Loading...
2005 05 19 HPCI Historic Preservation Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ wwvv.la-guinta.orq HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AG EN DA The Regular Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California MAY 19, 2005 3:00 P.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2005-013 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 Minutes for the meetings of March 17, 2005, April 10, 2005, and April 21, 2005 Historic Preservation Commission Agenda V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND EVALUATION REPORT; Applicant: RT Hughes, LLC Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Michael Hogan, Principal) Location: Southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. B. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT FOR THE DUNES RETAIL CENTER Applicant: Jeff Lowden (The Dunes Business Park, LLC) Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Michael Hogan, Principal) Location: Norh side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Dunes Palm Road. C. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 Applicant: Core Homes, LLC Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Michael Hogan, Principal) Location: West side of Madison Street between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52. D. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 Applicant: Core Homes, LLC Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Michael Hogan, Principal) Location: West side of Madison Street between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I; Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission meeting of Thursday, April 21, 2005, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, Chamber of Commerce, and Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, May 13, 2005. DATED: May 13, 2005 BE Y . SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\HPC\hpc Agenda.doc 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 17, 2005 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Allan Wilbur at 3:03 p.m. He then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Staff Present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, and Secretary Carolyn Walker II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Mouriquand to approve the minutes of February 17, 2005 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report: Applicant: Monroe Dates Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Harry Quinn, Geologist/Paleontologist) Location: West side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61 (60-995 Monroe Street) 1. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. »... 003 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 2. Commissioner Mouriquand commented the report was dated 2003 and wanted to know why the Commission was receiving it now. Staff deferred the question to Michael Hogan, of CRM TECH, who replied they submitted the report to their client in 2003. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if there had been a problem with the report. Mr. Hogan replied he had discussed the report with staff and there were no issues. He commented the client may have now been at a stage in the project where they realized they had to submit the report. 3. Commissioners Sharp, Puente, and Wright had no comments. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand asked what was being done with all the shells being collected. Staff replied they are temporarily being stored at City Hall until a permanent location has been determined for curation. Staff suggested the Commission and the consultants might want to give staff direction as to the disposition of the shells. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand asked Mr. Hogan if he had any recommendations for the City. Mr. Hogan replied the idea of collecting the shells is to find out more about micro environments. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested a data base needed to be created. Commission discussion followed regarding the amount of shells collected and whether representative samples should be kept. Mr. Hogan said the protocol of shell collection followed the San Bernardino County Museum's recommendations. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested the staff could write to the Museum regarding the significance of the shells and ask for their recommendations for collection and storage of them. 6. Commissioner Puente asked if the City was going to build a museum for items such as these shells. Commissioner Mouriquand said they were eventually, but until then the pot sherds and shells should not be disposed of, due to lack of curation space. She was not recommending the City throw the shells away. 7. Staff asked if the Commissioners would like to add that recommendation to the motion. It might be prudent to make a request then if we are not going to collect, hold, and store the 004 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 2 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 shells per this recommendation; we would bring that back to the Commission. Staff emphasized resources would not be destroyed without the Commission's approval. 8. Commissioner Mouriquand said she was not discussing destruction but better curation such as the museum where they might be used for research. Staff replied they have contacted the San Bernardino Museum and their conclusion was they didn't want them. Staff said the major question is how many of these resources should be maintained. Staff suggested they come back to the Commission, on a policy basis, for concurrence before altering the reports or doing something with present resources. 9. Commissioner Mouriquand commented she was not a paleontologist, and did not want to influence the City's decision on the disposition of cultural resources. Staff suggested the Commission could ask CRM TECH's representative to write a report on that issue. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed suggesting the consultant ask Harry Quinn, their Paleontologist for his input. 10. Michael Hogan commented he'd heard Mr. Quinn discussing this matter in the context of subspecies. Commissioner Mouriquand said a paleontologist's opinion would be invaluable regarding whether the City should save these resources and how they should be saved. 11. Chairman Wilbur added the recommendations needed to be from someone who was qualified to determine retention or destruction of resources. He commented the City Council would not like to hear that the City got rid of all the fossil shells without any consideration other than the knowledge of the Commission and a few research firms. 12, Commissioner Mouriquand suggested the library, or new museum, could have some sort of educational interpretive exhibit and use them as display. 13. Staff summed up the Commission's suggestions as 1). Staff is to contact the San Bernardino Museum regarding curation guidelines; 2). The project consultant, or their Paleontologist, 005 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 3 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 shall respond to the curation questions in a brief, concise letter report; and, 3). At the conclusion of those two tasks this item will be returned to the Commission to establish a policy that is City-wide. Changes should not be made project by project and consultants that work in La Quinta should be advised if the City is not going to collect and store these resources. Upon completion of the City policy, consultants may then be able to make a determination in the field, when they make their report, as to whether or not the resources are significant. For purposes of this report, the current recommendations will remain the same. 14. Commissioner Mouriquand said the Commission has never had a professional Paleontologist address, or educate them. It would be nice to invite one sometime to educate the Commission on the significance of these questions. Staff stated they would do a little research on this. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Mouriquand to adopt Minute Motion 2005-006 accepting the results of the Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Monroe Dates with the following additions: A. Staff is to contact the San Bernardino Museum for their protocol on collection and storage of said fossil, or shell, remains from various sites. B. The CRM TECH project consultant (or Paleontologist) will write a concise letter report on the issue of collection, retention and curation of resources. C. At the conclusion of items A and B, the information will be returned to the Commission for purposes of establishing a City-wide policy. Unanimously approved. B. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of a 28.73 Acre Property and Phase II Test of Site CA-RIV-7138/H: Applicant: Monroe Dates, LLC Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group for Phase I and CRM TECH for Phase II 006 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3.17-05.doc 4 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 Location: West side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61 (60-995 Monroe Street). 1. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Staff had some additional comments on the demolition of the project buildings and the pool. The area had been annexed into the City and was not part of any previous surveys. There was no documentation for staff members to check prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Therefore, they did not ask questions about the date of construction, or age of structures, which would have triggered an inquiry. Staff has met with various department staff members regarding procedures relative to these types of resources. Staff is currently working with the Building Director to find out the best training program for interception of historic properties. Future surveys in areas annexed would be included in the permitting system which would help in locking up those particular sites. When a permit is requested the system will not allow issuance, and that's the best way to prevent demolition of the site. To the best of our knowledge there were no known resources on the site relative to significance of structures, but again once they're demolished it's difficult to determine whether or not they were significant. The City is very concerned about what occurred but is trying to fix the problem so it does not happen in the future. 3. Commissioner Wright said the Commission had this same problem a year ago on a property that was demolished. Staff informed the Commission that no demolition permits were going to be issued unless the Historic Preservation Commission was informed of this. This does not appear to be the case. The problem is the Commission was never aware of this report which was done in July 2003. They didn't have the date of the demolition and were unable to do any documentation prior to destruction of the site. However, the Commission does need to be assured that the permitting problem has been solved as promised. No demolition permits were to be issued unless they went through the Commission. One of the problems is that there are current City of La Quinta properties and future - annexation properties. The best way to handle the problem 007 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 5 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 would be to have no demolition permits issued unless the properties were at least surveyed by a staff member to determine if there were any structures on the property. The project would not have been stopped, but there should be an opportunity to prepare a photographic journal of the structures on the property before demolition. Projects would not be held up because of this but the documentation would be done. The structures may not have been historically significant, but they needed to be in our Historical Survey photographically. If not, then they are lost forever. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said historically the Building Department has issued demolition permits with the Commission finding out after the fact. So this has been an ongoing problem. She commented on some of her mother's memories of events at the Roarke Ranch. She said it was a well-known local gathering place and a cultural resource. It was strictly local people, and of local significance. 5. Commissioner Wright agreed it was a real cultural resource in the community and if the house was built in 1925, it would have been about the period of time that our early history starts architecturally, in this Valley. This concern was brought up almost a year ago, and apparently there needs to be better communication with the building Department to let them know that the Commission can take a more proactive stance if needed to involve SHPO. He gave an example of the SilverRock. project and the proposed demolition of the Ahmanson Ranch building, which is now the clubhouse. The demolition permits were in, but the Commission invoked its rights, as a Certified Local Government (CLG), and the City had the project reviewed by a staff person. The project was then fully documented. 6. Commissioner Wright said this is a very sensitive issue and he did not want to see another property demolished without a photographic record, or the Commission and staff being aware of it. There are very little cultural and historic architectural resources left in this community and they all need to be documented. It's just as important as the Paleontological and Archaeological documentation. 008 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 6 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 7. Commissioner Mouriquand commented if the property had been assessed it might have come back as having no significance. However, this property would have provided information on early settlement patterns and land uses and the information in and of itself has value. Possibly demolitions should be made subject to CEQA. 8. Staff suggested the Commission may not want to react with the recommendation they review all demolition permits, because of the number of very routine permits which could include the demolition of an interior wall in a contemporary building. Staff asked the Commission to allow them to work with the other departments on a minimum of three items: 1). Instituting a "holds and notices" permit system for staff to see and report back on when it's done; 2). The City will be educating department staff, on a regular basis, to be inquisitive about demolition permits; and 3). Staff will be instituting a system that should avert as many potential problems until every property in town is surveyed and all efforts have been exhausted to try to identify resources. However, humans make mistakes and something could occur that because of withholding information at the counter, lack of familiarity with the location, or any number of other circumstances, a permit could get issued for something that may have a potential historic element. Every reasonable measure will be utilized. What occurred last year may have been due to the start-up of the system and turnover in staff. It may not have been fully put into place. A new permit feature has been added that allows us to be a little bit tighter on how we set up the permit system. Please allow staff a little time to work with Building & Safety and we'll report back at the next meeting as to our program to try to eliminate this to the greatest degree possible. If you've ever worked a permit center there are a lot of different ways to present something that something could have a problem, or concern, and it is expressed to you as there nothing there and the volume of work that we do you have to rely on people's good faith efforts to be truthful and up front. And in everything you do you expect our consultants to have good eyes, good research abilities, analytical skills, and reporting techniques because we can't be there for everybody, but we will make it better than it is today. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pre$ Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 7 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 9. Commissioner Wright asked if all the buildings on the historical survey had already been included in the system. Are they red - flagged so when someone comes in and asks for a demolition permit and the people behind the counter can see these are historical sites? Staff replied they had not had a chance to inspect the system, yet, but would get an answer and advise the Commission. 10. Commissioner Wright said it was extremely important that the properties photographed and documented in the survey be included. 11. Staff replied all of the information is not currently in the system, but will be added in the fashion described. The system will then stop all permits until somebody is forced to do the research. 12. Chairman Wilbur asked if this was a software system. Staff replied yes, it's a Building Permit system that is usually described as "holds and notices". The City can put a hold on a permit because somebody hasn't paid a business license and the system will then freeze up. It is a new system and staff is still working to improve it. Meanwhile, the City does recognize the Commission's concerns and staff will look into the matter and report back with further information. 13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2005-007 accepting the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of a 28.73 Acre Property and Phase II Test of Site CA-RIV-7138/H as submitted. Unanimously approved. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-008 accepting the Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report — Site CA-RIV- 7138/H report as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map 32979: Applicant: Foxx Homes (David Kulstad, Vice President) Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Michael Hogan, Principal) Location: West of Washington Street and North of Avenue 47. »..._ 010 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 8 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 1. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Puente commented on the difficulty in obtaining responses from the Native American Commission. 3. Commissioner Wright stated we must continue to make the effort, and it's up to the Agency to reply. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand added it is not incumbent upon the applicant, or the consultant to insure they actually receive a response, only that they submit a request for comments. 5. Commissioner Sharp had a question about location. Commissioner Wright outlined the area involved. 6. Commissioner Puente asked if there was a question about mitigation when this property was surveyed in 1991. She asked if that was why the applicant recommended limited archaeological monitoring. Mike Hogan (CRM TECH) replied there were sites recorded that had been tested. One of the sites was actually determined to be a historical resource and mitigated the impacts for that site. There still might be some other resources there and monitoring is recommended. 7. Commissioner Mouriquand made an observation about the property having a wind current that carries airborne or Aeolian sand, over the mountains and deposits it right on the project site. This development is going to be constantly fighting off the sand that's trying to bury them. It's a wind pattern phenomenon. 8. Staff replied the entire Coachella Valley has the same problem. The mountains are trying to fall down and the Valley is filling up. The full environmental assessment on this property has not been completed yet. 9. Chairman Wilbur, Commissioners Sharp and Wright had no comments. -- U11 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 9 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-009 accepting the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map 32979 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Tribal Consultation Guidelines (Interim) for Senate Bill 18 — Guidelines for consulting with various tribes. 1. Staff gave a brief update on how SB 18 affects future general plan updates and planning guidelines. Staff asked the Commissioners to let staff know if they have any thoughts or ideas on this legislation and to be incorporated in the comments. Staff said in the future we can expect more legislation regarding cultural resources. Many Tribes are becoming much more sophisticated in reviewing what's going on with resources and developing an advocacy position. In the Coachella Valley we are ahead of some areas. Tribes such as the Agua Caliente are very active in reviewing cultural resources. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand asked how many Specific Plans were currently being processed because this applies to Specific Plans. Staff replied a small amount and most of them were very minor just a page or two. Commissioner Sharp asked if this memorandum pertained to all the tribes in the state, from north to south, not just the Coachella Valley. Staff replied yes. B. April 10`h Field Trip 1. Commissioner Mouriquand discussed some of the areas the Commissioners would be visiting. 2. Chairman Wilbur confirmed the Commission would meet at City Hall at 8:00 a.m., April 10, 2005. 3. Staff discussed the Brown Act applications for the meeting and Commissioners were cautioned not to discuss Commission business while traveling to and from cultural sites. UiL P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Cam\HPC 3-17-05.doc 10 Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2005 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said she had prepared handouts and would bring some artifacts, as well as some mesquite cookies for the Commissioners' enjoyment. 5. Commissioner Sharp asked if the tour would last around two hours. Commissioner Mouriquand replied it could be two hours. Chairman Wilbur thought it would be over by 11:00 including travel time. Commissioner Sharp asked if they could invite outsiders. Staff replied it is a public meeting. There should be discussion and agreement upon on how many people would actually be invited. If anybody wanted to come they could. The City is not obligated to provide transportation for the public. 6. Commissioner Mouriquand cautioned everyone to bring boots, water, and wear common-sense hiking attire. 7. Chairman Wilbur thanked Commissioner Mouriquand for her efforts on this tour. He expressed the Commission's appreciation. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp and Mouriquand to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the Special Meeting to be held on April 10, 2005. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Carolyn Walker Secretary I._- - 013 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 3-17-05.doc 11 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 10, 2005 This special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Allan Wilbur at 8:30 a.m. He then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Mouriquand, Sharp, and Chairman Wilbur Absent: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriquand and Sharp to excuse Commissioners Puente and Wright. Unanimously approved. Staff Present: Principal Planner Fred Baker Il. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None V. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Guided Tour of the Coral Mountain Area — members of the Commission, staff, and attendees from the public, for a guided tour of the Coral Mountain Area which included the Fish Traps and two archaeological sites. 014 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-10-05.doc Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2005 Vill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriquand and Sharp to adjourn this Special Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on April 21, 2005. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Carolyn Walker Secretary 015 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-10-05.doe 2 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 21, 2005 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Allan Wilbur at 3:03 p.m. He then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Staff Present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker IL PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Deleted approval of Minutes for the meeting of March 17, 2005, as they were not included. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Final Phase II Cultural Archaeological Test Program For Tentative Tract Map 32201: Applicant: Choice Enterprise Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock, Principal) Location: Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the Torres Martinez Tribe requested monitoring, would that be made a condition on the grading permit. She asked if the City was going to ask for 016 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 evidence that the developer made arrangements to have an Indian monitor. Staff replied yes. 3. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was a Native American at the site for the Phase 2 testing. Staff replied they did not believe so. It was just the consultant's staff. The report identified who did the on -foot survey. Staff said the Tribe was asking to be there for the monitoring in this case, but were not previously in attendance during the testing for this report. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand said she was glad to see that some students were getting an opportunity to be involved in the local history. 5. Commissioner Sharp asked if the students working on the project were Native American students. Staff replied they were not. They were from San Bernardino Valley College. 6. Commissioner Mouriquand said this was a very tight, concise, and appropriate report. 7. Commissioner Sharp asked about the holes shown in the report photos. 8. Commissioner Mouriquand explained the importance of the neatness and precision of the excavation. 9. Chairman Wilbur commented it was his understanding there would be a Torres Martinez representative present for the monitoring. Staff replied that was correct. 10. Commissioner Mouriquand said the consultant was required to make arrangements to have a monitor, and asked what happened if the monitor didn't show up. Staff said the project would proceed. The developer could not hold up the grading because the monitors didn't show up. 11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2005-010 accepting the results of the Final Phase II Cultural Archaeological Test Program for Tentative Tract Map 32201 as submitted. Unanimously approved. 017 P:\CAROLVN\Hest Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 2 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 B. Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a 9.78 acre parcel: Applicant: GLC/DUC LQ Paleontological Consultant: Cogstone Resource Management Inc. (for ECORP Consulting, Inc.) Location: 80-600 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street. 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 Sharp asked why they found shells on this site and not on the first site. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand explained it was most likely due to the elevation of this site. She said this would have been a lakebed and some of the mollusk colonies would be in close proximity to the shore. 4. Commissioner Sharp wanted to make sure there was no oversight on the part of the archaeologist. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand replied there was not. She commented there had been a really nice clam bed recorded in a nearby site, but this area was more conducive to having colonies of mollusks as opposed to the other location. 6. Chairman Wilbur asked if the pictures on Page 8 were actual samples from the site or just examples of the type of materials found. Staff said the pictures on Page 7 were from the site and those on Page 8 were just examples. 7. Commissioner Mouriquand commented when she first read the report, her first thought was whether it was a bit of overkill to do the sample units. The more she thought about it, the more she realized the shells had been ignored too long, and there was a lot to learn from them. She added, for scientific purposes, it's a good idea to do the sample units. 8. Chairman Wilbur asked if anyone was familiar with the report Consultant. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 3 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 9. Commissioner Mouriquand replied she was not familiar with them. Staff answered they did not recognize the name. 10. Commissioner Mouriquand said they were apparently subcontracted by ECORP's Dr. Roger Mason, who is well known and highly thought of. She said if Dr. Mason thought they were professional, and up to the task, she would accept his judgment. The report was very appropriate and they followed all the standard procedures. She had no fault with the report. They included more information than what was customarily received. It was a very good report. 11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-011 accepting the Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a 9.78 acre parcel located at 80-600 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. Phase I Archaeological Survey Report: Applicant: GLC/DUC LQ Archaeological Consultant: Cogstone Resource Management Inc, (for ECORP Consulting, Inc.) Location: 80-600 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp commented that, in the past year, the Commission has invited Native Americans to show up at various sites. He was unaware of their appearance at any of these sites. He asked how long had this procedure been going on. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand replied it had only been a recent occurrence. Staff said it had only been a couple of years. 4. Commissioner Sharp was concerned about their lack of response. Staff asked what he meant by saying they never responded. Commissioner Sharp replied they've never been to the site to monitor. Staff replied they were aware of several cases were Native Americans were present for monitoring. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand said she did not think anyone was tracking that information. She said you would have to look P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 4 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 through the monitoring reports for some discussion saying they were present. 6. Commissioner Sharp said they were being included in the recommendations, but didn't appear to be at the site very often. 7. Commissioner Mouriquand said the important thing was to forward the recommendation that they have a Tribal monitor involved and make it a condition of approval, but it would then be the responsibility of the Tribe to act on the recommendation. The City and the Commission could not enforce it. The Commission could only make the effort and then it was up to the Tribes to follow through. 8. Commissioner Wright pointed out to the Commission that this procedure is new for the Tribes. A lot of the Tribes do not have the infrastructure such as the Augustine Band. They've only been organized about four years. Once the other Tribes get established, and get a hierarchy, as well as a bureaucracy, then they will probably show more consistency in monitoring. The important fact was they were being given the opportunity to attend. 9. Commissioner Mouriquand stated some of the other bands are not quite organized to the point of actually having monitors available, though they may want a tribal monitor involved. Some of the Tribes may just request the monitoring be done by the Agua Caliente Tribe because they have an active, trained monitoring crew available. 10. Commissioner Sharp asked if the Tribes knew what education was required of a monitor. 11. Commissioner Mouriquand replied the consultants honor each band's decision as to who they consider qualified. They are held to standards which are different than an archaeologist's. They are not required to have a college degree, because their goal is more of a cultural/traditional role rather than academic or scientific. If the Tribal Council or Cultural Resources Office considers a person qualified to be a monitor, that decision is not challenged. 12. Commissioner Sharp asked about the parameters for the Tribe and the City. 020 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 5 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 13. Commissioner Mouriquand replied there are two cultures and two approaches to everything. The Agua Caliente and Pechanga Bands have good internal training for their monitors. They will bring in an archaeologist to train their monitors and they do not work for hire until they pass the internal training program. 14. Commissioner Sharp asked if they were paid. Commissioner Mouriquand replied they were paid by the Tribe. Currently the Agua Caliente monitors receive a very substantial wage. The archaeologists and consultants coordinate and cooperate with the monitors. The monitors are very good and professional in their work. They can record sites. They can spot something quickly and they are eager to be on site participating. 15. Commissioner Sharp asked if it would be proper for the City to prepare a set of guidelines. 16. Commissioner Mouriquand replied the guidelines are up to the Tribes regarding monitors and qualifications. If a monitor should need assistance on site, the project archaeologist would assist and educate them. Basically, the monitors just need a good pair of eyes and some notion of what artifacts look like, as well as an awareness of safety rules. Most monitors know how to take field notes, record sites, draw artifacts, and are aware of OSHA rules and regulations. 17. Commissioner Sharp commented on the willingness of the Torres Martinez Tribe to be involved with monitoring. 18. Commissioner Mouriquand gave some background on her involvement and that of CRM TECH, in training the monitors and some of the Tribal Members. She added, some of the Tribal Members have even worked for CRM TECH. 19. Chairman Wilbur asked if the Commission has done what was needed for tribal representatives to be notified and present on sites. 20. Commissioner Mouriquand replied yes, the Commission has done all it could do. 021 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 6 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 21. Commissioner Wright commented Bruce Love was instrumental in getting the Native Americans on his crews. 22. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed and said he did a fantastic job. This was a wonderful service to the local Tribes. 23. Commissioner Sharp mentioned Harry Quinn, of CRM TECH, was also helpful. 24. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed he was. 25. Commissioner Wright asked if there was a residence on the site. Staff answered yes, there was a residence on Avenue 58 which was built in the 1970's. 26. Commissioner Mouriquand said the report stated the residence was not more than 50 years old. 27. Chairman Wilbur commented the report was referring to the slabs, which were all that was left of a previous structure. Staff said the only residence shown, in the aerial photos, was one that would remain. The residence will not be a part of the development. 28. Commissioner Wright said that was fine, but stated the Commission should specify a photographic record be made of the residence and the farm structures and samples taken from the dumps on the site. 29. Commissioner Mouriquand commented she didn't see any discussion about the historical periods. She didn't see any Government Land Office (GLO) or National Register searches or any steps normally involved in dealing with historical resources. The report adequately covers the prehistoric period and the Cahuilla, but there is no research on homesteads. The whole discussion of historical resources was just left out. 30. Commissioner Wright commented that for a small piece of property it was very rich, but there should be some kind of cultural history included. Staff asked Commissioner Wright if he was talking about the information listed in Table 1, Page 6, as these are sites that are within one mile of the project area. None of the items listed are on this property. Staff also 022 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 7 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 explained that might also be where the confusion is regarding the historical structures and artifacts. 31. Commissioner Mouriquand was still concerned that no historical context had been included. 32. Commissioner Wright said even if the house is not going to be demolished, the Commission should still ask that there be a photographic record made of it prior to any work being done. This way it could be documented from a cultural standpoint. Staff replied there would be no work done on it and it was not included in the development. 33. Commissioner Mouriquand added even so, this may be the only opportunity to obtain documentation, if this is a historic resource. Staff repeated there would not be any work done on it. The owner of the residence would retain it and sell the rest of the property. 34. Commissioner Mouriquand commented there were no photos of the house in the report, so the Commission was not aware of its authenticity. 35. Commissioner Wright was interested in the cultural information; the date the home was homesteaded, as well as a photographic record. 36. Commissioner Mouriquand said there was no information about the architecture of the house. There was no information as to whether there were any noted architects behind the design. She added the residence is shown as part of the project, but on the map it is not included. Staff replied the residence is shown as part of the project, but it is not a part of the Tentative Tract Map. It has been carved out with a Parcel Map and is not part of the subdivision, even though it is shown as part of the project site. The developers have nothing to do with the house and are going to surround it. 37. Commissioner Wright agreed with Commissioner Mouriquand that it is an opportunity to record a cultural resource in its original context. This way it will prevent the loss of a cultural resource on a technicality. The Commission has concentrated on Archaeological/Paleontological data for the past 11 years. In five years from now, there won't be anything left of La Quinta 023 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 8 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 to discuss except historical residences and that's when the mission of the Commission will shift to the preservation of historical structures. 38. Commissioner Mouriquand commented on the objectives of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) commissioned study. Part of the CEQA process is an environmental review to look at what kind of impacts the project will have upon the land. This residence is part of the land. Although there's not going to be any direct impacts by demolishing the building, it will still be surrounded by the new development. That is a form of impact. More information is needed about this structure. There may not be another opportunity to request this. The appropriate procedure, under the intent of CEQA, is to look at impacts on existing cultural resources, even if they are technically carved out on the map. The Commission needs more information to decide if it is a cultural resource. 39. Principal Planner Sawa stated the records showed only one residence on the property and it was built in 1983, which would eliminate it from being a historical resource. 40. Commissioner Wright commented it was not necessary to document the residence, but that information should have been mentioned in the report. Staff agreed. 41. Chairman Wilbur asked if the Commissioners wanted the report amended. 42. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested staff send a letter to the author of the report stating that customarily the City requires a discussion about the historic period on any existing structures, and that information was lacking. She suggested staff suggest the consultant include some discussion in future reports. Staff said they would send a letter with the results of the meeting and the comments suggested would be included. 43. Commissioner Wright said all future reports need to include detailed information on all structures, if there are any. Staff agreed and commented most of the reports contain this information. 024 P:\CAROLYN\Nisi Pres Cam\HPC 4-21-05.doc 9 Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2005 44. Commissioner Mouriquand recommended an amendment to Condition A to include the request for tribal monitoring by the Augustine Band. 45. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2005-012 accepting the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map 32979 with the following addition to the end of the first sentence in Recommendation number one: "..including a Native American monitor during grading." Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Commissioners received copies of the California Preservation Conference Schedule. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Wilbur suggested a thank you letter be sent to those who volunteered to assist on the April 10, 2005 tour. He said staff could sign on behalf of the Commission. B. Commissioner Mouriquand said she would provide staff with the names and addresses of those who assisted on the Tour. C. Commissioner Sharp stated he had a good time and enjoyed the tour. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on May 19, 2005. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:47 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Carolyn Walker Secretary ©25 P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 4-21-05.doc 10 r. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 19, 2005 ITEM: ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND EVALUATION REPORT — SITE CA-RIV-7205/H (33-12956) LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 60 APPLICANT: RT HUGHES, LLC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: CRM TECH (MICHAEL HOGAN, PRINCIPAL) BACKGROUND: The study area is approximately 23-acres in size and located in the southern part of the City. A Phase I (survey level) Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared and accepted by the HPC in November, 2003 as part of a larger assessment for several tracts of surrounding property that eventually became the Andalusia project. This particular site was then sold to this applicant to be developed as a separate project. As a result of the assessment, an archaeological site was discovered in the northern half of the subject property. This report is the results of the Phase II testing and evaluation of the identified archaeological site. The Phase 1 report will be available for review at the meeting. This property is proposed for a residential subdivision. This Assessment will be part of the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project application. DISCUSSION: The archaeological site found on the property surface consisted of four dense concentrations of ceramic sherds, and a sparse scatter of groundstone, chipped stone, animal bone and historic -era glass fragments. Testing was done to determine the significance and extent of the artifacts. The property is vacant and covered with dense grasses and brush. 026 P:\STAN\hpc\rpt tt 33597 ph 2 archaeo.doc This study consisted of a second field reconnaissance of the study area, identification of the archaeological site, surface collection of the artifacts, and the excavation of a total of 15 test units and 10 shovel test pits. The surface collection consisted of ceramic sherds, chipped stone, pieces of groundstone, fragment of bone, rock, and historic -era glass. The test unit and shovel test pit excavations resulted in the recovery of ceramic sherds, fire -affected clay, fragment of bone and one piece of historic -era glass. Three fragments of cremated bone were determined to possibly be human remains and need to be given to the appropriate Native American tribe for reburial. The recovered remaining cultural materials have been cleaned, sorted, counted, cataloged, and analyzed by CRM TECH staff. CONCLUSION: The report states the evidence from the testing suggests the site is a temporary campsite from the Late Prehistoric period that was occupied after Lake Cahuilla had completely disappeared. The conclusion of the report is that the site does not constitute a "historic resource". The potential cremated human remains will be repatriated to the Most Likely Descendents, to be determined in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and local Native American groups. The report further states the monitoring during earth -moving operations will constitute the final mitigation needed to allow the project to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , accepting the Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report — Site CA-RIV-7205/H (33-12956), as prepared by CRM TECH, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological and paleontological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth - moving or clearing permit. Monitors shall include a minimum of one Native American monitor. 2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first production home building final inspection for the project. ,._ 027 P:\STAN\hpc\rpt tt 33597 ph 2 archaeo.doc 3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property. Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. 4. Results of the final artifact analysis and site interpretation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review by the Historic Preservation Commission prior to issuance of first grading, clearing or grubbing permit. 5. The monitoring report shall include disposition of the potential cremated Native American remains. Attachment: 1 . Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report — Site CA-RIV-7205/H (33-12956) (Commissioners and staff only) Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner 028 P.\STAN\hpc\rpt tt 33597 ph 2 archaeo.doc HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM: HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT FOR THE DUNES RETAIL CENTER LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD APPLICANT: JEFF LOWDEN (THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC) CONSULTANT: CRM TECH (MICHAEL HOGAN, PRINCIPAL) BACKGROUND: The study area is 6-acres in size and located on the north side of Highway 111 between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson Street. The site is vacant with the Whitewater Storm Channel to the north. The City is currently processing an application to allow a commercial center on the property (SDP 05-822 ad EA 2005- 533). A Phase I (survey level) Archaeological/Historical Resources Assessment has been completed for the property. The Assessment includes a record search and field reconnaissance of the property. This Assessment will be part of the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project application. DISCUSSION: An archaeological records search for the property was conducted at the Eastern Information Center located at UC Riverside. The records search indicated the project site has not been surveyed. Within one mile of the site, the records search showed more than 50 previous surveys, resulting in 60 prehistoric sites, nine historic -era sites and several isolated finds identified. None of these previously recorded sites are located in the immediate vicinity of this project area. Historical background research was conducted at the Science Library Map Room at UC Riverside and at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) office in Moreno Valley. The search indicated that one structure showed up on the western portion of the property by 1952. The on -foot field survey was conducted by walking parallel north -south transects spaced ten meters apart. As a result of this survey, no prehistoric or historic -era artifacts were observed on the ground. A concrete foundation was found on the western portion of the site and is concluded to be the remnants of the structure that occupied the property in the 1950s. 029 PAReports - HPC\2005\5-19-05\rpt sdp 2005-822 ph 1 archaeo.doc The report indicates a total of five local Native American tribe representatives were contacted regarding the project site. No relevant comments have been received to date. CONCLUSION: The report concludes the foundation remains is not a historic resource. The subject site is in an area where numerous archaeological sites have been found and therefore, monitoring of earth -moving activities is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , accepting the "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report - The Dunes Retail Center, Parcel Map No. 31143 City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California", as prepared and recommended by CRM TECH, and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. 2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. Attachment: 1. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report - The Dunes Retail Center, Parcel Map No. 31143, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, (Staff and Commissioners only) Prepared by: G1M.��Gv�nr� 030 Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\Reports - HPC\2005\5-19-05\rpt sdp 2005-822 ph 1 archaeo.doc BI #C DATE: ITEM: LOCATION: APPLICANT: CONSULTANT: BACKGROUND: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 19, 2005 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33085 WEST SIDE OF MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 50 AND 52 CORE HOMES, LLC CRM TECH (MICHAEL HOGAN, PRINCIPAL) The study area is a 4.3± acre parcel located in the southern part of the city. The property has been used as a citrus grove. The City is currently processing an application to allow a single family residential development on the property. A Phase I (survey level) archaeological/historical resources assessment has been completed. The assessment includes a record search and field reconnaissance of the property. This assessment will be part of the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project application. An archaeological records search for the property was conducted at the Eastern Information Center located at UC Riverside. The records search indicated that the project area had not been previously surveyed, with no cultural resources recorded on or adjacent to the site. Within one mile of the site, the records search showed 17 previous surveys, resulting in 39 prehistoric sites and isolated finds. None of these previously recorded sites are located in the immediate vicinity of this project area. Historical background research was conducted at the Science Library Map Room at UC Riverside and at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Office in Moreno Valley. The search did not indicate any structures or buildings were present during the 1940s- 1950s. Q31 pf\stan\hpc\rpt ph 1 tt 33085 archaeo.doc The on -foot field survey was conducted by walking parallel east -west transects spaced five meters apart. The results of this survey were negative for prehistoric or historic resources. As an addendum, the Native American Heritage Commission and five local Native American representatives representing four tribes were contacted with two written and one verbal response. None of the responses provided relevant information for this report. The report concludes that no cultural resources exist on the property and therefore, no additional investigation is needed, unless buried resources are found during earth - moving operations. The report does not quantify the likelihood of unearthing buried cultural materials. Therefore, Staff recommends monitoring by a qualified archaeologist. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , accepting the "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report — Tentative Tract Map No. 33085 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California", as prepared and recommended by CRM TECH, and subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. B. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. C. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. 032 pl\stan\hpc\rpt ph 1 it 33085 archaeo.doc Attachments: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report - Tentative Tract. Map No. 33085 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Commissioners only) Prepared by: 4s-�Aql.' `5GV-11 Stan Sawa, Principal Planner 033 pl\stan\hpc\rpt ph 1 tt 33085 archaeo.doc BI #D DATE: ITEM: LOCATION: APPLICANT: CONSULTANT: BACKGROUND: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 19, 2005 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33085 WEST SIDE OF MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 50 AND 52 CORE HOMES, LLC CRM TECH (MICHAEL HOGAN, PRINCIPAL) The study area is a 4.3± acre parcel located in the southern part of the city. The property has been used as a citrus grove. The City is currently processing an application to allow a single family residential development on the property. A Phase I (survey level) archaeological/historical resources assessment has been completed. The assessment includes a record search and field reconnaissance of the property. This assessment will be part of the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project application. PALEONTOLOGICAL DISCUSSION: The study area is located at approximately 30 feet above mean sea level and was previously covered with water during the high stands of Ancient Lake Cahuilla (at maximum 42 feet above mean sea level). A paleontological records search for the property was conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and CRM TECH's library. The records found no paleontological localities (sites) recorded on the project site, or within a one mile radius of the project area. But localities have been found in the same sediments as the project site over a mile away. The on -foot field survey did find shell material mixed throughout the soil of the project site. The material consisted mainly of shell fragments. The top layer of soil has been disturbed by the agricultural use of the property. However, the report concludes the study areas ancient lake beds have a moderate to high potential for invertebrate remains below the disturbed top. Because of this fact, the report states paleontological monitoring of earth -moving activities is warranted once the undisturbed subsurface is reached. pl\stan\hpc\rpt ph 1 it 33085 paleo.doc O 1 9 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , accepting the "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report — Tentative Tract Map No. 33085 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California", as prepared and recommended by CRM TECH, and subject to the following conditions: A. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources as noted in the report shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving permit, or before any clearing of the site is begun. B. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. C. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. D. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the paleontological industry. Attachment: Paleontological Resources Assessment Report — Tentative Tract Map No. 33085 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Staff and Commissioners only) Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner 0,15 pl\stan\hpc\hpc rpt ph 1 tt 33085 paleo.doc