The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEQCB Min 1997-05-06 i . -,j . . . ~ Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes May 6, 1997 Call to Order at 6:30 p.m. I. Pledge of Allegiance n Roll Call Present: Absent: Christ, Hurley, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman None Also Present: Barry Curtis, Associate Planner Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney ill. Approval of Agenda Motion by Hurley; second by McGuire to approve the agenda. .< Motion Carried: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0-0 Christ, Hurley, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman None None IV. Oral Communications - none. VI. Consent Calendar - none. VII. Public Hearings 1. Review and Receipt of Public Comments - Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR "- Mr. Curtis presented a brief staff report and overhead transparency presentation covering the CEQA process. The overheads covered the following subjects: · Purpose of an EIR · EIR Legal Adequacy · Judicial Criteria for Determining Adequacy of an EIR · Project Goals · City Objectives · Proposed Project Land Uses by Planning Area E:\My Documents\EQCB StuffIMinutes of May 6, 1997.doc \ , I . ,- 'J . . . . ~ EQCB Minutes of May 6, 1997 · Forecasting and Speculation · Disagreement among experts · Alternatives · Cumulative Impacts · Determining Significant Effect · Mitigation Measures · Significant Unavoidable Impacts & Overriding Considerations · Issues addressed in the Draft EIR · Required Updates to General Plan · Required City Approvals · Required Approvals of Other Agencies · Project Alternatives · Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Project · Opportunities for Public Involvement · Purpose of Final EIR Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney noted there are certain revisions being undertaken to the DEIR. In the course ofa springtime survey of the property by a biologist as provided for in the EIR, there was the discovery of an additional plant species on the property. The discovery of that species has required some revisions to the biology section of the EIR. These have been completed by the consultant and under review by the City Attorney's office. These will be recirculated for public comment in the next week or so. Additionally, there will be a revision to the hydrology section of the EIR related to some water quality issues that staff decided need some clarification. This portion of the EIR will also be recirculated for public comment. These two section of the EIR will be revised and they will come before Board prior to the time the EIR is finalized. There will also be additional time for public review on these two sections of the EIR beyond the May 27th deadline. The deadline will remain for those portions of the EIR not being recirculated. Boardmember McGuire asked ifit would be feasible to extend the May 27th deadline for the remainder of the EIR. Mr. Steele indicated the 45 day deadline is a guideline the City tries to follow, but he felt additional comments received during the extended review period would likely be addressed iffeasible. Mr. Jerry Tone, representing the Hellman Estate, presented a brief history of the property and the proposed project. Mr. Tone turned the applicant's presentation over to Mr. Dave Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett presented a slide show detailing the history of development proposals on the property as well as specifics for this project. A copy of these slides is attached to these minutes. Chris Webb of Moffatt & Nichol spoke regarding wetland design. Boardmember Hurley asked Mr. Webb where discussion ofa gate to limit flood water flows from entering the wetland? Mr. Webb indicated it's in th~ conceptual wetland plan. Boardmember McGuire asked if Mr. Webb she could provide her with water quality figures for other nearby creeks which flow into wetlands. Boardmember McGuire asked who was going to pay for dredging of the wetlands ifit needed to be done? Mr. Bartlett indicated the DEIR requires the landowner pay for all wetland related costs during the initialS-year monitoring period. Once the 5-year period is up, provided all conditions have been met, the landowner may pursue dedication of the wetlands to some other agency. Page 2 Minutes of May 6, 1997 . ..~ . . . . . ~ EQCB Minutes of May 6, 1997 Boardmember Rosenman indicated he would like to see a timeline or other graphic to visually demonstrate the implementation of the mitigation measures. He felt this would make the document more useful and meaningful to the general public. Tony Baumkamp of Glenn Lukos Associates spoke regarding the biology. Mr. Baumkamp indicated the spring inventory of the site located a small plant commonly called Coulter's Goldfield which is classified by the California Native Plant Society as "rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere". Because of this find, an amendment to the DEIR will be performed and the amended portion of the DEIR will be recirculated for comments. Scott Magorien of Converse Consultants discussed the site's geology Break Taken (8: 10- 8: 17) PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Antos: Mr. Antos said the presentation on this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been misleading because it indicates that we're dealing with is a wetland and a golf course; that's not the case. There is no discussion about environmental impacts on the State Lands, the remainder of the oil production, the Los A1amitos Retarding basin and the City property. The only discussion on the proposed homes environmentally was made by the geologist. Cultural resources. Mr. Antos wished the EQCB could have been at the meeting with the Archaeological Advisory Committee when the consultants put together the various work that has been done by all the previous archaeological studies of this site. What it showed was that all the high areas, from Westminster down to and including the Hill, was one large Indian village. And the only thing remaining is the high land areas where the houses are going to go. What you have is a total destruction of all the rest of the archaeological sites; that's really not mitigatable. And it's not justifiable. Prior Denial. In June of1990 the City Council went on record and denied the Mola Corp. project for this same property. The voters denied the project in June of 1991. The City Council found the Hellman property unsuitable for residential development due to geologic conditions. Mr. Antos asked what new information has surfaced to render the property suitable for residential development? Simply building to the current Uniform Building Code standards doesn't render it suitable. Pipeline Rupture. During consideration of the Mola project there was a natural gas pipeline rupture on the project site. Santa Ana winds were blowing about 40 miles per hour. Whoever was operating that pipe got an Page 3 Minutes of May 6, 1997 '. . . . . . Mario Voce: Terry Myers: Mario Voce: Moira Hahn: Minutes of May 6, 1997 EQCB Minutes of May 6, 1997 opportunity to flare it. For one week, there were forty foot high flames coming from the back of some pipeline by the oil production property. That particular line was not on record at the City. It was not on record with the City up to and including 1983. Mr. Antos asked what steps have been taken to inventory all natural gas lines, pipelines and capped oil wells on the property and address them in the EIR? The property owner has not seen fit to make a full disclosure of these items as a part of the three previous EIRs. Mr. Antos said he did not think we have a full disclosure now. These subjects need to be addressed prior to any decisions and/or recommendations on the EIR Chairman Voce thanked Mr. Antos for his comments. Terry Meters, a resident of Marina Hill, said she opposes any changes to Gum Grove Park. Secondly she thought the new homes were to be set back further. She felt a larger setback would be beneficial for homes close to an earthquake fault line. Thirdly, she was strongly opposed to a new street allowing access to the proposed golf course. She felt Adolpho Lopez Drive could serve that purpose. She thought there would be too many streets in one location, noting the entry to the Naval Weapons Station and Adolpho Lopez Drive are existing at that location. She felt the proposed new street would create additional noise and traffic. Chairman Voce, referencing figure 5-13 in the EIR, said Forrestal Drive, the main entry to the Naval Weapons Station, will continue over Seal Beach Boulevard and become the entry to the proposed homes. The traffic light will remain. Moira Hahn said she wanted to be sure her comments to be incorporated into the DEIR record and read nineteen (19) typewritten pages of text [Attached]. She said, "I hereby object to approval of this project in its present form, The following comments and all references contained herein are hereby incorporated into the official record of proceedings of this project and its successors. That's from the Public Resource Code. In the interest of not putting you to sleep and because I'm submitting this information to the City in written form, I will not be reading it in full. But I expect the full text of all three documents that I am submitting this evening become part of the official record for the Draft EIR. Thank you. Ms. Hahn's text will be attached to these Minutes for reading/reference and will not be typed into these Minutes. Ms. Hahn asked if there were any questions. Page 4 '. . . Mr. Voce: Diana Wilson1 EQCB Minutes of May 6, 1997 The Chair said he had no questions at this time, perhaps later. Now that she had questions which were going into the DEIR to be answered by the FEIR he was more interested in the answers. He noted she had said she had other documents with recent information and he asked if the EQCB could get copies of that for their next meeting. He wanted them in the packet, in advance. Ms. Wilson said she has a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology from UCLA where she is currently employed. Her job for the last two years has been to talk with California Indian people about UCLA's collection of artifacts, human remains and memorial offerings as part of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act. She explained she has learned a lot about Native American people, their interpretation of California archaeological records and the significance of ancestral remains and memorial offerings to contemporary Indian people --- especially to those who continue to practice indigenous spiritual traditions. It was her opinion that the DEIR vastly underestimates the potential significance of the archaeological resources of the site and completely ignores the cultural, religious and sacred uses of that place. She emphasized that when assessing archaeological, cultural and religious/sacred uses significance are two different things. She said the DEIR omits existing archaeological information on which an assessment can be made. This includes a very important summary of LSA's investigation, which was made Beth Paden (oral report) to the City of Seal Beach on June 11, 1990. Because of this omission, the DEIR should be corrected and re-circulated. The result of this omission is the probable and potential archaeological significance of these sites have never been revealed to the public. From her own work with the earliest archaeological site records often characterize sites such as the subject site as camp grounds. But on excavation, those sites have turned out to represent the activities of larger, more complex and more ancient populations than archaeologists ever suspected. Ora 64, in Newport Beach, was initially reported as an Indian camp but turned out to contain a cemetery. According to the Orange County Coroner's Office it contained between 400 - 600 individuals. The site was dated between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. It contained the earliest examples offired ceramics in the New World. The people who lived in Ora 64 were contemporaries who lived on some of the sites on the Hellman Ranch. She said the DEIR does not meet CEQA requirements to represent archaeological evidence but Ms. Wilson was very soft-spoken. The transcriber had difficulty understanding her public testimony on the tape. Minutes of May 6, 1997 Page 5 ~ . Mr. Hurley Ms. Wilson Craig Steele Diana Wilson . . Minutes of May 6, 1997 EQCB Minutes of May 6. 1997 added she would leave that critique to an archaeologist and other experts. She said she was present to object to the assessment of the cultural significance of the resources we already know about on the Hellman site. She said she made these points in a letter addressed to the City of Seal Beach and dated December 23. This was not summarized or reproduced in the DEIR. She said she would be resubmitting that letter with extended comments at a later time. Mr. Hurley said CEQA requires the DEIR to cover the kinds of things she was discussing. He asked if it's an appendix? Ms. Wilson said yes, it was CEQA Appendix G. The criteria are all listed in Section 5. There are ten guidelines. Mr. Steele said Ms. Wilson was referring to the thresholds of significance that are established by CEQA for each particular type of impact. Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines contains a whole list of thresholds of significance. Included in that list are the two or three cultural resource thresholds that Ms. Wilson is referring to. [Note: Ms. Wilson was soft spoken and difficult to hear on the tape when transcribing). Ms. Wilson said no attempt has been made to contact California Indian Elders, spiritual practitioners or other Indian people associated with the Hellman Ranch or the Landing Hill area. Even though several names were suggested in public testimony on January 27. For example, Lillian Robles, Cindy Alvitre and Art Alvitre. Gabrieleno/Tvonga scholar Craig Torres was suggested to the City as Moira Hahn's replacement on the City's Archaeological Advisory Committee but Mr. Torres has not been contact. The Native American Heritage Commission suggested to the City that a Gabrieleno/Tvonga person be placed on this committee. Marianne Moore, member of the GabrielenolTvonga council, asked in writing to be appointed to this committee; there was no City response. Mr. Jimmy Castillo has spiritual knowledge of the significance of the Hellman Ranch and has not been consulted. Gloria Corillo (spelling?), Juaneno Elder, was born on the Hellman Ranch and her parents and grandparents worked on the Ranch. CEQA requires that the planned impact on cultural significance and sacred uses ofa site be revealed to the public. To do that, the experts on cultural significance must be consulted. Those experts are the contemporary California Indian people and spiritual practitioners. It's not the responsibility of those people to do the City's work for it. They should not have to write their own chapter in the DEIR. The City needs to hire experienced ethnographers to research, record and report the facts before the assessment of cultural significance, the sacred uses of this land can be made. In the present DEIR there is no interpretation of cultural Page 6 -. . . . Minutes of May 6, 1997 EQCBMinutesofMay6,1997 significance. Several people have mentioned an important connection with the Tvonga. This land is right next to what we know as the -- religious Tvonga. The Hellman property is uniquely significant for many Indian people because the archaeological evidence points to the fact that that property once contained, and probably still does contain, living areas and burial grounds. The DEIR states in Appendix J, page 41, "The presence of -- that living surfaces may still be present at this site". Beth Paden stated in her oral reports to Seal Beach that not many -- have been found--. She also stated the found primarily refuse areas on the Hellman property. Refuse is created by people who work. Indigenous people who work must also have somewhere to live, die and practice their sacred ceremonies. It's not unreasonable to assume they did all these in approximately the same places that they worked. Ifwe know that people produced extensive refuse in the area of the Hellman Ranch and that there are hearth features suggests -- ceremonial close. At least nine (9) burials have been excavated from the Hellman property. We should be able to put 2 + 2 together --- people worked and died in this place for perhaps thousands of years. Beth Paden stated that human remains are rarely interred in refuse areas. If ancestral remains are being found, as they are, we can infer that that these remains are coming from the same crematory area. Burial grounds are the most sensitive cultural resource to be found on this property. She asked what, if anything, has been done to identify burial and residential areas on this property? She said Indian peoples oral testimony has been saying there are burial grounds on the Hellman property in Seal Beach. This has been substantiated by oral testimony among Seal Beach residents as well. Because this project will disrupt an important prehistoric archaeological site, including burial grounds, you need to find out what the unique significance is to California Indian people and report it to the public while discussing the DEIR. The big house, the Chief s house, is always near the ceremonial features. Will their full cultural, spiritual and scientific significance be addressed in the DEIR as required by CEQA? The Hellman property may include the remains of ceremonial implosions or sacred dance areas. The DEIR refers to aerial photographs of Ora-261 done for ERA. Silva and Ciberelli reported at least two circular ring features. The photos appear to show many other rings in addition to two large elliptical shaped areas nearly 50' in diameter. The shape and location of these elliptical features and large circles --- this is very similar to Father Boscanin's description of ceremonia She spoke about CEQA requirements and said she believed there are sacred and existing religious resources on this property. It would be a complete sacrilege to build on this site. This was the center of the Shinish religion --, They had the most reported repertoire of all CA Indian people. Page 7 . . . . EQCB Minutes of May 6, 1997 She spoke in length and detail about... ..California Indians who want to comment on the cultural resources at this site should be able to speak for themselves. They have been speaking on this matter at public meetings but their words were not heard, recorded or reported in the DEIR, CA Indian people are unlikely to consult until they have reason to believe that the City of Seal Beach is making a good-faith effort to understand their point of view and until they can talk with someone who has been professionally trained to hear what they have to say. Until aU the archaeological evidence is made available to Indian peoples for their interpretation and until all those who wish to speak on this matter, and not only a select group, have been properly consulted and that consultation summarized and reported the statement in the DEIR has no material fact or basis. It's written in the DEIR now that the HeUman Ranch is not currently used for religious or sacred uses. Finally, she is impressed that this project is taking care of the native plants and animals. Please consider the native people. Mario Voce Mr. Voce announced the time to be 9: 10 p.m. and asked ifit is possible to suspend the public testimony to the continued meeting time? Also, staff and board concerns should be continued. Donna McGuire Member McGuire requested the consultant, P&D Technologies, and the biologist attend the EQCB's next meeting. She had questions for Nancy DeSautels and hoped she would attend the next meeting. David Rosenman Member Rosenman asked how many people in the audience still wished to testifY? Five people raised their hands. He asked if anyone came from a great distance? Mario Voce Chairman Voce announced there is an Archaeological Advisory Committee meeting a week from tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. That will take place prior to the EQCB' s next meeting. Motion by Rosenman; second by McGuire to continue the public hearing to May 20, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.. Motion Carried: A YES: NOES: ' ABSENT: 5-0-0 Christ, Burley, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman None None Boardmember Rosenman said that if anyone has any written comments prepared, they should give them now to Barry Curtis. Page 8 Minutes of May 6, 1997 . . . EQCB Minutes of May 6, 1997 vm. Scheduled Matters IX. Staff Concerns x. Board Concerns XI. Adjournment was adjourned at 9:13 P.M. . d, Barry Cu IS, Secretary Environmental Quality Control Board Page 9 Minutes of May 6, 1997 . . . May 6, 1997 ~(..lli~ ~/fol4 ") ~G Lee Wittenberg Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 8th. Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 SUBJECT: EIR for Hellman Project Dear Mr, Wittenberg: 1. The Cultural Resources section of the EIR and the presentation to the Archaeology Committee pointed out that the proposed development on the bluff is on known Archaeological sites. The houses will destroy those Archaeological sites, Destruction of multiple Archaeological sites can not be mitigated and is not justified, 2. The City Council went on record, when denying the Mola Project on the same property, that the Hellman property is not suitable for residential development due to geologic conditions (Newport-Inglewood Fault, high liquefaction potential etc,). What new information has surfaced to render the property suitable for residential development? (simply building to the current UBC is not a suitable answer) 3, During consideration of the Mola Project, there was a major natural gas pipeline rupture on the project site, That line was not on record with the City. What steps will be taken to locate and inventory ALL gas, oil etc, lines on the property as part of the EIR process? What steps will be taken to inventory and inspect all capped and/or abandoned oil wells on the site? Since the property owner has not seen fit to make a full disclosure of these items as part of three previous EIR's on the site, how can we be sure that there is a full disclosure now? These are subjects that need to be addressed prior to any decisions and or ;Ut~ ErR. Charles Antos P.O, Box 3593 Seal Beach, CA 90740 (310) 430-1450 April2&. 1997 . 1732 Harbor Way Seal Beach. CA 907-10 City ~ Keith liD 211 It' at Seal Beac:h. CA 90740 Dear M-, nil, I would like to receive the completed copy c:A the 'Cultural Resources R8COfds Saarch Quick Check' issued by the California Ard1aeoJogicaIInveI doIy's RegioII8I .If'cm~ CenIer, hit should have been completed by Information Center staff at the request m SRS Principal An::haeolagisl Nancy Desautels Off 8 member of her staff, for the Hellman ProjecL In the intefest of assisting your recognition of this docunent. Appendix B of the City's An::haeoIogicaf Element consists of 8 blank copy of this form. This docunent. if it exi8Is, should be dated between November 18", 1998 and February 1411, 1997, As you know, the Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical EIem8nt (General Plan Amendment 92-1), in section 1.C.1.2, page 4, requir&s Archaeological consultants working for the City to review all relevant information which pertains to QJIturaI resources on 8 project site by reviewing the City's Baseline Survey (StickeI,19QO) and all subsequent information, including 8 literature review at the Archaeological Information Center at UCLA. for the __ current information, . This letter is to request aceesl to documenIs in the possession of the City of Seal Beach and desaibed above for the pwpose of inspection and copying pursuant to the California Public Records Ad (Government Coda Section 8250 et seq,). This request reasonably desaibes identifiable records Or information produced therefrom, and I believe that there exists no express provisions of law exempting the records from discIoan. Pursumt to Government Code Section 6257, I ask that you make the records -promptly available" for inspection and copying, based on my peyment of "fees covering direct costs m duplic8tlon, or statutory fee, if applicable,". would lke to NCeiYGI.... document by 1VIonday, _s". 80 Ih8t I ~ I8view it prtor to... public ...... on the H8IImIn DElR scheduled for TIIIG8day. IIay ffA. If a portion of the information I have requested is exempt from disd0sur8 by expnJSS provisions of law, Government Code Section 6257 additionally requi... segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be reI88sed. If you determine that 811 express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure 811 or 8 portion of the material I have requested, Government Code Section 6256 requires notification to me of the reasons for the detennination not later than 10 days from your receipt of this request. Government Code SectIon 1251.2 prohibits the use of the 100d8y pMod. or any provJsIona of the PublIc Recorda Act. "to delay acceas for IJUI'POS88 of Inspecting public recorda." Thank you very much for your timely 8tI8ntion to my rwquest. . ~~~ Moira Hahn 4cme: (310) i3 <0 - ~-L~t.~ 3 l=A-l'- : ( .s I 0) ~ 'i; 1- - do;}.. ~ T UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES UCLA . April 28, 1997 . SAN FRA CIrSCO '-""'. ~ ; ~. v ~ ).. .:.. 1868' .:"'., .... . -". '17 ' ~'(fV^ J /) C~ ..-6 i AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES CENTER J..., I-.li.~ rl J 3220 CAMPBELL HALL ~. \\ V rr 7 BOX951548 vi J...8~" LOS ANGELES. CA 90095-1548 , ~;Y ( )1 eL! (310) 825-7315, FAX 206-7"'" ~-{ '.ift~ V r ,Iff>- W ~ \ Gv~1- 1L;7 ~ SANTABARBARA . SANTACRUZ BERKELEY . DAVIS . IRVINE . LOS ANGELES . City Manager Keith Till 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Mr. Till, . I would like to receive a copy of" Archaeological Investigations: Hellman Ranch, Seal Beach, California, Aerial Photographic Analysis of CA-Ora-261 " which is on file with the City of Seal Beach and is referred to on page 6? of Al2p.e.ndixJ,_Cultural Resources Report, in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, Volume III. I would also like to receive copies of any and all photographs, especially infra red phtotgraphs, to which this report refers, which should also be in the possession of the City of SeaJ Beach, having been made as part of ERA's 1996 archaeological investigations of the Hellman property contracted by the City of Seal Beach. I am a professional anthropologist working for both UCLA and the National Park Service as a research ethnographer. My Vita is on file with the Southern California Archaeological Information Center. I am preparing comments on the Hellman DEIR, and I would like to receive these documents by Monday, May 5th, so that I may review them prior to the public hearing on the Hellman DEIR scheduled for Tuesday, May 6th. Please send these documents to my home address: 3600 Bagley Avenue #301, Los Angeles, California, 90034-4188. This letter is to request access to documents in the possession of the City of Seal Beach and described above for the purpose of inspc.::tion and COpyiilg pursuant to the Caiifurnia Public Records Act Government Code Section 6250 et seq.. This request reasonably describes identifiable records or information produced therefrom, and I believe that there exists no express provisions of law exempting the records from disclosure. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6257, I ask that you make the records "promptly available" for inspection and copying, based on my payment of "fees covering direct costs of duplication, or statutory fee, if applicable. " . If a portion of the information I have requested is exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, Government Code Section 6257 additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be released. . . . . . If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the material I have requested, Government Code Section 6256 requires notification to me of the reasons for the determination not later than 10 days from your receipt of this request. Government Code Section 6256.2 prohibits the use of the lO-day period, or any provisions of the Public Records Act, "to delay access for purposes of inspecting public records. " Thank you very much for your prompt attention to my request. Sincerely, !;he;' e~~ Diana Wilson, Ph.D. " . . . ..' 12e.L~'~ ~/6Iq, ~L.. Topanga Anthropological Consultants P.O. Box 826 Topanga, California 90290 (310) 455-2981 ( r, City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 May 6, 1997 Comments concerning cultura I resource discussion in: Draft EIR for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of Seal Beach by P&D Consultants, Inc., April 1997. I am a professional archa e%gist, and I spedai ze in the study of the prehistory of Cali for- nia. I am conce me d about the loss of archae ological resources which will be caus ad by the Hellman Ranch development. The Hellman Ranch EIR is not complete. SRS the author of the archae ological element, condu des that four sites are significant and three sites may be significant. They conclud e on page 6~1 that the destruct ion of the sites will be a significant unavoidable impact. The EIR contains no information evaluating specific impacts to the sites and no alternative projects are addressed that avoid impacts. Existing data indicate that the Hellman Ranch sites are the only remaining prehistoric archae ological sites under the juri sdidion of the City of Seal Beach. If the Hellman Ranch project is construct ed as proposed and the sites are destroyed, there will be no future opportunit y for the City of Seal Beach to preserve its earl y heritage. The archae ological study for the EIR consisted entirely of mapping of sites on the Hellman Ranch and adjacent areas of Landing Hill on the basis of archival data and of anal yzing the collections made in 1958 by Redwine according to an artifact diversity index devised by SRS to rank the sites. The site mapping project should have resulted in the filing of site record u~ates at UCLA. The num bars used for the sites should be the same as those used at UCLA. This is required by State guidelines. If proper procedures had been fol- lowed, it would not be necessary to burden the reader of the EIR with a discussion of differ- ences in site num ber assignment. The site data presented in the report are normally otr taine d as the result of init ial studies conducted to determine if archae ological resources should be addressed in an EIR. The data is not adequate to evalua te the sites. The EIR recommends that data concernin g the significan ce of the sites be obtained as the result of mitigation measures CR-3 to CR-6 which would be conducted prior to project construct ion. The studies should be conduct ed prior to approval of the EIR to enable deasion make rs to make informed dedsions. Information concerning the significance of the sites could result in requirements for project redesign prio r to approval. If it is found that the project are a contains cemeteries, preservation options may be considered more seriously than they will be on the basis of the present EIR. -. '. . . Excavations were conducted at the site by LSA for EIR evaluation of a previous project. The results of the studies are not presented in this report. It is stated that the collection is apparently lost. Are there notes or catalogues concemin g the excavations. Table 5-15 indicates that the amount of excavation conducted by LSA is not known. The owners of the land presumably own the collection made by LSA. They should obtain and provide acee ss to study the collections for preparation of the EIR. If the collection can not be obtained testing should be conducted to evaluate the sites. I do not kno w if the LSA conducted an adequate testing program. At the time they conducted their studies, it was considered necessary to conduct the studies to evalua te the sites. How have conditions chan ged so the studies are no longer necessary? All of the archae ologists who have conducted research at the Hellman Ranch sites have identified arch aeological sites on the basis of the distribution of shellfish on the ground surface. At other California prehistoric open air sites, shellfish concentrations are found in the immediate vidn jty of houses where meals were eaten, The presence of shell does not indicate the presence of "shellfish processing areas" as stated in the EIR but rather are the best preserved remains left after eating. Their distribution indicates where people ate. In regard to the activity which caused the formation of the shell midden concentrations, the SRS study condu des that:" Food preparat ion and grinding implements appear to be the predominant types of art ifact s discovered durin 9 prior excavations" page 5~ 149. In addition to houses where people ate, ancie nt California Indian settlements contained struct ures and are as whose locat ions can not be identified on the basis of observations of shells. Areas of sites whim are often outside shell middens include cemeteries, sweatlages or mens houses, dancin g areas, and game courts. Areas without shell may contain arch a eological remains whim can only be identified thro ugh excavations or possibly with remote sensing techniq ues. Study of sexual division of labor and use of space by men and women is an important topic of researm related to Early period settlement. It appears that men and women conducted more activities separately during the Early period, men may have lived in community houses such as sweatlodges. They apparently ate at the womens houses. Observation of the site maps ofthe Land ing Hill (Hellman Ranch) area indicate that houses where people ate were present on all of the benches on the crest of the ridge of Landing Hill. It appears that most of the higher areas in the project area contain archa eological remains. No information is presented concernin g the dates of occupation at project sites. Radiocarbon dates can be obtained from shells. Questions concerning the settlement whim could be answered indu de: Were all of the sites occupied at one time? Were all of the sited occupied durin g different times? Were the sites all occupied at one time duri ng an early period of occupation and only one area during later periods? In many places in Cali- fornia, sites of different time periods are located at different elevations on ridges. In gen- eral the earliest sites are at the hig hest elevations and the elevation decre ases over time alt hough there are reversals. The author of the archa eological element has a reputation of being conservative in regards to evalua tion of archa eological sites. The company has managed the destruct ion of impor- tant archae ological sites in southern Californi a. The historic Indian settlement of Encino was lost by SRS durin g public heari ngs and then discovered by SRS after permits had been issued. A 2 --~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -. . . . '. larg e amount of money was spent by SRS for a burial removal program. No report has been produced nor is there assuran ce of permanent cumt ion of the collection from the excavations. A site at Mescalit an Island which Spanish explorers described as larg est villag e they saw in Cali fornia in 1769 was evaluated by SRS. The site locat ion was mapped as a larg e village by Pantoja in 1782. Thro ugh the use of a diversity index, the site was evaluated as a seasonal fishing cam p. House remains and large quantities of beads were excavated at the site durin g salvage excavations after the SRS study. SRS was hired by Califomia State University to devalue an area of the village of puvunga at CSULB but was replaced because of protest by Native Americans, SRS conducted studies at Bolsa Chica and denigrated the importance of the site. Available evidence indicates the site was a regional center during the Early period (ca. 6000-800 BC). On pages 5-147 to 5-149, the Draft EIR presents SRS's discussion of their diversity index. Even if the index is meaningful, the samples of artifacts from most of the project sites is so small that no statistically significan t conclus ions can be reach ed concerni ng dWference s between the sites, It is clear from the SRS tables that the num oors of artifacts found by Redwine in 1958 at different sites is closely related to placement on the diversity index. The differences appear to reflect sample sizes and chang es in art ifact frequencie s found at sites of different time periods both as a result of chang es in types of artifacts used at differ- ent time periods and differences in preservation of bone and shell artifacts over time more than they are related to differences in activities conducted at the sites. If the artifact diver~ sity index is used areas of sites which contain few artifacts such as sweatlodges or dandn g courts would be determined to be of low significance. Burial s without a diversity of grave goods would be considered insignifican 1. The only mitigation option which would mitigate the destruct ion of archae ological sites would be project redesign to avoid disturbance of sites. The City can not commit the devel- opers to agree to exceed limits on mitigation costs which are given in Appendix K of CEQA. By combining evaluation and data recovery as mitigation measures the costs of conducting the mitigation will probably exceed the CEQA Iim its on cost of archae oIogical mitigation. Evaluation studies conducted to prepare the EIR are exduded from the cost limit. It is probable that many of the mitigation measures will not be conduct ed becaus e of CEQA cost limits. The EIR should determine whim measures are feasible. Data recovery has not proved a reliable mitigation measure. The archae ological firms chosen to conduct studies have inadequately traine d personnel. Reports of mitigation programs are seldom produced. Collections recovered from mitigation program s are sel~ dom available to researche rs who wish to check condu sions of reports or conduct indepen~ dent research. We might imagine that the best imaginable team of archa eofogists is hire d and given a large budget (so larg e the developer would not be able to recover the amount from sales of the project). Even under such unprecedented conditions,lim its of time, limits of num bers of trained personnel, limits of knowledge of archae ological data (compared with the future) and destruct ion which results from use of archae ological collection procedures will result in less than perfect collection of information contained in archae ological sites. 3 "- -. . . . There are probably cemeteries and burials within and between the recorded sites whidl will be destroyed by the proposed project. If the project results in disturbance of native sites it will have an impact on the American Indian community. It is difficult for pare nts to explain why their heritage is not aceo rded the same respect as the heritage of other societies. Archae ology studies have also resulted in splitting native communities into people who work for developers and those who don't. Support by developers and public agencies of Indian s who condone destruct ion of ance stral sites cre ates a situat ion in whidl not just sites at one project are allowed to be destroyed but also sites at other projects. Native people who observe the mani pulations of developers and public agend es cond ude that the larg er "white" sodety is still taking from Indians. The project will almost certainl y and may alre ady have incre ased divisions in the native community. The archa eology program and the ultimate destruct ion of sites will demonstrate that Native history is not considered as important as the history of Euro pean colonists. I kno w of no case where sites were de- stroyed and impacts to Native communities were mitigated. No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the adverse affects of the project on the native community, Since rely, ~~ d::;- " Chester King Ph.D. 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .---~--. ..-:;,..;::;--~._-_."'" -.:-:- - - - - - - - - - - - - :;;--=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _~ --_._..-----:---...-.._--;__.._........._r .-- .' ~~ ~I City of Gb:dejle\) P!ill~~c&ffiffiiSSiOR ~MlTTtD FOK R[CORD _.:J':l,L. E -~ - tiT To: City of Seal Beach ~;:~~~~t-r:A,D~~~~~_-,..- ,~~ From: Moira Hahn, Seal Beach resident and fonner Member of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee (SBMC) Date: May 6, 1997 Subject: Comments on the April 1997 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Hellman Ranch Development Project . I hereby object to approval of the project in it's present form. The following comments and ?:., all references contained therein are hereby incorporated into the official record of proceedings of this project and it's successors. (PRe 21177(b).) I have not had adequate time to prepare a full listing of the numerous inadequacies of this DEIR, and I intend to submit further comments to the City prior to the close of the 45 day review period on this DEIR. I spoke at a public hearing before the Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) on December 10, 1996, a meeting that was scheduled specifically to permit members of the public to comment on the 'Notice of Preparation' (NOP) of the DEIR. City Staff Member Bany Curtis requested that I word process my comments and deliver them to him at City Hall, which I did, but the DEIR does not include my testimony. Therefore, I am re-submitting my testimony, which was delivered to the City orally on December 1011\ 1996, and in written form on December 11th, 1996. The major points that I made in that two page letter that were not addressed by the DEIR are as follow: . 1. I stated that the archaeological firm SRS should not be employed to work on this project because it has a history of misrepresenting the facts, and that the firm is not trusted by many members of the Native American community. 2. I stated that an active employee of SRS assisted LSA in it's investigation of the Mola project, an investigation that lost 700 bags of artifacts and !l!~terials, and for which no report was filed. .' 3. I disagreed with conclusions stated in the NOP that the project site has no religious or sacred r value. I stated that the evidence discovered by Redwine and Stickel supports the opposite conclusion, r .4. I described ring and elliptical features revealed through computer analysis of infrared photographs of the archaeological sites, shot under Dr. Stickel's direction. I stated that the anomalies appear to represent the foundations of ancient dome shaped homes and temples. 5. I asked when the wetlands restoration would be completed, and how it would be financed. . 6. I asked about the number of units of low income housing that would be constructed, when, and where on the development site they would be built. 7, I asked about the method of detennination of the specific location of the Newport Inglewood earthquake fault, Mr. Whittenberg assured me at the December 10th meeting that all of my questions would be answered in the DEIR, but none of them were. I would like the City to answer my questions in a revised and recirculated DEIR. (D cW@ .J ..... .. -. . . . ) C' f EQ<:B Itv 0 Seal Beach PI81lRIAg bSfRmissi9rl- SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By. 8, C<.J~T;.s Date &- V, -9'f f:::.CJrn 1'-1 Oll~,q H I9HN "- I have not completed the process of analyzing SRS' findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding archaeological impacts to the project site through the proposed development. From what I've discovered so far, in comparing SRS' DEIR observations and recommendations with the data referenced by SRS, SRS' DEIR entries provide a classic example of scientific data having been manipulated, altered, excluded, and misrepresented in order to support a desired conclusion that the sites are less unique than previous researchers have indicated. To cite a few examples: ,. SRS does not recommend that a thorough investigation of the sites' likely relationship to the nearby Puvungna village be undertaken. The City has received lengthy testimony during the period of DEIR preparation, in oral and written forms, from Native Americans, archaeologists, and other members of the public, requesting that this theory be investigated. On page 18, SRS changes the words in a direct quote from Redwine from 'figure' to 'map'. This is important, because SRS claims to possess the 'original' Redwine maps, and predicates the bulk of it's conclusions and recommendations on that data, but the Redwine manuscript in the City's posession contains an addendum, a hand written note by Bill Evans stating that the manuscript contains 'no maps'. In addition, Phylissia Eisentraut of the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at UCLA, which is the State's Regional Archive, notified me last month that SCCIC does not have the maps SRS refers to on file, and therefore questions the maps' authenticity. 1 SRS' exclusion of detailed descriptions provided by Redwine result in an inadequate revelation of the artifacts discovered on the project site. SRS deletes Redwine's description of artifact size, mineral composition, shape, anomalies, mending techniques, wear surfaces, and evidence of secondary uses. On page 23, paragraph S, SRS states that 'Ora-262 was not relocated by investigators following the 1973 grading project (AA1980,SRS1981b) and was assumed to have been destroyed'. This statement is false. Archaeological Associates (AA) describes Ora 262 (AA 1980: 11) as: 'a light shell scatter between the 2S and 32 foot contour levels. It appears to cover 140' x 210'...this description corresponds with what the crew discovered', SRS, AA, and ERA show the site location on each firm's respective site maps, although (only) SRS seemed uncertain if it was still extant. ... SRS' DEIR report states that ERA re-recorded Ora-262 in 1996 as a new site, LH-11,That erroneous statement indicates that SRS either did not review the site maps that ERA submitted to the City and the SCCIC, or is deliberately misrepresenting ERA data. ERA recognized Ora-262 at the same location that M had noted it's presence, ERA mapped it there as Ora-262. ERA also located a site roughly 600' southwest of Ora-262 to which it gave a temporary designation 'lH-11'. That site has since been formally recorded by the SCCIC as CA-Ora-1472. SRS notes on page 23 that construction of Regency Dr. and the police station destroyed part of Ora-264, the large remaining part of which is located on the Hellman Project site. SRS fails to note that Archaeological Associates (AA 1980:3) reported that the grading and construction yielded human skeletal remains. SRS references this brief report repeatedly, but seems to have over1ooked this passage. I It also appears that SRS violated the City's General Plan by failing to conduct a literature search at SCCIC, and failing to ensure that a Quick Check form for this project site be completed by SCCIC personnel. @ ~ .' . -. . . . EGCB City of Seal 3each -PIiUHliRg CeRlfflissieR SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By 13. ('i.!,er;\5 Date ~-- (c.-97- ;=:- /f'OJ'YJ: /1../ 0 i I?I9 H 19 H~ On page 23, SRS notes that archaeological sites Ora-259, 262, and 265 appear to no longer exist. This conjecture is clearly not based on the underlying data, ERA maps and graphs on file with the City's Planning Department and with the SCCIC show 0ra-259 covers an area of roughly 9700 square meters. Archaeological Associates and ERA site maps show that both 0ra-259 and 262 51m remain, Site Ora-265 has also not been proven to have been destroyed, Large quantities of marine shell species that were exploited by Native Americans can still be seen on the Boeing property, Because Ora-265 is believed to be located north of the development site, recent investigators hired to assess the project pursuant to CECA have not studied it. On page 23, SRS fails to note the existence of archaeological sites Ora-1472 and Ora-1473 on the project site. SRS' conclusion that only four of the sites identified by Redwine still exist is false. It is not based on th~ extant data from previous archaeological investigators that she references. On page 24, in paragraph 2-3, SRS incorrectly refers to a human metacarpal, which is a bone from the center part of the hand, as a 'finger bone'. The author indicates confusion regarding the origin of a story attributed to me, that a metacarpal was found with a shell and leather wrapping in archaeological site CA-Ora-852 (SRS refers to this site as Ora-263). SRS quotes correspondence from Koerper(Koerper 1996): "There is another story about the metacarpal. A Native American Monitor wrapped the metacarpal in leather, and the 'bead' was only an Olivella shell that the monitor secured from it's natural environment, not the site (Beth Padon- personal communication 1996)." I wrote a letter in response to Dr. Koerper's comments, to Dr. Koerper, on October 8, 1996, that I submitted to the City Council, and to the Archaeological Committee at ifs October '96 meeting2. In it, I stated that the metacarpal story was not anecdotal, but is contained in a formal, written report about the human remains found in Ora-852 that was prepared by Dr. Judy M, Suchey of the Orange County Coroner's Office. The County record number is #90-3330RO, it's dated July 9, 1990. Suchey lists the shell and leather with the human bone, and does not differentiate temporal contexts of the three items, which have since been reburied by Native Americans. I. had urged ERA to obtain the County report for ERA and City reference. Koerper misconstrued a reference to this in ERA's Research Design as nonfactual hearsay. SRS, in reporting only half of the story, once again perpetuates a false impression of the facts. SRS concludes, on page 24, that an ancient human skull found in 1938 on the Hellman Ranch is irrelevant to the investigation. While it is true that we don't know exactly which archaeological site on the Hellman Ranch the skull came from, SRS has not presented data that would indicate that it was not discovered on the project site. Judging (statistically and ethnographically) by the concentration of burials known to have been exhumed on the project site vs. a paucity of burials in the immediate vicinity (on areas that were once part of Hellman Ranch), it is more likely that the skull came from the development site. Co On page 25, SRS asserts that ERA did not provide detailed site maps in ifs documents. This is true, ERA would have violated State and City policy by providing specific maps in it's documents (SRS did not provide maps in it's documents for the same reasons). However, semantics aside, ERA did provide detailed maps to the City and to the State SCCIC..,once again, SRS' choice of words (or selective omission) provides a false impression that there is insufficient data available from a prior investigation. 2 I will re-submit my letter with this document o ~ 3 The SCCIC branch office of the State Office of Historic Preservation considers ERA site maps of the Hellman Project sites to be valid 4 ERA table of Surface Finds (bv site/area), June 1996, on file with the City of Seal Beach. , a steatite "sucking tubeD which must have had a reed stem, several charmstones, a cogged stone, a discoidal, points u. '- ~ . H-tt);t Y'\ I e.:f-te.h -to 1) r: ):::L>eJ-t. ee'? a -n ~Cn ~.l ~. l-ta-l-t Y1 COWl ~ ts (Zl EQ C 13 I / -. . .~ '" . '">- s-GC8 City of Seal Beach PlflrlRing Gommilllli9Ft SUBMITIED FOR RECORD By /3. (!uR.T1'6 Date -.6-- 4,-91- " FRDM /1-101/2/1 HI9-#A) On page 27, the map that SRS refers to (and reproduces, on page 26, as ERA's archaeological site map) presents a much abbreviated graphic depiction of the site boundaries that ERA mapped. SRS only identifies areas of (a non-specified) shell concentration as ERA's site boundaries. This is a misrepresentation of ERA's professional conclusions. I wouldn't object to SRS forming it's own opinions regarding data from previous accredited research, but in this instance, SRS is improperly rewriting the previously gathered data. As a separate issue, shell midden and archaeological sites are not synonymous terms. ERA used criterion, including soil color and surface artifacts, beyond shell density to map it's sites3, On page 33, paragraph 2, SRS states: "In general, the size of the site diminishes with subsequent (to Redwine) field investigations". This finding is not supported by the facts. The ERA site maps that SRS attempts to shield from scrutiny (page 27) reveal that ERA believed the sites to be, with few exceptions, 600% larger than previous researchers had theorized. On page 33, paragraph 3, SRS states that Ora 256 and 851 have not produced surface artifacts. This statement is false. ERA located four surface artifacts on Ora-256 on May 22 and 23 of 1996. ERA also discovered a beautiful flaked Jasper core on the surface of Ora-851, on June 4, 19964. On page 39, SRS presents a graph of artifacts found by Redwine. It does not include artifacts found by ERA, SRS (1981 investigation), or (pot hunters') collections viewed on site and referenced by Redwine, although some of the last category 5 is listed in a separate graphic on page 32. By failing to take into account extensive local collections in the possession of the Seal Beach Historical Society, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, and Seal Beach residents, by omitting artifactual . data provided by previous professional investigations and making it difficult for the reader to find/collate what the author does disclose, and by forming conclusions from a woefully inadequate statistical sample, the DEIR author is able to assign unsubstantiated ratings of 'low' to 'moderate' artifact diversity to the cultural resources from sites due to be destroyed by this development. In summary, this DEIR is flawed and needs to be redrafted, The City should omit SRS contributions because they are poorly researched and/or represent a bad faith effort to disclose the facts pertaining to archaeological impacts of the Proposed Hellman Ranch Development, creating liability for the City under CEOA . @ lD/'l:/'10 (~ P41r6) 12./IC' /0 h ('Z- pa. ~) 4/ ti~\ . '.. ""- - ,. "- -), ." <,,? . >.. <:,,- , ~." ..' . /'J'.:..... (" Please record my comments and questions verbatim in the minutes for this ^" ire::\' i \ ( meeting of the EQCB. :D CO) 1l,c ~ ~ Q (j:l The first subject I would like to address is the employment of SRS Archaeology ~ 1. g. by P and D Technologies, of Orange, CA; to draft the Historic Properties Analysis .. I ~ ~ l&' (including archaeological) portion of the Draft and Final EIRs for the Hellman ~ "j. ~; Specific Plan. ~. (JI :3 ~ ~ 8::::r' :::l ...,.,-:0 ~ ~ ::t:: (rr ~ :blo ':t ::0 't.~o I '. . -. .~~ Cl.:rti6 ~~t~. ~!V wor,i frv~~ 111 ( CC'"Yl? 0.. 10'11J fVv- ' nC II):::. I t'Y7 ,11 Ih..L fh I " LI KA c1 ka-IO-~6 6aCS j'~-ti'J' . To: The Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board From: Moira Hahn Date: December 10, 1996 I believe that the City has an obligation to the Native American community to stop P and D from using SRS to assess the value of all written data pertaining to the Hellman Ranch property. . SRS has been used in Bolsa Chica and at the Puvungna Village site at California State University, Long Beach, in development research. Many Native Americans have rallied to stop the firm from being used, because it has a history of misrepresenting the facts. To cite an example. David Belardes served as monitor at Bolsa Chica. During the investigation, he told me that twenty three burials had been exhumed so far. Later the Draft EIR came out. No burials were reported in the Draft EIR. Bob Biers is the individual at SRS reported to be the consultant who will do the research for the Hellman Ranch. It is unclear whether Biers has a degree in archaeology or anthropology. My understanding is that his background is in geophysics. Mr. Biers assisted Beth Padon of LSA in her investigation of the Hellman Ranch for the Mola project. an investigation that lost 700 bags of artifacts and materials. and for which no report was ever filed. Another facet of the archaeological investigation I would like to comment on is the 'Cultural Resources' section of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR , section 3.3.14 (page 42). I disagree with most of this section, but will focus this evening's comments on item Ie', 'No Impact'. . It states that 'None of the previous investigations conducted on the subject property conduded that the site has been or is being used as a religious or sacred place. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated'. .c. a 'iL 1 c.f 2- @ ('" .0(' ....0 --tl nl !D () Cj) , ~ .... '!'Io E(3C6 City of Seal Beach ~lRiRg Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By I3.CuIC.T;r:, Date S"-CD-91 F~orr1: /L-/c~/eA HI9HAl . The determination of whether the property is a religious or sacred place should be made by focal Native Americans, not archaeologists. However, the statement quoted is also contradicted by the evidence. John Peter Redwine conducted an archaeological investigation in 1955, which was written up in his 1958 Landing Hill manuscript. Redwine's investigation and other surveys describe cogstones, charmstones, pelican stones, effigy figures, and at least seven recorded burials on the subject property. Infrared photos shot earlier this year show ring and elliptical features that appear to represent the foundations of dome shaped homes and elliptical 'vanqueches', or Native American temples on the archaeological sites located on the subject property. In addition to the archaeology, I have questions related to the wetlands restoration, golf course, and low income housing. . What is the timetable for the wetlands restoration, and how will it be paid for? I have heard it will cost ten million dollars or more. In other words, will the wetlands be restored before the houses are sold? Or will the restoration be contingent on the sale of a certain number of homes? If so, how many? Will this be addressed in the DEIR? Will the one hundred acre golf course be open to the general public, at no cost? If not, how much will it cost to use it? Will membership be limited? In other words, will use of it be restricted to paying members of an exclusive club? Will this be . addressed in the DEIR? How many units of low income housing will be built? When? Where? How will concerns about underlying 'high liquefaction' soil conditions be addressed? What has changed since 1990 so that the applicant is now certain where the Newport- Inglewood fault crosses the property? Will these questions be answered by the DEIR? Thank you. Moira Hahn 1732 Harbor Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 (310) 598-9862 @ p~t~ 2 of 2- . . . . . ~ . 1732 Harbor Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 Eac.8 City of Seal Beach Pla~Ring CQmmissi9R . SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By 8. C.u,ei,s Date .s-ft,-91- Fl?orn /)?OI/09 #/9H~ Dr. Henry C. Koerper 632 Chipwood Street Orange, CA 92869 October 8, 1996 Dear Dr. Koerper, Yesterday I received your well written critique of Dr. Gary Stickel's Research Design for the proposed development of the Hellman Ranch, in Seal Beach. Thank you for reviewing the document and thereby assisting our City Council in making a determination of it's adequacy. I am the member of the City's Archaeological Advisory Committee that Dr. Stickel cited in his Research Design. His citation apparently prompted your criticism of him for including hearsay evidence without investigating it's factual basis, or lack thereof. There is no way that you could have known this from the way Dr. Stickel wrote the passage about the human metacarpal, but it was not anecdotal. I hand copied the (one paragraph long) written report about the bone prepared by the Orange County Coroner's office. The report is dated July 9, 1990; it's record number at the Office is # 90-3330RO. The report states that one human adult metacarpal, a shell head, and a leather wrapping were received by the Coroner's Office. It says the bone'was found in site CA-Ora-852, in Unit 23, at a depth of 30-40 em, by C. Parker, G. Broeker, and S. Crownover. It does not state that the shell bead and leather wrapping did not appear to have come from the same location. Dr. Judy Suchey of the Office identified the bone as that of a prehistoric Native American, based on it's mineralization, porosity, and discovery in a State registered archaeological site. If Ms. Suchey noted at the time she examined them that the leather looked new in comparison to the appearance of the bone, she did not write it in her report. The olivella shell is listed in the report, to the best of my recollection, as a bead. No statement regarding it's probable age is provided. I initially copied the Coroner's report from a xerox copy that Vera Rocha, the Gabrielino tribal leader who had received the metacarpal for reburial, shared with me, at a meeting in Seal Beach City Council chambers, in July of 1990. Several years later, the issue of the burial came up in discussions with the Cultural Resource specialists across the street from the Hellman Ranch, at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. I phoned Dr. Suchey on November 8, 1994, to inquire about having official copies of her notes sent to the City and to the Naval Weapons Station. She located the document and read it to me. I was able to (j) ? . . EGC6 City of Seal Beach ...~laHAiRg CemmissisR= SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By ~. (! ul2nlS Date .,s- te -C;"f c:: ~ 1"\17>' "...., D I terI 1-1 "q rf-;t.J 1 1....,-, ., , , ., .. .. . verify that what I had copied from Mrs. Rocha was correct and complete. I was informed that the document would cost $50.25. I recommended that the City purchase the report at a meeting of the archaeological committee, but it appears that this was not done. I also recommended that Lisa Boscalet (then Barnett), the Natural Resource Specialist at the Naval Weapons Station, purchase the report, When Dr. Stickel phoned to ask me about the burial, a few months ago, I recommended that he call the Coroner's Office and order a copy. He called and spoke to Dr. Suchey. For unknown reasons, she refused to release it to him. I understand that the Rocha family reburied the metacarpal somewhere on the Hellman Property, so there probably is no way to verify whether Ms. Padon's story concerning it's associated materials is true. However, in Ii~t of remarks made to our Mayor and City Council by Ms. Padon at a June 11 ,1990 meeting, her credibility on this issue is questionable. Ms. Padon responded to questions from Mayor Edna Wilson and Geologist Dr. Winchell, who wanted to know if burials had been found on the Hellman Ranch. Ms. Padon responded 'No, our evidence is not coming up with human remains'. She stated that LSA had 'not been able to substantiate a rumor that burials had previously been discovered on the property, or to establish the location where those remains might have been found'. She said that the maps were unclear. . The fact is, Dr. Rosenthal and Ms. Padon refer to Peter Redwine's Landing Hill manuscript not only in their bibliography, but on seven out of the forty pages of their (April, 1990) Research Design, beginning in the second paragraph of page one. Redwine clearly states that 'one, perhaps two burials' were <;iiscovered in Landing Hill site LH-9, now known as CA-Ora-264, which was on the Hellman Ranch. Ms. Padon is a Secretary of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS), the group that recorded the Redwine sites, burials, and associated artifacts, yet she apparently had no knowledge of the recordation. 'ii'\t:4.- Dr. Stickel believes that the burials Redwine noted were destroyed by the construction of the City Yard and Rockwell International Headquarters, in the 1960's. These facilities are adjacent to the project site, on it's Northern boundary. Padon may have known this, but if she did, she still should have told the City, as burials within a one block radius certainly increase the potential for discovering additional remains on a subject property. If she honestly did not know about the burials, she is a remarkably poor researcher. Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my comments. . Sincerely, A/lMiuv l-kdt t-1... Moira Hahn cc: Seal Beach City Council, Seal Beach Archaeological Committee @ !! . To: City of Seal Beach From: Moira Hahn, Seal Beach resident and former Member of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee Date: May 6, 1997 Subject: New Information about the Hellman Project Site . TT;;Z ~ ~ EBCI5 . ~~/--. C1tv of Seal Beacn f!tattittH1 CQIflIRISSIGU ~ / f.lti 7 SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By ~. ('jv~Tis_Date_ s/CIJ/rt D L Fj(OJLi: Noite.rl HF1HN ," The attached document, a list of quotations from regional experts, was presented at the January 15,1997 meeting of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee (SBMC) by Moira Hahn, who was a member of the SBAAC at that time. It is new information with relation to the proposed development site, because it is research that was presented within the period the initial Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hellman Ranch property was under preparation. Please Incorporate the full text ( three pages) of the above referenced document, dated January 2, 1997, which lists as it's Subject: 'Planned Archaeological Investigation of the Hellman Ranch, Likelihood that the 13 Sites located on the Hellman Project Site are part of the puvungna Village Complex', as well as this cover document. into the official record of proceedings for this project and It's successors. In addition, please answer the following research questions (that were not addressed by the first draft of the DEIR for this project) in the revised DEIR: 1. How will the City appointed archaeologists prove that the cemetery and complex of archaeological sites located on the proposed Hellman Ranch project site does not represent a part of the nearby National Register listed Gabrielino village site, puvungna ? . 2. How will the City's archaeologists take into consideration the data generated by 1993 investigations of Landing Hill site CA-Ora-32211118, directfy across Seal Beach Boulevard from the Hellman project site and considered by previous researchers (including City consultant Dr. Nancy Whitney Desautels' late husband) to be part of LH-5 (CA-Ora-260); and of the maritime Landing Hill site CA-Ora-298 (Hog Island), for the United States Navy? Both sites were determined potentially eligible for listing on the National Register by the Navy's archaeologists, because of their research potential. 3. Tests to assign a date to a chunk of obsidian from CA-Ora-322/1118 (that could not be sourced to any known Native American quarry by the Navy's lithic experts) resulted in a suggested site occupation date between 551 B.C. and 796 A.D. How would the City's archaeologists adhere to a theory proposed by Dr. Nancy Desautels that the south east sector Hellman sites' period of occupation was limited to the late Millingstone period (about 4,000 years ago), in light of this evidence? 4. How will the 392 bone fragments, including 154 fragments of 'undifferentiated terrestrial mammal bone, from large mammals' discovered on site CA-Qra-32211118 by Navy consultant Joyce Clevenger's crew be assessed by the City's archaeologists, with regard to the burial ground issue? . 5. How will the City's archaeologists determine that the flake of 'potential glass debitage' (observed by Navy archaeological consultant Roberta Greenwood) from a unit in Landing Hill site CA-Ora- 322 does not attest to a possible contact period chronology for the Landing Hill complex? 6. How will the evidence of faunal butchering by 'sawing' that Clevenger attributes to the American period (post A. D.1846), 'chopping' (Mexican period?), and 'experimental v-shaped parallel cuts with stone tools' that Navy consultant Roberta Greenwood observed on bones from CA-Ora-322, be viewed with regard to setting a chronology of occupation for Landing Hill? 7. How will the City's archaeologists determine that the potsherd discovered in Landing Hill site CA- Ora-1118 by Navy archaeologist Ron M. Bissell does not attest to a possible contact period chronology for the Landing Hill complex? ~ ~V- .. . C't EaCJ3 I v of Seal Beach Pl:mniflg COfflfflissiOfl SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By B. CcJR-r,-rS Date ..s-/~/97- ~t>m./I.-/.HRItj../ , . To: Members of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee From: Moira Hahn, Member, Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee Date: January 2, 1997 Subject: Planned Archaeological Investigation of the Hellman Ranch, likelihood that the 13 Sites located on the Hellman Project Site are part of the Puvungna Village Complex The thirteen archaeological sites on Landing Hill, located on the Hellman Ranch property, in Seal Beach, are likely to be part of the ethnohistoric Native American village known as 'Puvungna'. Assembled below are quotes from regional experts who have considered the data: "I believe that the archaeological sites on the (Hellman) project site are part of Puvungna, the aboriginal village centered less than two miles away. Puvungna was the heart of our ancestors' religion, Chinigchinich, and is listed on the National Register." -lillian Valenzuela Robles, Juaneno Tribal Elder and 'Most Likely Descendant', designated by the California Native American Heritage Commission; from a December 15, 1996 letter to the City of Seal Beach regarding the 'Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan' . "The Hellman Ranch Property is but a few minutes walk from the archaeologically and ethnohistorically documented remains of the village of Puvungna, the creation center for Southern California Indians, and birthplace of Chungichnish, the lawgiver and god. The burials and archaeological remains on ,the Hellman Ranch are quite likely part of the Puvungna village complex." -Dr. Eugene Ruyle, Professor of Anthropology at California State University Long Beach (CSULB); from a December 30, 1996 letter to the City of Seal Beach regarding the 'Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan' . "The ethnic importance (of the Hellman Ranch archaeological sites) is emphasized due to the likely association of these sites with the ethnohistoric village of Puvungna, portions of which have long since been entered on the National Register of Historic Places... this preliminary document should recognize this clearly-in order to alert planners to the need for careful field testing by reputable archaeologists,. ,early in the planning process." -Dr. Keith Dixon, Professional Archaeologist, Professor Emeritus at California State University Long Beach (CSULB) and Member (representing the Second District) of the Orange County Historic Commission; from a December 23, 1996 letter to the City of Seal Beach regarding the 'Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan' /J@ p , . . . . . -4 4 E~Cl3. . City of Seal Beach Pla!1r:l!!lg CommlSSI6f1 SUBMITTED FOR RECORD 13) ~ No; M fll1H~Oate ofJ/6/? 1- "Dixon (1974:13,15) has suggested that the principal site within the San Gabriel estuary was the ceremonial center, Puvungna. However, he suggests not just one but a series of sites spreading across eastern Alamitos Heights (Bixby Hill) represent Puvungna. At various times, Puvungna could have been either Los Alamitos Ranch or Los Altos as people shifted residences to move away from accumulating trash or move closer or further from water sources. How the Landing Hills sites relate to this Complex is an important question for future investigation" . -Elizabeth Padon, LSA Archaeology, from Research Desion for Test Level Investiaations and Determination of Site Eliaibility at the Hellman Property. Seal Beach. Oranoe County. California. Prepared for the Mola Development Company April, 1990 , "The general area (Hellman Ranch) may have been utilized by peoples from the major village site of Puvungna located to the north..." - Roger Desautels, SRS Archaeology, Archaeoloaical Test Report on the Hellman Property Located in the City of Seal Beach. California (Tract 11302) for Ponderosa Homes , August, 1981 "The Ajachme (Juaneno) Indians placed the birth of Wuyoot and, generations later, of Tcanitcnic (Chinigchinich) at the village of Puvu, locative Puvu'na, a placename of obscure etymology.. . located just inside the Los Angeles-Orange County line, and only two miles inland from Seal Beach". "Seal Beach is about two miles southwest of Los Alamitos ranch house (Puvungna) and is the nearest point on the coastline". -John Harrington, anthropologist; quote taken from 'Chinigchinich. A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's account. Annotated by John P. Harrinoton; Malki Museum Press 1978, originally published in 1933, p.148, p.150 The Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee should require that the archaeological consultant firm that will investigate the Hellman Ranch project site for the City thoroughly investigate this theory. This should be a component of the consultant's Research Design and of all subsequent documentation of this investigation. In addition, many scholars believe that the sites on the Hellman Ranch represent the remains of a village, rather than a temporary camping site. Here are quotations that support that opinion: "The Indians had the same custom as regarding the changing from place to place. In winter they resided in one place, and in summer in another. This was general among them, excepting in the case of those tribes located on the sea- coast who seldom moved because their maintenance was derived from the sea; and they were unlike the others who subsisted entirely upon the fruits and seeds of the fields." jJ .. ~ , ' '. = . . . ..10 E(3C/3 ., City of Seal Beacn P"allR~Ag Caf\Ul\IS&19(l SUBMITTED FOR RECORD !By N. H~HtU Date 05/&/91- -Father Geronimo Boscana, 1822; quote taken from 'Chiniachinich. A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's account. Annotated bv John P. Harrington; Malki Museum Press 1978, originally published in 1933, p.65 "Given what evidence has already been collected about the Hellman property, the (NOP of the )Draft EIR ignores what ignores what is known or strongly suspected by some Indians, archaeologists and cultural anthropologists, including myself. .. portions of the site were not only used as mortuary areas, but also used as habitation and ceremonial areas, and there is a high probability that the site still contains human remains." "Infra-red photos taken under Dr. Stickel's direction have revealed both circle and elliptical features on the property. The size and juxtaposition of these features fits the description of chiefs' houses and sacred enclosures, Vanquech, as described in Father Geronimo Boscana's Chinigchinich and annotations by John P. Harrington. If these features are in fact Vanquech, or their temporal predecessors, the development! destruction of the sites would have a highly significant impact on cultural resource values and on sacred and religious uses of the site." - Diana Wilson, Ph.D., Professional Anthropologist, American Indian Studies Center, UCLA from a December 23, 1996 letter to the City of Seal Beach regarding the 'Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan' "In reading previous documentation of the Hellman Ranch sites, it appears that the investigators from Archaeological Associates, LSA, and SRS believed that the settlement on the property was a campground. I want you to understand that . judging by the artifact assemblies and the history of burials found 'there, I believe that theory is wrong. You do not find large numbers of burials and heavy artifacts like metates and manos in seasonal campsites. II - Lillian Robles Valenzuela, Juaneno Tribal Elder and 'Most Likely Descendant', designated by the California Native American Heritage Commission; from a December 15, 1996 letter to the City of Seal Beach regarding the 'Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan' The archaeological committee should require the project archaeologist to thoroughly investigate the theory that these thirteen state registered archaeological sites represent part of a permanent habitation area, or village. This analysis should be recorded in the consultant's Research Design and all subsequent documentation of the archaeological study. The literature search should include a review of the four Landing Hill archaeological sites across the street from the Hellman project site, on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. j~ '. ' City of Seal Beach I?,a~gi 8mmission SUBMITIED FOR RECORD By B. (!u,e.,;.s Date 6/&/97- /yrtJm ILl. HrJH;tJ To: City of Seal Beach From: Moira Hahn, Seal Beach resident and former Member of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee Date: May 6, 1997 Subject Additional Information about the Hellman project site 1lec.~ ~/ fe It:{;" ~ .::fJ.,s . The attached document was presented at a 'Concerned Shareholders of Leisure World' meeting, by Moira Hahn, at Leisure World, Seal Beach, on February 19tf\ 1997. As such, it is new information related to the proposed development site, because it was presented during the period the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hellman Ranch property was under preparation, Please incorporate the full text (six pages) of the attached document, entitled: Myths and Truths about the Gabrielino and Juaneno Tribes, as well as this cover document, into the official record of proceedings of this project and it's successors. In addition, please answer the following research questions (that were not addressed by the first draft of the DEIR for this project) in the revised DEIR: 1. How will the City's archaeologists prove that this project site does not contain . the remains of a Native American permanent habitation site, or village? 2. What is the justification for using a mechanical investigative strategy, as recommended by City appointed archaeologist Dr. Nancy Whitney Desautels, to determine the presence of additional ancient, fragile human skeletal remains on the project site? 3. Why have less invasive, relatively inexpensive, remote sensing techniques such as Ground Probing Radar (GPR), soil resistivity, or magnetometry , not been proposed as alternative investigative strategies to determine the presence of additional habitation features on the development site, such as the 'hearths and house floors' referred to by LSA? I understand that magnetometry is particularly good for locating hearths. 4. What is the rationale underlying Dr. Desautels' recommendation in the DEIR that the City excavate only one, two meter square unit per archaeological site on sites that the last professional consultant employed by the City officially recorded with the State archive as covering as much as 42,983 square meters each? Does the City believe that this would constitute a scientifically adequate sampling program pursuant to satisfying CEQA? . !J~ , " ' . EGC6 City of Seal Beach PJalHliJlg Cammissi@n SUBMITTED FOR RECORD . . By 13. C i.!J€i~ __~Oate S- / k fe, "1 _ \ Mvths and Truths about the Gabrlehno and Juaneno Tribes: FADM: N. HI1/fIU 1. The Gabrielino and Juaneno Native Americans were nomadic tribes. The Native Americans who inhabited this part of Orange County were settled tribes who lived in villages of about 100 people 1. They had a religion, a strictly enforced class structure2, an advanced maritime culture, and trade networks that permitted them to exchange goods and information with neighboring tribes3. Think of the reasons you decided to live in Leisure World...security, meeting halls for social gatherings, living with friends and neighbors who share your values, beautiful location, churches and temples nearby, a variety of food available4, help (extended social support) for the elderly and infirm, medical care. These are some of the reasons the earliest inhabitants of this area also chose to live in villages rather than on their own. 2. The Gabrielino and Juaneno Indians are extinct. . There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Gabrielino (Tongva) and Juaneno (Agachemem)5 people still living in Southern California. They are able to prove their ancestry and even the particular villages their ancestors came from through early Mission and Government census records6. Because of ill treatment historically, not all of them choose to recognize their heritage. 3. Those now claiming to be Gabrielino and Juaneno Native American are probably Mexicans. There are, in fact, some people claiming Gabrielino and Juaneno 'ancestry who are not descended from the tribes. However, birth, baptismal, marriage and death records maintained by the Franciscan Missionaries and California Census Officials enable us to definitively identify the genuine surviving members of these tribes. 4. The Gabrielino and Juaneno people were dirty. Chinigchinich (pronounced chnee-chneech), the widely practiced religion that . 1 The First Angelinos, William McCawley, 1996, p.25; Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. the California Indians. published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1978, p.54O 2 The First Angelinos , William McCawley, p.104; Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. the California Indians. published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1978, p.543 3 The First Angelinos , William McCawley, p.25-27; The Gabrielino , Bruce Miller, p.90-102; Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. the California Indians. published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1978, p.547 4 The Gahrielino, Bruce Miller, p.77-79; Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. the California Indians. published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1978, p.546 S Tongva and Agachemem are the names the tribes used before the Missionaries came to California. 6 Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. the California Indians. published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1978, p.91-127; The First Angelinos, William McCawley, p.7 I lIiI .. . EGCl3 City of Seal Beach PIBIlFliflg CElffifflis.siao SUBMITTED FOR ftECORO ~J l3_CtJRT~C Date S~I.t/91 ". F~ol'Y1: /L/oite:.r:J /-I/i#. these tribes adhered t07, required all tribal members to take a bath every day and maintain good personal hygiene. Chiniachinich, Jesuit Geronimo Boscana's 1822 treatise on the religion, social structure and practices of these people, tells us that before dawn each day, each family would go to the nearest body- of water to wash, before making fires to dry themselves and cook breakfastS. Older tribal women used liberal quantities of red ochre on their faces as a sunscreen, and some younger women used it as rouge9- perhaps this was interpreted as dirt. 5. The Gabrielino and Juaneno people were lazy. Chinigchinich instruction and social initiation rituals at puberty required young men and women to be disciplined, industrious and dutiful to tribal members throughout their adult lives. Even small children had to follow rules, such as not walking between two adults while they were talking, and letting the elders and adultsdsit closest to the fires 10. Punishment was harsh. . ~ . . 6. The Gabrielino and Juaneno were distinctly separate tribes. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber believed that the tribes were distinctly separate when he studied their languages in the early 20th century11. However, some contemporary tribal leaders, ethnographers, and writers believe that Kroeber's research (which appears, in the case of the Juaneno tribe, to have been of only a few weeks duration) was too abbreviated to draw such a conclusion 12. The Missionaries who took the Indians away from their villages were by no means expert in tribal languages or distinctions 13. Therefore, people from what were traditionally regarded as Gabrielino territories who happened to have been visiting near San Juan Capistrano were imprisoned at Mission San Juan Capistrano; Chumash and Juaneno people were similarly incarcerated at Mission San Gabriel. 7. All remains in Orange County, south to Aliso Creek, are Gabrielino. . 7 The First Angelinos, William McCawley, 1996, p.143-169 8 Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. the California Indians, published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1978, p. 541 9 Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. the California Indians, published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1978, p. 540 10 California's Gabrielino Indians, Bernice Eastman Johnston, 1962, p.57-65~ The First Angelinos, William McCawley, 1996, p.105-109 11 Handbook of the Indians of California , Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Alfred L. Kroeber, 1925 12 The First Angelinos, William McCawley, 1996, p.32 "... a broad frontier of shared influence in which bilingualism, intermarriage, and a blending of cultural characteristics is apparent"; Hahn interviews with Sonia Johnston and Lillian Valenzuela Robles of the Juaneno tribe, 1997~ Hahn discussion with Diana Drake Wilson, PhD, of the American Indian Study Center at UCLA, December 1996 13 The GabrieIino, Bruce Miller, 1991, p.32. 2. Ie . '. ' . . . . . City of Seal Beach P1:Enllli~~~~i&&wa SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By 13. Cu-lC.ri6 Date s(kL91-. F <<.. o,-n: /l-/~ ,'/Z17 Ffi4!.1J iJ Most of the remains identified in Seal Beach are of such ancient origin that they predate Mission occupation by thousands of years. Therefore, no such conclusions can reasonably be reached. 8. The Gabrielino and Juaneno people did not have a religion before the Europeans converted them to Christianity. The Chinigchnich religion may have existed at the time of European contact at Catalina Island in 160214. When the Missionaries visited in 1805, the religion was in full flower, centered at a village complex called 'Ppvungna', Puvungna is located in long Beach, at a natural spring on the grounds of Rancho los Alamitos (the Bixby Ranch), and on the adjacent California State University Long Beach campus. Puvungna is believed by Native Americans to have been the birthplace and place of death of the law giver, or God, Chinigchinich, and the place where Chinigchinich's ancestor, the deity Wiyot, was born, lived and died. In that sense, it is equivalent to Jerusalem (for Christian and Jewish people) in it's importance to local Native Americans. The Hellman Ranch complex of archaeological sites is over a mile long and is located between 1 % and 2 miles from the center of Puvungna, Far more burials have been discovered on it than in the part of Puvungna in long Beach, and ethnographer John P. Harrington noted in his 1933 annotations to Chiniachinich that Seal Beach provided the closest point of land access for Indians at Puvungna to get to the ocean15. leisure World lies within the original boundaries of the Hellman Ranch. The southwest corner of Leisure World is between the center of Puvungna and the poorly mapped boundary of Hellman site CA-Ora-265, and may have been part of the complex. An ancient burial was found during the construction of leisure World, in 196316. The complex also extends further to the east, onto the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, across the street from (formerly part of) the Hellman Ranch 17. . 9. The Indians did not have a highly evolved social culture. The language, history, technology, artistry, musicology, culture, economy, and religion of these tribes is well documented in the writings of Geronimo Boscana, Hugo Reid, John Harrington, William McCawley, and other European observers. It also exists in the oral histories of both tribes, and is presently being studied by younger tribal members. 14 temple or ceremonial structure observed by the Vizcaino expedition, The First Angelinos . William McCawley, , p.] 43-] 69; Tbe Indians of Los Angeles County: Letters by Hugo Reid. ] 852 , pub. by the Southwest Museum, Hugo Reid, 1852, p.41~ Chiniichinich. Geronimo Boscana, 1933, p. 37-39 15 Chinigchinich. Geronimo Boscana, Annotated by John P. Harrington, 1933, p. 148; p.150 16 Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) Quarterly Vol. 1,#3, published in July, 1965, p.13 17 Navy Archaeologist Joyce Clevenger, the four archaeological sites on the station are part of the complex 3 I(h; . .. : EQ.cB I "n~ ('nrJ$iss/:6n SUBMITTED fOR RECORD @l=~:,}?U..e. T AS Date .!i/4/9 1- t",eom,' /'hOJ~ HflHtV 10. The thirteen State Registered Archaeological Sites on the Hellman Ranch represent a temporary campground. Boscana 18states that 'tribes located at the sea-coast seldom moved, because the people's maintenance was derived from the sea'. In other words, they were located at the optimum place to collect shellfish, hunt, fish, and launch their tiats, or plank canoes. \JI\., ... , . .... ".. . . 11. Indians lived all over Los Angeles and Orange County, therefore the sites are not unique. Most of the archaeological sites in Los Angeles and Orange County have been destroyed through development. The percentage is nearly 100% along the Southern California coast. In addition, due to different cultures and subsistence strategies, the burials, artifacts and ecofacts found in coastal sites are different from those of the inland sites. Gabrielino coastal tradition combines aspects of Chumash maritime technology with Uto-Aztecan (great basin) language, artistry and tradition, thus providing one of the most advanced and materially sophisticated Native California cultures 19 12. All coastal archaeological sites contain the same materials - i.e., shellfish remains, beads, and a few bones and broken tools. Few coastal sites remain, and almost none large enough to represent a village. There are pronounced aesthetic and functional differences between the cultural resources of, for example, Chumash Indians, to the north of us, and Diegeno (Ipai-Tipai), to the south. An analogy: to preserve an artifact would be to save a page from a book about the culture. To save an ancient house site would be to save the book. To save a village would be to save the whole library. 13. The Gabrielino and Juaneno tribes did not posses advanced technology. The tribes possessed an advanced maritime technology, built several types of watercraft, including eight-oar tiats large enough to carry fourteen people. They had extensive knowledge of astronomy, which was used, in part, for navigatk>n. They had herbal medicine (including birth control, for use in time of deprivation or iIIness20). Plants used and considered sacred by the tribes, including sage, willow, and datura, still grow on the Hellman property. They developed a cooking technology that permitted them to boil water and cook food in baskets. They manufactured a variety of musical instruments, including whistles from the . 18 Chinigchinich. Geronimo Boscana, 1933, p. 6S 19 The First AngeJinos, William McCawley, ] 996, p. 9; 20 Hahn telephone interviews with Juaneno Elders Gloria Carillo, , 1990, and Lillian Robles, 1997 1 /Jrt . . ., "' -. . . . ;"ty f EGC8 "" 0 Seal Beach Planning C6fflmissien SUBMITTED FOR RECORD B1 13. (!ueTt& Date S/.19'7- f=~O.1?1: /hoi"e;t1 /_/~;; _. o.tl tibia bones of deer, split stick clappers, and rattles from scallop shells21 or turtle shells sealed with asphaltum. Their art forms include tightly woven basketry used to carry water, clothing and blankets sewn from animal pelts, woven sandals, sea mammal and bird effigies (figures carved from stone), decorated throwing sticks (like boomerangs), cogged stones, charmstones and discoidals, shell and bone beads, painted game stones, steatite bowls, pipes, tubes, and pendants, bone awls, shell and bone hairpins and fish hooks, chert and obsidian points, scrapers and blades. Examples of many of these items have been found on the Hellman Ranch, some as recently as last summe~. 14. There is too much cultural material in local repositories already, no point is served by stockpiling more. The materials that have been warehoused are severed from their original context, thus much interpretative value has been lost... as they say in real estate, 'location is everything'! The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) law recommends preserving important resources 'in-situ' (in place)23, as was recently done at the Fairview site, in Costa Mesa24, by capping them with dirt and planning proposed developments around them. Burial and village sites could thus be protected and converted to contemporary interpretive centers, community parks, or golf courses. 15. In saving this ancient village, we would honor the dead over the living. The better use for land in Southern California is new development. That may be true for most of the southland, but ancient California coastal villages are extremely rare. To destroy this one would ruin a last opportunity for present and future generations of historians throughout the world. If a scientifically adequate archaeological investigation reveals that the village covers 20% of the proposed project site, perhaps grading and construction could be limited to the other 80%. 16. Puvungna village is between one and two miles away from the Hellman Ranch sites. That's too far away to have been connected. Two miles would have been a ten minute tiat (canoe) ride, or a twenty minute walk. It would therefore have been accessible in any season. 17. There were no burials at the Hellman Ranch, at least not on the part 21 Hahn telephone discussion with Craig Torres, cultural historian and member of the Tongva (Gabrielino) and Chumash tribes, February 11, 1997 22 Seal Beach Baseline Survey #A5~ 1 0, Landinll Hill manuscript, Peter Redwine, 1958, on file with the Seal Beach Planning Dept.; site registration fonns for Hellman Ranch archaeological sites CA-Ora -256 through 265, and CA-Ora-850 through 852 inclusive, on file with the Seal Beach Planning Dept., list of artifacts found during 1996 walkover survey of the Hellman Property, Dr. E.G. Stickel, June 1996. 23 CEQA Appendix 1<, Archaeological Impacts 24 Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) Ouarterly. Vol.32, #1, Winter, 1996, p.I-36 5 J~ . . ). - ." .. "1 . . ~. now being considered for development. '. c~CB City of Seal Beach P-llllHliRg CafFlfFIl!\~Hill, SUBMIlTED FOR RECORD a,,,~el!,eT;"(<\ Date .s/te/91- F fi? O/.n: /L-I eJl iefi . There are at least seven formally recorded burials, Records are on file with the Seal Beach Planning Department. Credible sources who have lived in Seal Beach for decades have provided the author with a cemetery map and data for many additional burials and artifacts discovered on the project site. 18. No features (house walls, earth floors, or hearths) have been found on the Hellman Ranch. Multiple features, 'such as hearths and hard earth floors', were discovered during the Mola investigation performed by LSA Archaeology, in 199025. In addition, construction of the Seal Beach Police Station in 1976 exposed a portion of a possible ancient wall.26. Computer enhancements of infra-red photographs taken under former City archaeologist Dr. Stickel's direction in 1996 revealed several circular and elliptical anomalies 15' to 25' in diameter that may represent the foundations of houses and 'vamkikJ27, or temples280n several of the archaeological sites located within the project site. 19. There is no justification for statements by some Native Americans and their supporters that unchecked development of ancient grave and village sites constitutes a continuation of cultural genocide. Since European contact, officials at UCLA's Native American Study Center estimate that more than twenty three million Native Americans were either murdered by militia or settlers, died from physical abuse, or succumbed to European diseases they had no immunity to. The original California people who managed to survive lost their villages, languages, genealogy, knowledge, technologies, and cultural links forged over 10,000 years of prior inhabitation, The Mission system also destroyed tribal land, water, hunting and fishing rights. The small amount of data left for survivors and the rest of the world to benefit from is now imperiled. 20. Those promoting careful study of the Hellman Ranch sites are just cranks trying to stop the project. . Those requesting scientifically adequate study of the property are concerned about the irretrievable loss of cultural information that the destruction of the sites would create. Additionally, it would honor the expressed wishes of the Gabrielino and Juaneno people if the developer were to choose to leave their ancestors' remains undisturbed, 25 Testimony by Elizabeth Padon, Primary Archaeologist for LSA, at Seal Beach City Council meeting, June 11, 1990. Transcribed from videotape of presentation. 26 Seal Beach Baseline Survey #A5-11, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Relocation of the City's Police Station and C01:poration Yard, City of Seal Beach, 1976, p. 2 of report by Colegrove. 27 Chinigchinich. Geronimo Boscana, 1933, p. 34; California's Gabrielino Indians. Bernice Eastman Johnston, 1962, p.47 28 Dr.E.Gary Stickel presentations to the Seal Beach City Council, July, 1996; G !~ c PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) . STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange ~ . I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County afore- said; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or inter- ested in the above-entitled matter. J am the principal clerk of the printer of the SEAL BEACH SUN, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published weekly in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of 2/24/75. Case Number A82583; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: ~ all in the year 19 97 . I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Seal Beach, California, this \ day of "'^ .a ' 19 97 . ~~ ....0-. ,~~ OO~..... Slgnatur - _) . PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY: THE SUN NEWSPAPERS 216 Main Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 (310)430- 7555 (714) 759-7726 '" This space for for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of (Q-' ~ . i " PROJECT PUBLIC NOTICE TO BE HELO BY THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Hellman Ranch SpecifiC Plan DESCRIPTION The proposed Hellman Ranch SpeCIfIC Plan allocates land uses over the 231 3.acre property ,n ten (10) Planmng Areas, IncludIng lIve (5) development and love (5) conservat,on planmng areas. Including (1) a maximum of 70 S1ngle..famlly restdentLaI dwelling units on 147 (gross) acres. (2) 231 acres of restored saltwater wetlands, (3) g 7 acres of restored lreshwater wetlands, (4) a regulation golf course on 100 8 acres, (5) goft course clubhouse and fSCfbttes on 61 acres, (6) a maximum of 20,000 square feet of VISitor. serving recteatlonaVcommercsal development on 1.8 acres, (7) rmneral productIOn on 282 acres, (8) regIOnal flood control 'acold,.. on 34 7 aetes, (9) pUbl,c land uses on 1 4 acres, and (10) dedICation of Gum Grove Park on 10 2 acres Imptementatlon of the project as descnbed above will necessitate the adoption of a General Plan AmendmenL SpecifiC Plan Amendment (I e, Zone Change), Tentative Tract Maps, Redevelopment Plan Amendment. and Development Agreement Environmental Quality Control Board MeetIng Lecellen A publiC heanng on the adequacy of the Draft EnYlfonmental Impact Report (DEIR) regard'ng the Hellman Ranch SpeC1f1C Plan Will occur as follows DATE: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 TIME. 6 30 P M PLACE Crty Counc,l Chambers Seal Beach Crty Hall 211 8~ Street, Seal Beach, CA Q. o ~ c o += o u .9 +- U Q) '0 0: ~ -~ tJo1( V I