Loading...
1999 04 15 HPCL�T_V.0 O�rU V r Qum& Zr DY c`yor�t�'� HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California April 15, 1999 3:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Historic Preservation Commission on matters relating to historic resources within the City of La Quinta which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Historic Commission, please state your name and address and when discussing matters pertaining to prehistoric sites, do not disclose the exact location of the site(s) for their protection. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the regular Minutes for the meeting of March 18, 1999 V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Environmental Assessment 98-375: Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract map 29053, located northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 for Lundin Development Company, by CRM Tech. B. Certified Local Government Grant Proposal for 1999 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VH. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Point Happy Tour conducted by Louise Neeley. --.001 VH1. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION 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. I. 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 Irwin/Vossler 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 Mao 29052, 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. 002 PACAR0LYNUiPC3-18-99.wpd -I- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 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: 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-RIV- 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 PACAROLYNUIPC3-18-99.wpd -2- 003 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 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. 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. 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. 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. 11. 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? PACAROLYNWC3-I8-99.Y;N -3- 004 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 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. 14. Commissioner Irwin then asked what an Anadonta fragment was. Commissioner Mitchell explained it was a freshwater clamshell. 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 Mitchell/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 99-010 accepting staffs recommendations with the inclusion of Commissioner Mitchell's recommendation. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 98-378- Cultural Resource Survey for the Jefferson Street Improvements between Avenue 54 and Indio Boulevard for the City of La Quinta 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 of Indio 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 if there 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. PACAROLYNV1PC3-18-99.wpd -4- 005 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 5. Commissioner Puente asked if staff had looked into a permanent preservation place for the specimens? Planning Manager di lorio replied this had not been considered for this report, but the Commission could include a condition for a preservation plan. 6. Chairman 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 of Indio 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 Irwin/Puente 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 of Indio 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. l PACAROLYNUIPC3-18-99.wpd -5- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 I . Planning Manager di Iorio presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 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. 007 PICAROLYNUiPC3-18-99.wpd -6- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 18, 1999 Chairman Wright commended staff on addressing the Commission's concerns and answering the letters from Michael Rodarte and Jerry Schaefer. 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 if it would be possible to incorporate changes or addendums later on. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was possible. 10. Chairman Wright confirmed that, with staffs 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. 11. 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 accept 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. PACAR0LYN\BPC3-I8-99.wpd -7 _ O O Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 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 29' Point Happy Tour and the fact that Commissioners Vossler/Wright would be unable to attend. Following discussion the date was changed to April 15', 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 if there 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 20' through May 23`a 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 22"a (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: Carolyn alker y 009 Secretary ATTACHMENT #1 COMMENTS REGARDING DR. LOVE'S TESTING & EVALUATION OF CA-RIV-6147, 6148 & 6149 (TPM 29052) If the three archaeological sites are not eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), why were the artifacts collected? (Page #5). Does Dr. Love have a curation agreement in place with a local museum or university or will the artifacts be given back to the land owner or the Torres -Martinez? Why weren't shovel test probes dug instead of controlled test excavation units? (Page #5). This comment may not be pertinent since it deals with method, both being acceptable. After excavating one or two sterile levels in the test excavation units, why weren't auger probes dug to 100cm instead of the more costly controlled 10cm levels. Again, both methods are acceptable. (Page #6) In Dr. Love's report he mentions the raw materials used for the production of chipped stone tools. However, no mention is made concerning the phases of reduction represented e.g. initial phase is represented by cortex covering much of the dorsal surface of the rock. Further, no mention is made concerning the types of pottery represented e.g. tizon brown, tumco buff, et cetera. Is this information available on the site records or a final draft of the report? plus bolvAr S101"At'%mN Riv-6149 - most of the site lies out side the area of potential effect (APE), 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 NRHP. I know that representatives of the Torres -Martinez Band are members of your field crew. However, were elders from the Torres -Martinez and/or the Cabazon Band consulted regarding any cultural or v religious concerns for this area. Finally, I agree with Dr. Love's assessment that these sites do not contain any intact subsurface cultural deposition. Given the paucity of surface remains, I agree that these sites are not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Comprehensive site recordation exhausts the research potential for these archaeological sites. PALEO - No concerns 010 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 15, 1999 ITEM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-375: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 50 APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: CRM TECH (BRUCE LOVE, PRINCIPAL) BACKGROUND_ An Initial Study for a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements for proposed Tentative Tract 29053 consisting of 103 single family residential and other miscellaneous lots on 33 net acres northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. This 33 acres is zoned commercial, but proposed to be rezoned to low density residential. This site wraps around the north and west sides of Specific Plan 98-034 (shopping center), also proposed by the applicant. As a part of the Environmental Assessment, cultural resource studies have been submitted. The studies were prepared at the request of the applicant. The Phase 1 cultural resource or archaeological report for this site was previously reviewed and accepted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on March 18, 1999, along with the paleontological study and Phase 2 cultural resources study for Specific Plan 98-034 (shopping center). DISCUSSION: An interim Phase 2 (testing and evaluation) report has been submitted for the residential site. Many examples of fire -affected rock, animal and fish bone, broken pottery, burned) clay, and other indicators of temporary use were found. However, the report concludes that none of the seven archaeological sites, including one new small site identified within the project area, meets CEQA criteria for a "historical resource" or an "important archaeological resource", and therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on known cultural resources. Archaeological monitoring during grading and other earth moving activities for the entire site is recommended due to the fact that there is a potential for buried resources to be exposed. C:hpc rpt sp 98-034 `• - - O 1 1 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 99- , accepting : 1.) The interim cultural resources report titled, "Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Tentative Tract 29053", as prepared by CRM TECH; for Environmental Assessment 98-375, in partial compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: 1 . Confidential Interim Cultural Resource Report (Commissioners only) Prepared by: Submitted By: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager 012 C:hpc rpt sp 98-0311 ATTACHMENT 1 INTERIM CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT ��Ec cVE APD - 7 1999 J is CITY OF LAOUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND SITE EVALUATION ON TENTATIVE TRACT 29053 City of La Quinta Riverside County, California Submitted to: Herb Lundin Lundin Development Co. 16400 Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 207 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Barbara Ann Loren -Webb, Archaeologist Harry Quinn, Geologist/Archaeologist CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside, CA 92507 April 6, 1999 CRM TECH lob #384 37.5 Acres in APN 649-100-016 La Quinta, California, 7.5' Quadrangle Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian Sites CA-RIV-6144, -6146, -6147, -6149, -6150, -6151, and CRM TECH 384-1 013 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In March, 1999, CRM TECH was contracted by Lundin Development Co. to conduct a testing and evaluation program on seven archaeological sites on Tentative Tract No. 29053 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The seven sites under investigation, all prehistoric in nature, include six that were recorded during a recent cultural resources survey of Tentative Tract 29053 and adjacent Tentative Parcel 29052, CA-RIV-6144, -6146, -6147, -6149, -6150, and -6151, and one that was recorded during the course of this study and designated temporarily as CRM TECH 384-1. Tentative Tract 29053, approximately 37.5 acres in total area, consists of a portion of the existing parcel of APN 649-100-016, located in the southeast quarter of Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, and is the subject of a proposed subdivision and residential development project. The purpose of the study is to assist the City of La Quinta, Lead Agency for the project, in assessing the significance of the seven archaeological sites in the project area, and to recommend treatment of said resources. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed all necessary archaeological field work in the project area, including a 100%, surface collection, 29 subsurface test units, 15 surface scrapes, and 3 backhoe {trenches, which have determined that none of the seven sites in the project area meets CEQA criteria for historical resources/important archaeological resources. Therefore, the proposed development of Tentative Parcel 29053 will cause no "substantial adverse change" to any historical resources or important archaeological resources. CRM TECH recommends that, based on the results of the archaeological field study, the City of La Quinta may reach the following conclusions regarding; the proposed project: • Potential historical resources/important archaeological resources within and adjacent to the project area have been properly identified and evaluated. • None of the archaeological sites in the project area meets C:EQA criteria for historical resources/important archaeological resources. • The proposed project, therefore, will have no effect on known cultural resources. • Due to the high sensitivity of sand dunes for buried cultural resources, archaeological monitoring should be required during grading and other earth -moving activities in the project area. The final report, including artifact analysis and discussion of research questions and prehistoric context, shall be completed and approved by the City prior to beginning of grading. ®lq TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................... I .................. i INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 SETTING........................................................................................................................4 NaturalSetting.................................................................................................4 CulturalSetting................................................................................................4 METHODS.....................................................................................................................5 SiteMapping.....................................................................................................5 SurfaceCollection............................................................................................5 SurfaceScrapes.................................................................................................7 TestUnits...........................................................................................................7 BackhoeTrenches............................................................................................7 RESULTSAND FINDINGS.......................................................................................7 SiteMapping.....................................................................................................7 SurfaceCollection............................................................................................8 CA.-RIV-6144.........................................................................................8 CA.-RIV-6146.........................................................................................8 CA.-RIV -6147.........................................................................................8 CA.-RIV -6149.........................................................................................8 CA. -RI V -6150.........................................................................................8 CA.-RIV-6151.........................................................................................8 SurfaceScrapes.................................................................................................9 CA-RIV-6144.........................................................................................9 CA -RI V-6146.........................................................................................9 TestUnits...........................................................................................................9 CA-RIV-6144.........................................................................................9 CA-RIV-6146.........................................................................................10 CA-RIV-6147.........................................................................................11 CA-RIV -6149.........................................................................................12 CA-RIV -6150.........................................................................................12 CA-RIV-61.51.........................................................................................13 CR:M TECH 384-1..................................................................................13 BackhoeTrenches............................................................................................13 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................14 Definitions.........................................................................................................14 SiteEvaluations...............................................................................................15 CA-RIV-6144.........................................................................................15 CA -RI V-6146.........................................................................................16 CA-RIV-6147.........................................................................................16 CA-RIV - 6149.........................................................................................16 CA-RIV-6150.........................................................................................16 CA-RIV - 6151.........................................................................................17 CRMTECH 384-1..................................................................................17 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................17 ii 015 Preservation as an Option..............................................................................18 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................18 REFERENCES....................................................................................................I..........19 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS..................................................20 FIGURE 1. Project vicinity........................................................................................1 FIGURE 2. Project area and archaeological sites within the project area ........ 2 FIGURE 3. Locations of archaeological sites..........................................................3 FIGURE 4. Locations of surface scrapes, test units, and backhoe trenches ..... 6 FIGURE 5. Sketch map of CRM TECH 384-1.........................................................8 FIGURE 6. Partial profile of Trench 1.....................................................................13 FIGURE 7. Profile of Trench 2..................................................................................14 FIGURE 8. Partial profile of Trench 3, CA-RIV-6146...........................................15 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ...................................... ............19 INTRODUCTION At the request of Lundin Development Co., CRM TECH commenced in March, 1999, a testing and evaluation program on seven archaeological sites on Tentative Tract No. 29053 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The seven sites under investigation, all prehistoric in nature, include six that were recorded during a recent cultural resources survey of Tentative Tract 29053 and adjacent Tentative Parcel 29052 (Love et al. 1998), CA-RIV-6144, -6146, -6147, -6149, -6150, and -6151, and one that was recorded during the course of this study and designated temporarily as CRM TECH 384-1 (Figs. 2, 3). Tentative Tract 29053, approximately 37.5 acres in total area, consists of a portion of the existing parcel of APN 649-100-016, located in the southeast quarter of Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Fig. 2), and is the subject of a proposed subdivision and residential development project. The Lead Agency for the project, namely the City of La Quinta, requires this study as a part of the environmental review process mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000 et seq.). CRM TECH performed the present study to assist the City of La Quinta in assessing the significance of the seven archaeological sites in the project area, and to determine whether those sites constitute "historical resources" or "important archaeological resources," as defined by CEQA. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed all necessary archaeological field work in the project area, including site mapping, surface collection of artifacts, and excavation of test units, surface scrapes and backhoe trenches. While artifact analysis and final report preparation are still on -going, an interim report is submitted at this time to present the methods, results, and conclusions of research procedures that have been completed to date. S [ lm � Ctetm 't Uillfe • i % �� � � •,,, , £i project {} location .A h die a I6' 7i'. � r �_. b ,.�n-�.-qd+ �p c U1'TS.�byp^ Grhpfl[#cAllx'�' grata ) x >,.ND ak i �31�?siar`�anolf,a �,, �r n,oaoic�� r i<OLlt�l{! k Tert'£¢ l., ' ti SCALE 1:250,000 �'tp cry t� J 05 70miles Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle, 1979 edition) 1 ,.,. 017 �p 1 p II R ��jj{{'115 Trailer Park " it R raffle* r Park a •'r x " e� ��.y•g���•, u• • � "(_ well `I i 41 o.' I t• R -Avery€_ 331.weII 49 ' �"y1 tl • d. 9 f N # I • a u x SCALE 1�24.000 0 1/2 1 mile 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet Figure 2. Project area and recorded archaeological sites within the project area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle, 1980 edition) 2 018 Figure 3. Locations of archaeological sites within the project area. 019 SETTING Natural Setting The project area is located in the Coachella Valley, on the western edge of the Colorado Desert that encompasses the eastern portion of Riverside County. Dictated by this geographic setting, the project area and its environs are marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches. Native lifeways in the Coachella Valley was greatly influenced in centuries past by the comings and goings of ancient Lake Cahuilla, whose last drying up period began around A.D. 1650. During its peak years before that, the northern shore of the lake reached the present-day 42-foot elevation contour line, which runs across the project area. Located thus directly on the ancient lake shore, the project area undoubtedly presented an ideal location for early occupants of the Coachella Valley to exploit fish and other food resources from this now -vanished fresh -water lake. Cultural Setting The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where a large number of Indian villages and rancherias, occupied by the Desert Cahuilla people, were observed in the mid -nineteenth century. The basic written sources on Desert Cahuilla culture are Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following ethnographic discussion of the Cahuilla people is based on these sources. The Cahuilla people are generally divided, by anthropologists, into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla in the Banning -Beaumont area, the Mountain Cahuilla in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans that were in turn grouped within the two main divisions of the people. Members of clans in one division, or moiety, had to marry into clans from the other division. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own. These were lands they considered theirs for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans in the forms of trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in the Coachella Valley, including Cabazon, Torres Martinez, Agua 4 020 Caliente, Morongo, and Augustine. Members of these reservations are highly conscious of the archaeological remains of their past, and have great concern when earth -moving activities disturb cultural remains. Although only a few elders can remember the old ways or speak the Cahuilla language, there appears to be a revitalization trend among many tribal members. Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1880s, after the public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws. But due to the lack of an adequate and reliable water supply, agricultural development in the arid region was greatly handicapped until the completion of the Coachella Canal in 1948-1949. The main agricultural staple in the Coachella Valley, the date palm, was first introduced around the turn of the century. By the late 1910s, the date palm industry had firmly established itself, giving the region its celebrated image of "the Arabia of America." Starting in the 1920s, a new industry, featuring resort hotels and golf courses, gradually spread throughout the Coachella Valley, and since then transformed it into Southern California's leading winter retreat. In present-day City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur until the turn of the century. In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter resort town, typical of the desert communities along Highway 111. Starting in the early 1930s, the subdivision of the cove area of La Quinta and the marketing of "weekend homes" further emphasized this new direction of development. On May 1, 1982, La Quinta was incorporated as the nineteenth city in Riverside County. METHODS The following sections outline the methods and procedures used during this study Site Mapping For the six previously recorded sites, site mapping was completed during the recent survey of Tentative Tract 29053 and Tentative Parcel 29052 (Love et at. 1998). There were no changes to the original site boundaries resulting from the current study. However, one small new site was discovered on the northern house mound area during this study. This new site, temporarily designated CRM TECH 384-1 (Figs. 2, 3), was mapped for this report. Surface Collection The surface collection was completed by the archaeological field crew under the direct supervision of CRM TECH principal Bruce Love and/or field director Michael Hogan (see App. 1 for qualifications). Three members of the crew, Jonathan Duro, Gary Resvaloso, and Isaac Mirelez (see App. 1 for qualifications) are Native Americans affiliated to the nearby Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation. Additional field crew 5 021 Figure 4. Locations of surface scrapes, test units, and backhoe trenches. 022 members include Joseph Hendricks, Natasha Johnson, Daniel Ballester, and Barbara Loren -Webb (see App. 1 for qualifications). Geologic studies, including trench profiles and unit sidewall drawings, were completed by Harry Quinn. For the surface collection, the crew walked the site areas in parallel transects at two -meter intervals. As each site was collected, artifacts were put in temporary bags labeled for that site, and returned to the lab for sorting, counting, and cataloguing. Surface Scrapes Fifteen 1x1-m surface scrapes were excavated, each dug to 20 cm (see :Fig. 4 for locations). Surface scrapes are used in areas where test units have shown little or no depth to a deposit, but where the surface exhibits substantial artifactual materials. Therefore the strategy is to excavate horizontally rather than vertically, in order to recover more materials for later interpretation. During excavation of surface scrapes, the top 20 cm of sand is screened en mass for one unit at a time, and contiguous units are excavated along the lines of greatest recovery, resulting in collection units with square, rectangular or L-shape configurations. Test Units A total of 29 1x1-m excavation units were hand -dug at the seven sites during this study (see Fig. 4 for locations). Each unit was hand -dug in 10-cm (4-in) levels, with all material screened through 1/8-in hardware mesh. Artifacts and other cultural materials from each level were bagged and labeled prior to proceeding to the next level. As a rule, units were dug to 100 cm, whether or not artifacts were encountered. Backhoe Trenches Three backhoe trenches were dug in an effort to expose potential buried deposits and to better understand the geomorphology of the project area (see Fig. 4 for locations). One trench was dug into the dune which had Site CA-RIV-6146 eroding out of the west bank. The other two trenches were dug into the level bottom lands in search of site stratigraphy and other relevant data. RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following sections discuss the results and findings of the various research procedures detailed above. Site Mapping As mentioned, one new site was recording during the current study, a small site consisting of only three pieces of pottery and a milky quartz flake (Fig. 5). The temporary site designation, CRM TECH 384-1, is being used pending assignment of a permanent trinomial by the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. 7 023 rt t temporary j datum stake F 1 sherd F milky quartz flake 0 5 tom Figure 5. Sketch map of CRM TECH 384-1. Surface Collection Each of the six previously recorded sites in the project area were 100% surface -collected with the following results: CA-RIV-6144 CA-RIV-6149 Sherds-54, burned clay-45, flakes-2 (obsidian, milky quartz), shell-15, fish Sherds-128, flake-1 (jasper), bone-2, fish vert. 1, bone-24, ground stone fragment- vert.-3, shell-10, burned clay-35, ground 2. stone fragment-1. CA-RIV-6146 Sherds-130, bone-16, shell-4, burned clay-18. CA-RIV-6147 Sherds-59, bone-2, shell-2, burned c:lay- 25. CA-RIV-6150 Sherds-128, flakes-3 (1 jasper, 2 milky quartz), shell-5, burned clay-20. CA-RIV-6151 Sherds-73, bone-1, burned clay-25, shell- 1. 8 024 In sum, a rather impressive collection of pottery fragments has been gathered from the project area, allowing for at least enough analysis to add useful data to the existing studies from the region. On the other hand, it cannot be said that outstanding research questions can be addressed or answered with the data provided, especially considering that half the artifacts were collected from within a plow zone that has undergone decades of disturbance prior to the archaeological studies conducted for the proposed project. Surface Scrapes As of this writing, surface scrapes from two sites have been sorted and counted, SS 9 and 10 from CA-RIV-6144, and SS 13 and 14 from CA-RIV-6146. Altogether, there are 15 surface scrape units to be included in the final catalogue. The results from the aforementioned four are presented below. CA-RIV-6144 Surface Scrape 9: 0-20: Anadonta shell frags-4, snails-1, burned clay, bone-18. Surface Scrape 10: 0-20: Ground stone fragment, burned clay, bone-133. Test Units CA-RIV-6146 Surface Scrape 13: 0-20: Sherds-6, bone-80. Surface Scrape 14: 0-20: Sherds-5, burned clay, bone-125, anadonta shell frags-14. As mentioned above, 29 test units were excavated at CA-RIV-6144 , -6147, -6149, -6150, -6151, CRM TECH 384-1, and the portion of CA-RIV-6146 in the project area. Findings from these units are summarized below. CA-RIV-6144 Unit 15: 0-10: Burned bone, 3 flakes (rhyolite?). 10-20: No recovery. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: No recovery. 80-90: No recovery. 90-100: No recovery. Unit 17: 0-10: Burned bone, 3 flakes (2 quartz, 1 jasper). 10-20: Burned bone-10. 20-30: Burned bone-5. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: Burned bone, lithics, burned clay. 80-90: Burned bone. 90-100: No recovery. 9 025 CA-RIV-6146 Unit 5: 0-10: 3 Sherds. 10-20: 2 Sherds. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: No recovery. 80-90: No recovery. 90-100: No recovery. Unit 6: 0-10: Bone. 10-20: No recovery. 20-30: Anadonta fragment, bone-7. 30-40: 2 Sherds, burned clay, bone-18, anadonta shell frags-4. 40-50: 4 Sherds, burned clay, bone-S. 50-60: 2 Sherds. 60-70: 3 Sherds. 70-80: Bone-10. 80-90: Bottle glass, modern. 90-100: No recovery. Unit 7: 0-10: Counts pending 10-20: 20-30: 30-40: 40-50: Unit 21 0-10: Burned clay, bone-11. 10-20: No recovery. 20-30: No recovery. Unit 22: 0-10: Sherds-6, bone--75, anadonta shell frags-12. 10-20: Bone--25, anadonta shell frags-2. 20-30: Sherds-2, anadonta shell frags-5, burned clay, bone-84. 30-40: Bone-20, anadonta shell frags- 6, snail shells-3. 40-50: Count pending Unit 23: 0-20: Sherd-1. 20-40: No recovery. Unit 24: 0-10: Sherds-2, anadonta shell frags-2, bone-130. 10-20: Sherds-5, burned clay, bone-32. 20-30: Bone-17. 30-40: 1 Sherd, bone-11. 40-50: Bone-4. Unit 25: 0-10: Bone-8, burned clay. 10-20: No recovery. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: Bone-12. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: No recovery. Unit 26: 0-10: Sherds-7, anadonta shell frags-10, snails-4, burned clay. 10-20: 1 Sherd, anadonta shell frags-11, snails-3, bone-150, worked bone. 20-30: Sherds-4, bone-280. anadonta shell frags-12, worked bone-4. 30-40: 1 Sherd, burned clay, bone-88, anadonta shell frags-2. 40-50: 1 Sherd, anadonta shell frags-3, bone-50, worked bone-1. 50-60: Anadonta shell frags-4, snails- 2. Unit 27: 0-10: Sherds-3, burned clay, bone-64. 10-20: Anadonta shell frags-2, snail shells-2, burned clay, bone-149. 20-30: Anadonta shell, bone--80, possible coprolite. 10 026 30-40: 1 Sherd, burned clay, bone-63, worked bone. 40-50: Sherds-5, anadonta shell frags- 1, bone-104, burned clay. 50-60: Burned clay, bone-36. 60-70: Burned clay, bone-21. 70-80: 1 Sherd, bone-7. 80-90: Bone-7, snail shell. Unit 28: 0-10: Sherds-2, burned clay, bone-57. 10-20: Sherds-5, burned clay, bone-200, worked bone. 20-30: Sherds-2, anadonta shell frags-15, burned clay, bone-2.00, worked bone. 30-40: Sherds-3, burned clay, bone-125. 40-50: Sherds-4, anadonta shell frags- 1, bone-89, worked bone. 50-60: Bone-14. Unit 29: 0-10: Anadonta shell, burned clay, bone-110. 10-20: Sherd-6, burned clay, bone-171. 20-30: Sherds-3, anadonta shell frags- 2, burned clay, bone-140. 30-40: Count pending 40-50: Count pending 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: Count pending CA-RIV-6147 Unit 1: 0-10: Shell, burned clay. 10-20: Charcoal, freshwater snails. 20-30: Charcoal, freshwater snails. 30-40: Charcoal, freshwater snails. 40-50: Sherd-1, burned clay, bone-10 50-60: Bone-10, 1 fish vert. 60-70: Burned clay, bone-6, 1 fish vert. 70-80: Bone-7, 2 fish vert. Unit: 2: 0-10: Sherd-1. 10-20: Sherd-2, bone-1. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: 1 sherd. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: No recovery. 80-90: Bone-3. 90-100: No recovery. 100-110: Ground stone fragment. 110-120: No recovery. 120-130: No recovery. 130-140: No recovery. Unit 3: 0-10: No recovery. 10-20: Sherd-1. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: Bone-12, 2 fish vert. 40-50: Sherds-3. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: No recovery. 80-90: Sherds-5, bone-10, 1 fish vert. 90-100: No recovery. 100-110: Sherds-7, bone-21, 3 fish vert. 110-120: Sherds-2, 2 fish vert., burned clay. 120-130: Sherds-7, charcoal. Unit 4: 0-10: Bone-1, shell-1. 10-20: Shell-1. 20-30: Shell-6, charcoal. 30-40: Bone-4, 4 fish vert., charcoal. 40-50: Bone-7, 1 fish vert., charcoal. 50-60: Shell, charcoal. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: No recovery. 80-90: No recovery. 90-100: Shell. 11 0 27 CA-RIV-6149 Unit 8: 0-10: No recovery. 10-20: No recovery. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 80-90: No recovery. Unit 9: 0-10: 1 Sherd. 10-20: Bone-2. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: Charcoal, anadonta shell frags. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: Bone-7. 80-90: Bone-2, charcoal, anadonta shell frags. 90-100: Bone-2. 100-110: Charcoal, anadonta shell frags. Unit 10: 0-10: No recovery. 10-20: No recovery. 20-30: Bone-7. 30-40: Burned clay, charcoal, bone-6. 40-50: 1 Sherd, burned clay. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: Burned clay. 80-90: Burned clay. 90-100: Bone-2, burned clay. 100-110: Burned clay. 110-120: Bone-10, burned clay. 120-130: Sherds-8, bone-6, burned clay. 130-140: 1 Sherd, bone-1, burned clay 140-150: 1 Sherd, burned clay. Unit 11: 0-10: No recovery. 10-20: No recovery. 20-30: No recovery. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: No recovery. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: No recovery. 80-90: No recovery. 90-100: No recovery. CA-RIV-6150 Unit 12: 0-10: Sherds-3, anadonta shell frags-2, bone-202. 10-20: Charcoal. 20-30: Charcoal, bone-340, anadonta shell frags-27, burned clay, snails- 3. 30-40: Anadonta shell frags-3, burned clay, bone-110, charcoal. 40-50: Bone-16, charcoal, burned clay. 50-60: Bone-9. burned clay, anadonta shell frags-2, snail shells-5, charcoal. 60-70: Charcoal, bone-23, burned clay. 70-80: Bone-4, burned clay. 80-90: Bone-5, burned clay. 90-100: Bone-5. Unit 16 Count pending. Unit 18 0-20: Flake-1, bone-20, anadonta shell frag-11, bead-1. 20-30: Bone-1, anadonta shell frag-1. 30-40: Bone-2. 40-50: Bone 3, burned clay. Unit 19 Count pending. 12 028 CA-RIV-6151 Unit 13: 0-20: Sherds-2, bone-3, burned clay. 20-30: Bone-7, anadonta shell frags-2. 30-40: Bone-6. 40-50: Burned clay. 50-60: Burned clay. 60-70: No recovery. 70-80: No recovery. 80-90: No recovery. 90-100: No recovery. Unit 14: 0-10: Sherds-3, bone-6, charcoal, anadonta shell frags, burned clay. Backhoe Trenches 10-20: Bone -too fragile to recover, burned clay. 20-30: Burned clay. 30-40: No recovery. 40-50: No recovery. 50-60: Burned clay. 60-70: Charcoal, shell. 70-80: Charcoal, shell. 80-90: Charcoal. 90-100: Charcoal and shell. CRM TECH 384-1 Unit 20 0-20: Modern glass, plastic. Backhoe trenches 1 and 2 revealed very interesting details about the ancient lake bed lying beneath the property. As can be seen in Figure 6, Trench 1 encountered ponded sediments, silts and clays as shallow as 75 cm below the surface, while Trench 2, as seen in Figure 7, did not reach the clay layers until a depth of 120 cm. This indicates a sloping lake bottom, rising to the south. As the lake receded, sometime after A.D. 1650, dunes formed on the old sediments, mesquite grew on the dunes --thriving on the shallow groundwater --and Native peoples came to exploit the rich environment, leaving behind signs of their passing in the form of camp fires, burned clay, chipped stone and broken pottery. p tm Figure 6. Partial profile of Trench 1. 1. Plowed zone, dark gray organic rich silt sand. 2. Medium gray to medium brown gray micaceous dune sand, massive to poorly bedded, with scattered charcoal and snails. 3. Tan clay/silt, ponded sediment. 4. Medium gray, massive to poorly bedded micaceous sand, with some snails and common limonitic stains. 13 029 1. Plowed zone, dark gray organic rich silt sand. 2. Gray to light brown gray micaceous dune sand, massive to thinly flat bedded. 3. Light gray micaceous dune sand with widely scattered small charcoal pieces. 4. Dark gray silty micaceous mesquite dune with some scattered charcoal. 5. Reddish -brown to yellow -brown altered mesquite duff zone. 6. Light gray micaceous dune sand. 7. Tan clay/silt, ponded sediment, lake bed sediment. 8. Gray sand with common vertical limonite stains massive to poorly bedded, possibly lake bed sands. Figure 7. Profile of Trench 2. DISCUSSION Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present CRM TECH's conclusion on whether any of the seven archaeological sites in the project area meets the official definition of a "historical resource" or an "important archaeological resource," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, particularly CEQA. Definitions According to PRC §5202.1(j), "'historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." CEQA further specifies that "a historical resource is a resource listed in, or 14 030 determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources" (PRC §21084.1). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in California's past; 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. (OPR 1994:4) For the evaluation of archaeological sites, Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines further provides the specific definition of an "important archaeological resource." According to this definition, an "important archaeological resource" is one which: A. Is associated with an event or person of: 1. Recognized significance in California or American history, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory; B. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions; C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; D. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. (CEQA Guidelines App. K, §III) Site Evaluations CA-RIV-6144 Does not meet CEQA criteria for importance. Units 15 and 17, placed in this northernmost site, tell two different stories. The first, Unit 15, was sterile all the way down to a full meter, after giving up three flakes and some burned bone in the first 10 cm. Unit 17, on the other hand, exposed a deep layer between 70 and 90 cm with some burned animal bone, burned clay, and three flakes, presenting a pattern often repeated throughout the project area, small buried cultural deposits scattered at unpredictable frequencies across the landscape. The artifacts do not indicate permanent habitation--i.e., village life --but rather temporary campsites so ubiquitous to this ancient shoreline region. Taken together, the findings from this site do not meet CEQA standards for addressing important research issues or providing important information in prehistory or history. 15 031 CA-RIV-6146 Does not meet CEQA criteria for importance. At the beginning of the project it was felt this site had the greatest potential to yield significant data. Concentrations of charcoal, burned bone, burned clay, fire -affected rock and lithics were eroding out the western face of this dune once cut open by a bull dozer. Twelve test units, five surface scrapes, and a backhoe trench were employed to determine the content of the cultural deposits, resulting in several hundred examples of burned bone and numerous other specimens of the aforementioned artifact types. However, it must be said that the findings are rather typical and somewhat less than impressive. The backhoe trench confirmed that the cultural deposit travels through the dune, to a level as deep as 140-170 cm below the surface (Fig. 8), but the dearth of lithics, and the complete absense of groundstone and other formed artifacts suggests yet another temporary campsite along the ancient shoreline. CA-RIV-6147 Does not meet CEQA criteria for importance. This site is a prime example of the scattered nature of the archaeological deposits, not only horizontally but also vertically. Unit 2 had three sherds from 0 to 20 cm, then nothing to 40 cm, then 1 sherd followed by three more levels of nothing, three pieces of bone at 80-90, nothing at 90-100, a ground stone fragment at 110-120, and finally three levels of nothing. The other three units dug into this site were equally uneven (see 'Results and Findings," above). Much of the mixing may be attributed to rodent burrowing. Although artifacts were scattered throughout the unit, nothing that could be called midden, i.e., evidence of long-term residence, could be found. CA-RIV-6149 Does not meet CEQA criteria for importance. Two of the four units placed in this site were charcoal, shell fragments, and a few animal bone. But surprisingly, Unit 10 found an increase in artifacts at depths greater than one meter, with 8 sherds coming out of level 120-130. The sidewall drawings (completed by Quinn for each unit, to be included in the final report) show the matrix at that level to be sand from an old buried mesquite dune, obviously a good habitat for Native peoples in the distant past. CA-RIV-6150 Does not meet CEQA criteria for importance. This A third unit tounct Light to medium gray micaceous crossbedded dune sand with some widely scattered small charcoal pieces and a few mesquite limbs. Medium gray to medium brown gray micaceous dune sand, massive to poorly bedded, with scattered charcoal and bone fragments. This cultural horizon contains a fire hearth with a sherd and a piece of burned rock in the east wall, approximately 50 cm north of this section. Medium gray to medium brown gray micaceous dune sand, massive to poorly bedded, probably a mesquite dune. site, situated in shallow swales or blowouts on top Figure 8. Partial profile of Trench 3, CA-RIV-6146. 16 032 of the dune system at the north end of the property, has all the appearances of a cooking and roasting area, in one case giving up 340 animal bones in just one level. Surface scrapes and test units will provide a goodly amount of data on faunal resources and exploitation, but the information is expected to be somewhat redundant given all the sites that have been studied along the ancient shoreline in recent years. In short, this site has no special quality or uniqueness that would make it eligible under CEQA as a historical resource or important archaeological resource. CA-RIV-6151 Does not meet CEQA criteria for importance. Two units were placed into this sparse and widely scattered site, with minimal results. Again, indications are typical for cooking areas, but not for permanent or even semi- permanent habitation. CRM TECH 384-1 Does not meet CEQA criteria for importance. This very minimal site, consisting of only three sherds and a flake on the surface, revealed nothing in the first 20 cm, at which. point the unit was abandoned. In sum, test units and trenches have shown the potential for archaeological deposits virtually anywhere within the project area in sands lying above the old lake beds. However, none of the sites found and recorded during the current study meet CEQA criteria for significance. Burn areas with fire -affected rock, animal bone (including fish bone), broken pottery, burned clay, and other indicators of temporary use abound in the project area, to some extent on the ;surface, but just as likely below the surface on sands overlying the old lake bottom. To search for these using standard archaeological methods would be impractical due to the hit-and-miss nature of their locations. The only reasonable method of finding important buried sites, if they exist, is to have archaeological monitors present during grading, trenching, and other earth -moving activities. RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC §21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired." Results of the field work indicate that CA-RIV-6144, -6146, -6147, -6149, -6150, -6151, and CRM TECH 384-1 do not meet the CEQA definition of historical resources/important archaeological resources. Therefore, the proposed development of Tentative Parcel 29053 will cause no "substantial adverse change" to any historical resources or important archaeological resources. Based on the results of research procedures completed to date, CRM TECH recommends that the City of La Quinta may reach the following conclusions regarding the proposed project: 17 033 • Potential historical resources/important archaeological resources within and adjacent to the project area have been properly identified and evaluated. • None of the archaeological sites in the project area meets CEQA criteria for historical resources/important archaeological resources. • The proposed project, therefore, will have no effect on known cultural resources. • Due to the high sensitivity of sand dunes for buried cultural resources, archaeological monitoring should be required during grading and other earth - moving activities in the project area. Preservation as an Option CEQA recommends preservation as an option for avoiding adverse effects to archaeological sites, but it should be remembered that preservation only is recommended if the sites in question meet CEQA criteria for importance or significance. Since the foregoing study had found that the sites in question do not meet such standards, the preservation option is moot until such time that significant or important sites, according to statute definitions, are found. CONCLUSION The foregoing report has summarized the methods, results, and conclusions of research procedures completed to date. A 100% surface collection, 29 subsurface test units, 15 surface scrapes, and 3 backhoe trenches have determined that none of the seven sites in the project area meets CEQA criteria for historical resources/important archaeological resources, and therefore the proposed project will have no effect on known cultural resources. However, CRM TECH recommends archaeological monitoring during grading and other earth -moving activities due to the fact that there is a potential for buried resources to be exposed during future development activities. 18 034 REFERENCES Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. Love, Bruce, Bai "Tom" Tang, and Harry M. Quinn 1998 Cultural Resources Report: Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052 & 29053, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. OPR (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California) 1994 CEQA and Historical Resources. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972. 035 19 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 036 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Bruce Love, Ph.D., ROPA (Register of Professional Archaeologists) Education 1986 Ph, D., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1981 M.A., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1976 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1996 "CEQA 101," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1995 "CEQA Workshop," presented by Association of Environmental Professionals. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 "CEQA 1994: Issues, Trends, and Advanced Topics," presented by UCLA Extension. 1990 "Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law," presented by U.S. General Services Administration Training Center. Professional Experience 1993- Owner and Principal, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1990-1993 Director, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside; Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UC Riverside. 1989-1990 Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UCLA. 1987-1990 Owner and Principal, Pyramid Archaeology, Palmdale, California. 1986-1987 Junior Fellow, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Pre -Columbian Research, Washington, D.C. 1981-1986 Part-time cultural resources management consultant; doctoral student at UCLA. Memberships Society of Professional Archaeologists (certified in field research, teaching, and archaeological administration). Association of Environmental Professionals. American Planning Association. Society for American Archaeology. Society for California Archaeology. Society for Historic Archaeology. American Society for Ethnohistory. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 037 21 FIELD DIRECTOR Michael Hogan Education 1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru. 1992 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 "Historic Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield -Stoll. Professional Experience 1999- Project Archaeologist/ Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. • Duties: supervision of all aspects of projects including communicating and negotiating with clients, property owners, engineering firms, or public agencies to determine appropriate scope of work and scheduling of tasks; arranging logistics, including transportation, food, and lodging; organizing crew people into appropriate tasks and directing field work; overseeing laboratory analysis of findings, including sending samples to outside researchers for analysis and cataloguing/organizing all data recovered by the fieldwork; producing final reports, including background research, description of fieldwork, discussion of study results, preparation of site records, and formulation of conclusions and recommendations. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1984-1998 Part-time technician for various cultural resources management firms, including CRM TECH; Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside; Cultural Resource Facility, California State University, Bakersfield; Greenwood and Associates; RMW Falco Associates; and WESTEC Services, Inc. 22 038 GEOLOGIST/ARCHAEOLOGIST Harry M. Quinn Education 1978 Certificate in Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 1964 B.S., Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach. 1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington. 1996 "Cultural Resources and CEQA: Your Responsibility," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals, Hemet. 1991 "Ceramic Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer, Palm Springs. 1990 "Introduction to Coachella Valley Archaeology," presented by Anne Duffield, Palm Desert.. 1989 'Prehistoric Rock Art and Archaeology of the Southern California Deserts," presented by Anne Duffield, UC Riverside Extension (Course No. ANT X434.15), Palm Springs. Professional Experience 1998- Project Archaeologist/ Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.C.E.S., Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Independent Geological/Archaeological/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines. 1988-1992 Project Geologist/Director of Environmental Services, STE Associates/Soil and Testing Engineers, San Bernardino. 1987-1988 Senior Geologist, Jirsa Environmental Services, Norco. 1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, Loco Exploration, Inc., Aurora, Colorado. 1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil Exploration and Production, Englewood, Colorado. 1966-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles. Memberships Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (President, 1993-1994; Vice President, 1992, 1995-1999; Basic Archaeology Training Course Instructor, 1996-1998; Environmental Assessment Committee Chair, 1997-1999); Coachella Valley Historical Society; Malki Museum; Southwest Museum; El Paso Archaeological Society; Ohio Archaeological Society; Museum of Fur Trade. Publications in Archaeology and History Approximately fifty articles in the publications of the Southwest Museum, the American Rock Art Research Association, the Colorado Archaeological Society, the Utah Rock Art Research Association, the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, and the Coachella Valley Historical Society. U39 23 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Joseph D. Hendricks Education 1988 M.S., Anthropology/Archaeology, with minor in Museology; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1971 B.S., Sociology/Psychology; University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Professional Experience 1998- Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1991-1997 Director of Archaeological Programs, Boy Scouts of America, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1991-1993 Archaeologist, Boy Scouts of America, Salt Lake City, Utah. County -wide recreation corridor survey. 1990-1991 Archaeologist/Report Writer, Rick Hauch Associates, Bountiful, Utah. 1988-1990 Archaeologist, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1986-1988 Assistant Director, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1982-1986 Staff Archaeologist, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Publications and Presentations 1996 Archeaology Merit Badge Handbook, Boy Scouts of America. 1990 X-Ray Diffraction Analysis of Some Formative and Late Prehistoric Pottery from Utah. In Hunter Gatherer Pottery from the Far West, ed. by Joanne Mack; Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 23. Co-author with D. Forsyth and C. Jung. 1988 X-Ray Diffraction Analysis of Formative and Late Prehistoric Pottery from Utah. Presented on the Twenty-third Annual Great Basin Conference. 1988 X-Ray Diffraction Analysis of Formative and Late Prehistoric Pottery from the Eastern Great Basin Area. Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 24 040 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Barbara Ann Loren -Webb Education In progress Interdisciplinary Master's degree in Geoarchaeology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1975 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach. 1967-1969 University of Iowa, Iowa City. Professional Experience 1994-1998 Volunteer Archaeological Worker, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; under the supervision of Sally Cunkelman, BLM archaeologist. • Petroglyph recording in the Rodman Mountains; recording of historical features at Salt Creek; presence -absence study at The Caves in Afton Canyon, with trench excavation. 1992- 1995 Volunteer Archaeological Worker, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California; under the supervision of Carol Rector, Curator of Anthropology, and Robin Laska, Archaeological Information Center. 1969 Archaeological Field Worker and Tour Guide, Joseph Smith historical properties, Nauvoo, Illinois. • Field excavations under the supervision of Robert Bray, University of Missouri, Columbia. 1966-1968 Volunteer Archaeological Worker, Davenport Public Museum, Davenport, Iowa. • Extension of archaeological field methods and research methods classes presented by Dr. Elaine Bluhm Herold through the Agustana College, Rock Island, Illinois. Memberships Society for California Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology. Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society. Archaeological Survey Association (Secretary, 1997). Research Interests Archaeology of the Mojave Desert, and the work of Malcolm Rogers and Elizabeth Campbell, in the Cronese Lakes and Crucero region. 25 041 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Daniel Ballester Education 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside. 1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico (August to December). Professional Experience 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A Environmental, San Diego. • Two and a half months of excavations on Topomai village site, Camp Pendleton. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas. • Two weeks of excavations on a site on Red Beach, Camp Pendleton, and two weeks of survey in Camp Pendleton, Otey Mesa, and Encinitas. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. • Two weeks of survey in Anza Borrego Desert State Park and Eureka Valley, Death Valley National Park. 26 042 FIELD CREW MEMBERS Jonathan Duro, Gary Resvaloso, and Isaac Mirelez Field Experience (Survey) • Indian Palms Country Club: field survey of ca. 400 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at six prehistoric sites. • Coral Mountain Development Project: field survey of ca. 1,279 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 32 prehistoric sites, some with historic components. • State Route 86 Extension: field survey of ca. 30 acres; no sites found. • Palm Hills Specific Plan: field survey of ca. 1,200 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at three historic sites. • Rancho La Quinta Country Club: field survey of ca. 350 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 30 prehistoric loci. • Cabazon Resource Recovery Park: field survey of ca. 160 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 13 prehistoric loci. • Tract 26595, Indian Wells: field survey of ca. 20 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 12 prehistoric loci. • St. Francis of Assisi Church Parking Lot Site: field survey of ca. 29 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 3 prehistoric sites. • Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052/29053: field survey of 50 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at seven prehistoric sites. • Hotel Ill Project Site: field survey of seven acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at a large prehistoric site. • La Quinta Corporate Centre: field survey of 53 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at a large prehistoric site. • Habitat Golf Course: field survey of ca. 1,300 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at four historic sites. Field Experience (Excavation) • Rancho La Quinta Country Club: test excavation and screening at 30 prehistoric loci; completing 123 lx1-m test units, 4 1x2-m test units, 4 4x8-m surface scrapes, and a 9-m vertical wall profile. • Tract 26595, Indian Wells: test excavation and screening at 12 prehistoric loci; completing 24 lxl-m test units and 4 vertical dune profiles. • Tentative Parcel Map No. 29052: test excavation and screening at three prehistoric sites; completing 10 lxl-m test units. • Hotel 111 Project Site: test excavation and screening at a large prehistoric site; completing 20 lxl-m test units; exposing multiple fire hearth features. Laboratory Experience (Artifact Cataloguing) • Rancho La Quinta Country Club: sorting, counting, and re -bagging level bags from test excavation. Classroom Training Crew members from the Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation attended classes presented by CRM TECH principal Bruce Love, Ph.D., for a total of eight hours. Two members of the crew, Michael Mirelez, and Gary Resvalozo, completed an intensive four -day training program in archaeology in January, 1999, and received certificates of completion from the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 27 043