2001 06 21 HPCHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The Regular Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
JUNE 21, 2001
3:00 P.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2001-011
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 Preservation
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 April 19, 2001.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Addendum to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report
- Vista Montana Development; located at the northwest corner of Eisenhower
Drive and Calle Tampico.
Applicant: KSL Development Corporation
Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Bruce Love)
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT ���01
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 19, 2001
This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman
Robert Wright at 3:03 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call.
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance.
B. Roll Call.
Present: Commissioners Irwin, Mitchell, Puente, Sharp, and
Chairman Wright.
Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Principal Planner
Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Mitchell to approve
the Minutes of March 22, 2001, as submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Archaeological/Historical & Paleontological Resources -Assessments for
Tentative Tract 30092 adjacent to the City of La Quinta River i
County. California, located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and
Avenue 58. Applicant: Barton Properties - Archaeological Consultant:
Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock RPA) and Paleontological
Consultant: CRM Tech (Harry Quinn).
1 . Planning Manager di lorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
PACAR0LYN\HPC4-19-0 Lwpd - f -
0V2K
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 19, 2001
2. Commissioner Sharp asked if the location of the project was close
to the Torres -Martinez land and had the Tribe been notified of the
project.
3. Planning Manager di lorio replied that the project was not close to
their property.
4. Chairman Wright stated he thought this area was formerly under
80 feet of water.
5. Commissioner Irwin added it was, as well as the reservation.
6. Commissioners Mitchell, Irwin, Sharp and Puente all concurred
with staff's recommendation.
7. Chairman Wright also agreed with staff's recommendations.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Mitchell/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2001-008
recommending approval of the 1). Archaeological/Historical and
2). Paleontological Resources Assessments for Tentative Tract
30092, adjacent to the City of La Quinta, located at the northwest
corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 58. Unanimously approved.
B. Report on Archaeological Monitoring for Aliso I (Tract 27519 and_Aliso
II_LTract-29-50) projects located northwest of the intersection of Dune
Palms Road and Westward Ho Drive. Applicant: Century -Crowell
Communities - Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group
(James Brock RPA).
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 Mitchell concurred with staff's findings.
3. Commissioner Irwin asked if the effect of the Whitewater River
was reflected anywhere in the report.
4. Planning Manager di lorio questioned whether she was referring to
the first report.
P:\CAROLYN\HPC4-l9-0Lwpd -2- ". - 003
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 19, 2001
5. Commissioner Irwin replied, yes and added, at one time, the
Whitewater River was as wide as the Colorado River. She
wondered, since so little had been found in this highly sensitive
area, if it was due to the height of the project area.
6. Planning Manager di lorio replied she would review the initial
report and get back to the Commission.
7. Chairman Wright asked if the archaeologist was recommending
monitoring.
8. Commissioner Puente, as well as Chairman Wright, asked if there
would be a final report, or if this was the final report.
9. Planning Manager di lorio answered this was the final report
because there was a Negative Declaration determination with no
monitoring recommended.
10. Commissioner Irwin and Chairman Wright commented on the
clarity of Mr. Brock's reports and thanked him for including the
colored photos and maps, which gives the Commissioners a better
visualization of the project.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Puente/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 2001-009
accepting the report on Archaeological Monitoring for Aliso I and
Aliso II projects, located northwest of the intersection of Dune
Palms Road and Westward Ho Drive. Unanimously approved.
C. Revised Historical/Archaeological Reso- rrcgs Report - Palm Desert
National Bank Site. located at the southeast corner of Washington Street
and Avenue 47.
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 Mitchell concurred with staff's recommendation.
3. Commissioner Irwin also agreed, and questioned Page 10 where
it states ... "A local register of historical resources ..... ..... means
a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically
significant by a local government...". She wanted to know if now
_ 004
P:\CAROLYN\HPC4-19-Ol.wpd -3-
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 19, 2001
was the time to bring up the subject of historic plaques. The
Burkett Ranch and Point Happy were being developed and she
thought the Commission should discuss the inclusion of plaques
to designate these historic areas.
4. Planning Manager di lorio informed the Commission that on April
17rh, the City Council approved the Specific Plan, Parcel Map and
the Site Development Permit for a bank that was being built on the
corner of the old Burkett Ranch property. At that time, Council
Member Henderson requested adding a condition that the
developer provide a historic plaque under the following time frame:
1) The language of the plaque shall be done prior to issuance of
the grading permit; 2) The placement and design of the plaque
shall be done prior to issuance of building permit; and 3) The
plaque shall be installed prior to final occupancy of the bank
building.
5. Commissioner Irwin asked if those conditions would only apply to
that property, or to all historic properties being developed.
6. Planning Manager di lorio stated it would refer to this property
only, but the Commission could consider putting a program
together for plaques for other historic properties in the future.
7. Commissioner Irwin also asked if a plaque would be included on
different types of sites, such as, a homestead, or an Indian village,
since they are still very significant regardless of what is found on
the property. The site is still historic.
8. Commissioner Sharp stated there should be some consistency in
the design of these plaques.
9. Planning Manager di lorio thought it might be better to bring this
subject up when Debbie Powell, Management Assistant presented
her Grant Proposal to the Commission.
10. Chairman Wright added it was an important point the Commission
needed to address.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Sharp/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2001-010
accepting the Revised Historical/Archaeological Resources Report
for the Palm Desert National Bank site. Unanimously approved.
0 O P:\CAROLYN\HPC4-19-01.wpd -4- 0
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 19, 2001
D. R view of —aGrant Proposal to the State Office of Historic Preservation
fir Historic/Archaeological Preservation Plan, Historic Context_Statement,
and Revised Historic Preservati. n r inanc_e. Applicant: City of La
Quinta.
Debbie Powell, Management Assistant, presented the report on
the Grant Proposal and asked for any comments from the
Commissioners.
2. Commissioner Irwin asked about the time frame for the Grant.
3. Management Assistant Powell explained how the grant had been
structured to allow time to complete the work within the time
frame.
4. Commissioner Mitchell thought this was a wonderful idea and was
very pleased the City of La Quinta was doing this.
5. Commissioner Irwin agreed it was a fantastic idea and was
pleased to be going forward with the plans.
6. Planning Manager di lorio stated part of the Grant project would be
to expand identification of historic structures from the previous
Historic Resources Survey.
7. Commissioner Irwin thought there were 52 original home sites in
the Cove area, with about 37 that had not been significantly
altered.
8. Planning Manager di lorio stated the homeowners of the structures
that had already been altered, might also benefit from the survey
and the historic information it would provide. It would be nice to
have the resources available if they are interested in preserving the
design and architectural integrity of their homes.
9. Commissioner Sharp asked if any of these homeowners would be
interested in restoration.
10. Planning Manager di lorio replied she had received several inquiries
from interested homeowners
P:\CAROLYN\HPC4-19-0 Lwpd -$- _
006
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 19, 2001
11. Chairman Wright stated most of the people he talked with who
owned historic homes, wanted to fix them up. He then asked
Commissioner Sharp if he had received the previous Historic
Structure Survey which included pictures and descriptions of the
properties already listed.
12. Commissioner Sharp replied he had not.
13. Planning Manager di lorio stated copies of the previous Historic
Structure Survey would be given to Commissioners Sharp and
Mitchell.
14. Commissioner Sharp was concerned the historic preservation
program could have a negative affect on local development.
15. Planning Manager di lorio stated the program would enable the
City to work with the homeowners to provide guidelines to ensure
compatibility with historic structures.
16. Commissioner Sharp asked if it was the spirit of historic
preservation rather than a rigid archaeological reconstruction
program.
17. Planning Manager di lorio replied the Commission would not get
involved in minor remodeling issues such as paint colors. The
Commission would only be involved when there would be
irreparable damage to the structure. If a homeowner was planning
an addition, the City would like to talk to them about the
possibility of putting any additions in the rear, as opposed to being
visible from the front. An exception would be the old style
garages.
18. Commissioner Sharp stated if it is more generic in nature and more
accommodating to the homeowners preferences, he was in favor
of the program.
19. Commissioner Puente stated the Grant was needed to update the
previous report and add more details that may have been missed
on the previous report.
20. Commissioner Sharp asked if the plaques would be included in this
program.
P:\CAROLYN\HPC4-19-OLwpd
no
007
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 19, 2001
21. Planning Manager di lorio replied it might be.
22. Chairman Wright commented on how far the Commission had
come since 1994.
23. Commissioner Sharp stated he had seen a report that the City's
population had increased 1 1 1 %.
24. Management Assistant Powell answered that was correct as
stated in the current census.
25. Chairman Wright and Commissioner Puente remarked on how
much the City had grown in the eight years the Commission has
been functioning.
26. There being no further discussion, the report was accepted as
presented.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. There was a general discussion about transportation and
accommodations for the upcoming Millenium and Preservation
Conferences in May.
B. Telecommunications Towers Materials.
1. Chairman Wright asked if telecommunications equipment was
going to be installed at the La Quinta Hotel. Planning Manager di
lorio replied there would not be a telecommunications antenna in
the La Quinta Hotel tower. It would be placed further back
adjacent to one of the larger buildings on the east side of the
service road.
a. Commissioner Irwin asked what type of tower would be
used.
b. Commissioner Sharp stated the tower would resemble a
palm tree, but was unsure of the technical name.
P:\CAROLYN\HPC4-19-Ol.wpd -7-
008
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 19, 2001
G. Commissioner Irwin stated it would be a "monopalm".
d. Planning Manager di lorio stated she had recently met with
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and all three companies were
interested in installing antennas in the La Quinta Cove
Resort.
e. Commissioner Irwin stated there had been plans for an
antenna to be installed in the clock tower of the ballroom.
f. Planning Manager di lorio stated those plans were no longer
being pursued. AT&T was now looking at moving one of
their towers closer to Eisenhower Drive.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Irwin/Mitchell to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to a
special meeting to be held on May 24, 2001. This meeting of the Historical
Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:29 p.m., April 19, 2001. Unanimously
approved.
Submitted by:
Carolyn Walker
Secretary
P:\CAR0LYN\HPC4-19-0Lwpd -8-
`' 009
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 21, 2001
ITEM: ADDENDUM TO HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES SURVEY AND TESTING REPORT - VISTA
MONTANA DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND CALLE
TAMPICO
APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT: CRM TECH (BRUCE LOVE, PRINCIPAL)
BACKGROUND:
A Phase I (survey level) cultural resources assessment and subsurface backhoe testing
report for the 33+ acre site was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) on January 18, 2001 (Attachments 1 and 2).
CRM TECH concluded after research and an on -site survey that no significant
resources existed on the study area and that issuance of grading permits and building
permits will have no effect on any "historical resources" as defined by CEQA.
Staff determined that additional documentation regarding the historic significance of
the residences which previously existed, the original owners, and date grove, and
historical ownership of the property, including any homesteading was needed to
provide documentation on La Quinta's early development. The HPC required this
additional information prior to issuance of the first building permit for the property.
CRM TECH has submitted an addendum report providing information on the "Hunt
Date Garden" (Attachment 3).
DISCUSSION:
A follow-up historic records search for the property was conducted at the Eastern
Information Center located at UC Riverside. The records search again did not contain
any reference to Hunt's Date Garden. CRM TECH checked the Riverside County Parks
Department files which contain preliminary field notes that were generated from a
countywide historic resources reconnaissance conducted in the early 1980's under the
auspices of the Riverside County Historical Commission.
010
p[\stan\hpc rpt revised ph 1 vista montana.wpd
Further historical research was conducted to clarify conflicting claims and help
reconstruct the properties history. Additional sources consulted included the archives
of the Bureau of Land Management, the County of Riverside, City of La Quinta, and
oral historical interviews with Lillian Hunt, former owner and occupant of Hunt's Date
Garden, and Barbara Irwin of the La Quinta Historical Society.
The Riverside County files contained a field recordation form, dated April 24, 1981,
on the Hunt Date Garden. From this information and the other sources, CRNI TECH
provides historical documentation on the properties development and demise.
Based on the negative findings of this addendum and the original study, CRNA TECH
concludes that issuance of grading permits and building permits will have no effect on
any "historical resources" as defined by CEQA. The original report states that no
further investigation is recommended unless the project area is expanded or buried
cultural materials are discovered during construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2001- , accepting the " Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey And Testing Report - Vista Montana Development", and "Addendum to
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey And Testing Report - Vista Montana
Development", as prepared by CRM TECH.
Attachments:
1. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey And Testing Report - Vista Montana
Development (Commissioners only)
2. Minutes of the HPC meeting of January 18, 2001
3. Addendum to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey And Testing Report -
Vista Montana Development (Commissioners only)
Prepared by: Submitted By:
b.s44V-6,
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
mg )C� 4��
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
pi\stan\hpc rpt revised ph i vista montana.wpd
oil
CORRESPONDENCE
WRITTEN MA TERIAL
012
A
06:01:2001 08:99 FAX 7603694002 9RCHAEO 9DV CRP 1211)2
EM
PROPOSED CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION
Good Griefl I Every time we turn around some new, goofy thing is going on. This time it
affects all Californians. Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has introduced AB
978. In a nutshell, this bill would set out new requirements pertaining to the inventorying and
repatriation of Native American remains and cultural items in the possession or control of state-
funde agencies and museums. (The original wording included "private individuals.")
This bill would require that:
1. State agencies and museums must include "traditional objects" (a new category
distinct from and broader than "grave goods' as set forth in NAGPRA) in their inventories. This
could be construed as requiring the inventorying and repatriation of almost any Native American
object. They must identify items "culturally affiliated" with non -federally -recognized tribes,
2. Agencies and museums must consult with non -federally recognized tribes (whoever
that might be) in preparing inventories and then repatriate to these tribes. There is no list or
definition of which groups would have standing as "non -federally recognized tribes
3. A new ten member state commission be created consisting of seven Native American
representatives (one non -voting), two agency/university/museum representatives, and one other
member (also non -voting) with the power to order (ORDER) state -funded museums and agencies
to repatriate Native American remains and cultural items including objects not covered by
NAGPRA This committee would also have the power to resolve disputes concerning:
determination of cultural affiliation, the enforcement of repatriation agreements, and the
imposition of civil penalties.
The bad points which are readily apparent are: It is so broad as to potentially require, the
repatriation of almost any Native American object in museums; it provides no information for how
l
06-01-01 08: 32 RECEIVED FROM:7603694902 P-02
�• 06.01/20U1 08:39 FAT 7003094002 ARCHAEO ADV GRP
Uoa
to define which groups should be considered non -federally -recognized tribes, and, most flagrant is
the make-up of the all-powerful committee with voting members consisting of six Native
Americans and two museum/agency/university people.
The current wording of the bill (last amended on May 22nd) can be found at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html - type in AB 978 at the query box_
The University of California's Office of the President has been trying to work with
Assemblyman Steinberg's staff, with little apparent success. (Some people wonder out loud about
casino donations, past or future.) Those of you in the Sacramento area must certainly get in
touch with Assemblyman Steinberg ASAP. Those of us in other parts of California should
contact our own Assemblyman (I use this word in the inclusive sense) and make our opinions
known. If you do not know the name of your representative and do not have access to a
computer, a call to your local newspaper or library will yield this information. Coauthors are
listed as Aroner, Calderon, Chan, Frommer, Kelley, Koretz, Nation, Robert Pacheco, Pavle,y,
Strickland, Strom -Martin, Vargas, Washington, and Wesson. Senate coauthors are: Alpert,
Battin, Burton, Chesbro, Figueroa, Karnette, Kuehl, McClintock, and Vincent
I realize this is a busy time of year - end of school, weddings, graduations, vacations, and
so forth - but your mother never told you life would be easy. Please write a note, make a phone
call, or send an E-mail to your state representatives in Sacramento and/or the local office to ask
them to vote against this bill_ All children will suffer in the future for this destruction of our
country's
May 26, 2001
Constance Cameron
ACPAC
eccameronSO@aol.com
FAX (714) 871-5345
014
06-01-01 08: 32 RECEIVED FROM:7603694002 P•03
From: "Osborn, Sannie" <SOsborn@presidiotrust.gov>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2001 10:12 AM
Subject: California NAGPRA Assembly Bill 978
Dear SCA Members:
Attached are current materials on AB 978 "California NAGPRA." SCA continues
to fully support repatriation of Native American remains and other sacred
objects (funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural
patrimony) to lineal descendants and to culturally affiliated tribes.
However, SCA has opposed AB 978 as currently written for the following
reasons:
AB 978 has been drafted without sufficient input from all affected parties,
lacks the balance built into the existing federal law (NAGPRA), and contains
a number of provisions that will adversely affect museums and agencies.
AB 978:
* causes confusion and conflict for organizations already subject to
NAGPRA because its repatriation definitions, deadlines, and procedures
conflict with federal law;
* has a major impact on museums and curation facilities, and the
public interest in preserving anthropological collections for research and
education, because it could require repatriation of Native American
archaeological and ethnographic objects from museums and research
collections, regardless of whether those objects fall into a special
"sacred" category. The bill's new "traditional objects" category could
extend to a wide range of Native American objects in museum collections;
* requires museums and agencies to undertake significant and costly
new inventory efforts, since the bill requires a much greater scope of
objects to be inventoried and requires inventories to be prepared in
consultation with nonfederally recognized tribes (not required under
NAGPRA);
* places museums and agencies in the position of having to determine
which groups should have standing as "nonfederally recognized tribes," since
the bill fails to define "nonfederally recognized tribes" while at the same
time requiring agencies and museums to consult with and repatriate to
nonfederally recognized tribes;
* creates an unbalanced Repatriation Oversight Commission - primarily
consisting of representatives of federally recognized tribes - which lacks
adequate representation from public agencies to ensure that research and
museum interests will be adequately taken into account. This is
particularly critical, since AB 978 gives the Commission authority to make
determinations regarding cultural affiliation, to order repatriation, to
mediate disputes, and to impose civil penalties;
* creates less rigorous standards for establishing cultural
affiliation and requiring repatriation than those set out in NAGPRA,
resulting in state law that will likely require agencies and museums to
repatriate items in cases where there is not strong evidence of a link to a
particular present-day tribe and in cases where NAGPRA requires agencies and
museums to retain possession;
* fails to provide important NAGPRA exceptions allowing agencies and
museums to retain objects over which they have a right of possession or in
cases where there is an ongoing research study of major national importance;
* subjects museums and agencies to a vague and broad civil penalties
provision under which a museum could incur civil penalties for simply 015