-