Loading...
2005 04 21 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 April 21, 2005 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Allan Wilbur at 3:03 p.m. He then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Staff Present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Deleted approval of Minutes for the meeting of March 17, 2005, as they were not included. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Final Phase II Cultural Archaeological Test Program For Tentative Tract Map 32201: Applicant: Choice Enterprise Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock, Principal) Location: Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the Torres Martinez Tribe requested monitoring, would that be made a condition on the grading permit. She asked if the City was going to ask for P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc Historic Preservation Commission April 21. 2005 evidence that the developer made arrangements to have an Indian monitor. Staff replied yes. 3. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was a Native American at the site for the Phase 2 testing. Staff replied they did not believe so. It was just the consultant's staff. The report identified who did the on-foot survey. Staff said the Tribe was asking to be there for the monitoring in this case, but were not previously in attendance during the testing for this report. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said she was glad to see that some students were getting an opportunity to be involved in the local history. 5. Commissioner Sharp asked if the students working on the project were Native American students. Staff replied they were not. They were from San Bernardino Valley College. 6. Commissioner Mouriquand said this was a very tight, concise, and appropriate report. 7. Commissioner Sharp asked about the holes shown in the report photos. 8. Commissioner Mouriquand explained the importance of the neatness and precision of the excavation. 9. Chairman Wilbur commented it was his understanding there would be a Torres Martinez representative present for the monitoring. Staff replied that was correct. 10. Commissioner Mouriquand said the consultant was required to make arrangements to have a monitor, and asked what happened if the monitor didn't show up. Staff said the project would proceed. The developer could not hold up the grading because the monitors didn't show up. 11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2005-010 accepting the results of the Final Phase II Cultural Archaeological Test Program for Tentative Tract Map 32201 as submitted. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROl YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 2 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 B. Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a 9.78 acre parcel: Applicant: GLC/DUC LO Paleontological Consultant: Cogstone Resource Management Inc. (for ECORP Consulting, Inc.) Location: 80-600 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented contained in the staff report, a copy of which Community Development Department. the information is on file in the 2. Commissioner Sharp asked why they found shells on this site and not on the first site. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand the elevation of this site. lakebed and some of the proximity to the shore. explained it was most likely due to She said this would have been a mollusk colonies would be in close 4. Commissioner Sharp wanted to make sure there was no oversight on the part of the archaeologist. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand replied there was not. She commented there had been a really nice clam bed recorded in a nearby site, but this area was more conducive to having colonies of mollusks as opposed to the other location. 6. Chairman Wilbur asked if the pictures on Page 8 were actual samples from the site or just examples of the type of materials found. Staff said the pictures on Page 7 were from the site and those on Page 8 were just examples. 7. Commissioner Mouriquand commented when she first read the report, her first thought was whether it was a bit of overkill to do the sample units. The more she thought about it, the more she realized the shells had been ignored too long, and there was a lot to learn from them. She added, for scientific purposes, it's a good idea to do the sample units. 8. Chairman Wilbur asked if anyone was familiar with the report Consultant. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21.Q5.doc 3 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 9. Commissioner Mouriquand replied she was not familiar with them. Staff answered they did not recognize the name. 10. Commissioner Mouriquand said they were apparently subcontracted by ECORP's Dr. Roger Mason, who is well known and highly thought of. She said if Dr. Mason thought they were professional, and up to the task, she would accept his judgment. The report was very appropriate and they followed all the standard procedures. She had no fault with the report. They included more information than what was customarily received. It was a very good report. 11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-011 accepting the Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a 9.78 acre parcel located at 80-600 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. Phase I Archaeological Survey Report: Applicant: GLC/DUC LQ Archaeological Consultant: Cogstone Resource Management Inc, (for ECORP Consulting, Inc.) Location: 80-600 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented contained in the staff report, a copy of which Community Development Department. the information is on file in the 2. Commissioner Sharp commented that, in the past year, the Commission has invited Native Americans to show up at various sites. He was unaware of their appearance at any of these sites. He asked how long had this procedure been going on. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand replied it had only been a recent occurrence. Staff said it had only been a couple of years. 4. Commissioner Sharp was concerned about their lack of response. Staff asked what he meant by saying they never responded. Commissioner Sharp replied they've never been to the site to monitor. Staff replied they were aware of several cases were Native Americans were present for monitoring. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand said she did not think anyone was tracking that information. She said you would have to look P:\CAROl YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 4 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 through the monitoring reports for some discussion saying they were present. 6. Commissioner Sharp said they were being included in the recommendations, but didn't appear to be at the site very often. 7. Commissioner Mouriquand said the important thing was to forward the recommendation that they have a Tribal monitor involved and make it a condition of approval, but it would then be the responsibility of the Tribe to act on the recommendation. The City and the Commission could not enforce it. The Commission could only make the effort and then it was up to the Tribes to follow through. 8. Commissioner Wright pointed out to the Commission that this procedure is new for the Tribes. A lot of the Tribes do not have the infrastructure such as the Augustine Band. They've only been organized about four years. Once the other Tribes get established, and get a hierarchy, as well as a bureaucracy, then they will probably show more consistency in monitoring. The important fact was they were being given the opportunity to attend. 9. Commissioner Mouriquand stated some of the other bands are not quite organized to the point of actually having monitors available, though they may want a tribal monitor involved. Some of the Tribes may just request the monitoring be done by the Agua Caliente Tribe because they have an active, trained monitoring crew available. 10. Commissioner Sharp asked if the Tribes knew what education was required of a monitor. 11. Commissioner Mouriquand replied the consultants honor each band's decision as to who they consider qualified. They are held to standards which are different than an archaeologist's. They are not required to have a college degree, because their goal is more of a cultural/traditional role rather than academic or scientific. If the Tribal Councilor Cultural Resources Office considers a person qualified to be a monitor, that decision is not challenged. 12. Commissioner Sharp asked about the parameters for the Tribe and the City. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 5 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 13. Commissioner Mouriquand replied there are two cultures and two approaches to everything. The Agua Caliente and Pechanga Bands have good internal training for their monitors. They will bring in an archaeologist to train their monitors and they do not work for hire until they pass the internal training program. 14. Commissioner Sharp asked if they were paid. Commissioner Mouriquand replied they were paid by the Tribe. Currently the Agua Caliente monitors receive a very substantial wage. The archaeologists and consultants coordinate and cooperate with the monitors. The monitors are very good and professional in their work. They can record sites. They can spot something quickly and they are eager to be on site participating. 15. Commissioner Sharp asked if it would be proper for the City to prepare a set of guidelines. 16. Commissioner Mouriquand replied the guidelines are up to the Tribes regarding monitors and qualifications. If a monitor should need assistance on site, the project archaeologist would assist and educate them. Basically, the monitors just need a good pair of eyes and some notion of what artifacts look like, as well as an awareness of safety rules. Most monitors know how to take field notes, record sites, draw artifacts, and are aware of OSHA rules and regulations. 17. Commissioner Sharp commented on the willingness of the Torres Martinez Tribe to be involved with monitoring. 18. Commissioner Mouriquand gave some background on her involvement and that of CRM TECH, in training the monitors and some of the Tribal Members. She added, some of the Tribal Members have even worked for CRM TECH. 19. Chairman Wilbur asked if the Commission has done what was needed for tribal representatives to be notified and present on sites. 20. Commissioner Mouriquand replied yes, the Commission has done all it could do. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4~21-05.doc 6 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 21. Commissioner Wright commented Bruce Love was instrumental in getting the Native Americans on his crews. 22. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed and said he did a fantastic job. This was a wonderful service to the local Tribes. 23. Commissioner Sharp mentioned Harry Quinn, of CRM TECH, was also helpful. 24. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed he was. 25. Commissioner Wright asked if there was a residence on the site. Staff answered yes, there was a residence on Avenue 58 which was built in the 1970's. 26. Commissioner Mouriquand said the report stated the residence was not more than 50 years old. 27. Chairman Wilbur commented the report was referring to the slabs, which were all that was left of a previous structure. Staff said the only residence shown, in the aerial photos, was one that would remain. The residence will not be a part of the development. 28. Commissioner Wright said that was fine, but stated the Commission should specify a photographic record be made of the residence and the farm structures and samples taken from the dumps on the site. 29. Commissioner Mouriquand commented she didn't see any discussion about the historical periods. She didn't see any Government Land Office (GLO) or National Register searches or any steps normally involved in dealing with historical resources. The report adequately covers the prehistoric period and the Cahuilla, but there is no research on homesteads. The whole discussion of historical resources was just left out. 30. Commissioner Wright commented that for a small piece of property it was very rich, but there should be some kind of cultural history included. Staff asked Commissioner Wright if he was talking about the information listed in Table 1, Page 6, as these are sites that are within one mile of the project area. None of the items listed are on this property. Staff also P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21~05.doc 7 Historic Preservation Commission April 21; 2005 explained that might also be where the confusion is regarding the historical structures and artifacts. 31. Commissioner Mouriquand was still concerned that no historical context had been included. 32. Commissioner Wright said even if the house is not going to be demolished, the Commission should still ask that there be a photographic record made of it prior to any work being done. This way it could be documented. from a cultural standpoint. Staff replied there would be no work done on it and it was not included in the development. 33. Commissioner Mouriquand added even so, this may be the only opportunity to obtain documentation, if this is a historic resource. Staff repeated there would not be any work done on it. The owner of the residence would retain it and sell the rest of the property. 34. Commissioner Mouriquand commented there were no photos of the house in the report, so the Commission was not aware of its authenticity. 35. Commissioner Wright was interested in the cultural information; the date the home was homesteaded, as well as a photographic record. 36. Commissioner Mouriquand said there was no information about the architecture of the house. There was no information as to whether there were any noted architects behind the design. She added the residence is shown as part of the project, but on the map it is not included. Staff replied the residence is shown as part of the project, but it is not a part of the Tentative Tract Map. It has been carved out with a Parcel Map and is not part of the subdivision, even though it is shown as part of the project site. The developers have nothing to do with the house and are going to surround it. 37. Commissioner Wright agreed with Commissioner Mouriquand that it is an opportunity to record a cultural resource in its original context. This way it will prevent the loss of a cultural resource on a technicality. The Commission has concentrated on Archaeological/Paleontological data for the past 11 years. In five years from now, there won't be anything left of La Quinta P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc B Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 to discuss except historical residences and that's when the mission of the Commission will shift to the preservation of historical structures. 38. Commissioner Mouriquand commented on the objectives of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) commissioned study. Part of the CEQA process is an environmental review to look at what kind of impacts the project will have upon the land. This residence is part of the land. Although there's not going to be any direct impacts by demolishing the building, it will still be surrounded by the new development. That is a form of impact. More information is needed about this structure. There may not be another opportunity to request this. The appropriate procedure, under the intent of CEQA, is to look at impacts on existing cultural resources, even if they are technically carved out on the map. The Commission needs more information to decide if it is a cultural resource. 39. Principal Planner Sawa stated the records showed only one residence on the property and it was built in 1983, which would eliminate it from being a historical resource. 40. Commissioner Wright commented it was not necessary to document the residence, but that information should have been mentioned in the report. Staff agreed. 41. Chairman Wilbur asked if the Commissioners wanted the report amended. 42. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested staff send a letter to the author of the report stating that customarily the City requires a discussion about the historic period on any existing structures, and that information was lacking. She suggested staff suggest the consultant include some discussion in future reports. Staff said they would send a letter with the results of the meeting and the comments suggested would be included. 43. Commissioner Wright said all future reports need to include detailed information on all structures, if there are any. Staff agreed and commented most of the reports contain this information. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21.05.doc 9 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 44. Commissioner Mouriquand recommended an amendment to Condition A to include the request for tribal monitoring by the Augustine Band. 45. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2005-012 accepting the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map 32979 with the following addition to the end of the first sentence in Recommendation number one: ". .including a Native American monitor during grading." Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Commissioners received copies of the California Preservation Conference Schedule. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Wilbur suggested a thank you letter be sent to those who volunteered to assist on the April 10, 2005 tour. He said staff could sign on behalf of the Commission. B. Commissioner Mouriquand said she would provide staff with the names and addresses of those who assisted on the Tour. C. Commissioner Sharp stated he had a good time and enjoyed the tour. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on May 19, 2005. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:47 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: ~a~ Secretary P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 10