Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-04-30 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONTINUED MEETING MINUTES APRIL 30,1997 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Frietze called the meeting to order at 5:00 P M in the City Council Chambers ROLL CALL Present. Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin (5:15 PM), Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze Absent: Member Johnston . Staff Present. Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Mr. Whittenberg informed the Committee that he has not heard from Member Johnston or Unatin, and perhaps they are held up in traffic. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Goldberg~ SECOND by Frietze to approve the Agenda as presented MOTION CARRIED: 6 - 0 - 2 AYES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Fitzpatrick, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Johnston and Unatin ORAL COMMUNICATIONS . Chairperson Frietze asked for oral communications from the audience and to limit their comments to three minutes A person indicated a desire to address the Committee, but needed C \My Documents\ARCHCOMM\04-30-97 Mmutes Doc\LW\05-2-97 ArchaeologICal AdvIsory Comn/lttee COlltll/ued Meetll/g Mil/utes Apn130. 1997 . a moment to find her notes. The Committee determined to consider the Consent Calendar, and then come back to oral communications CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Goldberg~ SECOND by Benjamin to approve the consent calendar as presented: 1. Receive and File: Letter to State Historic Preservation Office from Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, dated April 16, 1997, re: Determination of No Impact, Ballfield Restoration. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Navy has determined the project would have no significant impact to an archaeological site. There will be a monitor on site during restoration activities, as part of it will require trenching of sprinkler systems and installation of fencing. The Committee received and filed the matter, thus indicating no response was due back to the Department of the Navy MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-2 . AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Young, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze None Members Johnston and Unatin NOES: ABSENT: Member Unatin arrived at 5: 15 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lillian Valenzuela Robles * Juaneno Elder Ms Robles asked the Committee if the people are using the new technique of resistivity, where electrodes are attached to the ground --- one positive and one negative The electric energy moves through the ground and maps the underground where you're standing. In that way you don't have to disturb the ground, our artifacts or anything She said, "I want you to be sure you get this knowledge and I'm insisting that we use for all our Native people of California". SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Approval of April 9, 1997 Minutes . 04-30-97 Mmutes Doc 2 Archaeological AdvISory Comnllttee COlltmued Meetmg Mmutes April 30. 1997 . Motion by Goldberg~ SECOND by Benjamin to approve the Minutes of the April 9, 1997 regular meeting as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-1-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Young, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze None Member Johnston Member Unatin NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 3. Consideration of Draft Letter to Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Re entire facility archaeological walkover and aerial photography availability. [Continued from January 15 and February 5, 1997 meetings]. Motion by Goldberg, SECOND by Frietze to authorize Chairperson to sign final comment letter. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze None Johnston . NOES: ABSENT: 4. STUDY SESSION Cultural Resources Section of Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Director Whittenberg explained what subjects he would be talking about. He introduced P&D Technologies, who prepared the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR They prepared the technical report and P&D prepared the actual portion of the DEIR itself They are presenting their mapping process, to make sense of the different site records recorded on this property since the late 1950's to 1996. Director Whittenberg showed twenty overhead slides, which discussed: . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Purpose of an EIR. EIR Legal Adequacy Judicial Criteria for Determining Adequacy of an ElR Forecasting and Speculation. Disagreement Among Experts 04-30-97 Mmutes Doc 3 . 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Archaeological AdvIsory Comnllttee COlltl1llled Meetl1lg Ml1Iutes Apnl30, 1997 Alternatives Cumulative Impacts Determining Significant Effect Mitigation Measures Significant Unavoidable Impacts & Overriding Considerations. Issues Address in Draft EIR. Project Goals. City Objectives. Proposed Project Land Uses by Planning Area 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 The DEIR is currently going through its 45-day public comment period The City's analysis and the analysis of the consultant team indicates there are three (3) significant and unavoidable impacts to this project which cannot be mitigated down to a level of less-than-significance by the suggested mitigation measures Those are: . 1. 2. 3. Project improvements will be subject to future seismic events. Archaeological sites will be impacted by the project improvements The exposure of the proposed residential uses to high noise levels due to helicopter operations on the Boeing property Boeing has an existing helicopter pad to bring executives on and off the property. Their current flight paths come close enough to the area to where there are noise impacts to the northern portion of the residential units. These cannot be mitigated Mr Whittenberg told the public there are a number of times where their comments can be given to the City regarding this project. The comment period was scheduled to end on May 27, 1997. That has changed. The City is not certain when the comment period will end, but it will be later than May 27th As part of the biology evaluation of this project, there was a plant species found during a spring survey that happened just a couple of months ago. Everybody thought this species was extinct in Orange County. That species exists on this property~ it hasn't been seen in the area since the 1930's. The City has to go back now and tell everybody about this and that mitigation measures must be found to deal with it. There are also additional changes to the document being made regarding drainage off the site during storm conditions. There will be a clarification document issued within the next two weeks Once issued, it will start a new 45-day comment period. When it goes out, staff will advise everyone when the end of the comment . 04-30-97 Mmutes Doc 4 Archaeological AdvIsory Comn/lttee COlltillued Meetl1lg Mil/utes Apnl30, 1997 . period is. That will allow comment on all sections of the document, not just the new sections. During the comment period, the AAC will have a future meeting to receive future comments on the Cultural Resources section The meeting will be noticed in the local newspaper. Based on the amount of comments received, the AAC will have the opportunity to schedule a second meeting as needed. The other times the public can comment on the DEIR and the Cultural Resources section is before the EQCB They have a meeting scheduled for May 6, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. The purpose of that meeting is to receive public comments on the DEIR as a whole. They will also receive any comments you wish to make on the Cultural Resources section. The EQCB will also be in the position to consider scheduling an additional meeting to receive additional comments. . Mr. Whittenberg, in response to a question from the audience, explained that during the public comment period the City receives written comments. Those comments go to the consultant team The City is required to prepare a written Response to Comments. As a part of the FEIR all the comments are put together. That package of information, along with any modifications to the DEIR, goes to the EQCB for review, followed by the Planning Commission and City Council. If you make comments at a public meeting, the meetings are taped and transcribed and the minutes are responded to in writing also. Additionally, those persons who provide written comments will receive, by mail, a copy of their comments along with the City's response to those comments. There are several times to speak on this project, you don't have to come to a meeting to do it, you can write a letter. Mr. Whittenberg responded to another question from the audience regarding when fiscal impacts are considered, stating that it depends on the decision level process you're talking about. At the EQCB and Planning Commission level they will be dealing with the EIR, the Specific Plan and our staff report. The Planning Commission does not consider fiscal impacts of the project and they will not see a fiscal impact analysis. At the time the project goes to the City Council they will review fiscal impacts. They will get all the information on the basic land use decision as to whether this project makes sense environmentally and land use-wise in the City. They will combine that with the fiscal information and use that to make a decision. In response to a question as to who makes the final decision on the project, Mr. Whittenberg responded that the City Council makes the final decision Everybody else is making recommendations to the Council. . In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Whittenberg said a lot of bodies would be reviewing this project. Assuming this project receives approval at the 04-30-97 Mmutes Doc 5 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 '-' Council level, it would then proceed to the California Coastal Commission (it's in the Coastal zone). They would have to approve the project. Because wetlands and alterations to wetlands are involved the Army Corps of Engineers is involved in permits. The Water Quality Control District. These must issue implementing permits. The two major approval processes are (1) the City level and (2) the Coastal Commission level. In response to a question regarding another area of concern, other than Cultural Resources, Mr. Whittenberg said that's an issue discussed in the EIR and he didn't want to discuss that at this time because this meeting is to discuss Cultural Resource impacts. He reiterated the purpose of this meeting. '-' In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Whittenberg said the next meeting this group will have will not be a scoping session, but will be a meeting to receive public comments on the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR. It's anticipated the Committee will make a recommendation to the EQCB regarding the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR, regarding it's legal adequacy under CEQA, and to the Planning Commission regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures. Mr. Whittenberg further indicated a public input meeting has not been scheduled. It's not on the Agenda for that purpose. It's not to get into a question and answer debate process. The Committee will be scheduling the date of that meeting at the conclusion of this meeting. In response to a question why the 1989 EIR information on this property is not included, Mr. Whittenberg said we're looking at new information that's been derived since that time. This document contains information from three different evaluations since the 1989 EIR. This document is based on the old and the new information. We're not looking at any document prepared for a project seven years ago. RECESS The Committee took a five-minute recess, with all members being present with the exception of Member Johnston Mr. Whittenberg reconvened the meeting. Member Unatin is out of the room but a quorum was present. He introduced the consultant team, from P&D Environmental consultant was Bob Rusby. His firm prepared the DEIR. SRS, represented by Nancy DeSautels, Dave Hocking and Robert Beer is here and was retained by P&D to prepare an assessment report on the Cultural Resources of the Hellman Ranch property. The information given by SRS was taken by P&D and inserted into the DEIR in a format that they thought represented the information. Member Unatin returned to the meeting. '--' 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 6 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 .....,., Nancy DeSautels. President of Scientific Resource Studies (SRS). Ms. DeSautels said SRS is here tonight to discuss their mapping process for the Hellman site. They prepared this as a part of the Cultural Resource document. Various charts and graphs are available for viewing. These materials have been available from past literature but have not been used by previous consultants dealing with Hellman Ranch archaeology. Therefore, much of this information will be new to the Committee and that is why Mr. Whittenberg wanted SRS to address the Committee. '-" The first map on the screen shows the archaeological sites that Peter Redwine first documented in 1954 and 1955. He labeled the sites as LH-1, LH-2 and so forth. They are mapped in a reverse "L" shape. The problem with this map is that Redwine did not prepare it. The map is attached to the site record forms that are on file today at UCLA. But the site record forms were not prepared by Redwine. Peter Redwine did his work in 1954 - 1955. At that time there weren't site record forms and there was not a repository like UCLA where site record forms were filled out on each archaeological site and put into files. There was no place to file this information except USC, where he worked. In the 1960's the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, an amateur archaeological group that is very well know in Orange County and which has been around for decades, started a site recordation program. They were aware of many sites in Orange County and had lots of information on the sites. They started filling out site forms and keeping the information on file themselves. This map, which has been in every consultant's report on the Hellman Ranch property, was prepared by Pacific Coast Archaeological Society in 1964. It was attached to every site recordation form up through 1969. The first problem is that when they prepared this map in 1969 John Peter Redwine was dead --- and they obviously could not consult with the man. He could not verifY the accuracy of the information. He was a polio victim from birth. In the 1970's, Archaeological Research Inc. took over all of the files from Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, and by the late 1970's to early 1980's, UCLA finally set up a system in Southern California for handling Orange County's site forms. The first problem was the investigator did not prepare the map. Secondly, it was simply attached as a sketch map. There is no scale. It's not meant to be absolutely accurate. But it is all succeeding archaeologists had for many years. '-' When Roger DeSautels was working on his portion of this project he did a simple test for the landowner --- a small, internal, land-planning document. He felt he would get to the next phase of excavation but the project never went through. Part of what he did in the mid-1980's would go to the various institutions --- USC, the LA County Museum of Natural History and try to find John Peter Redwine's actual notes. SRS has copies of Redwine's notes on his excavations as well as all of his photographs and maps. The majority of the information on file at SRS is available at LA County Museum of Natural History. That's where all of USC 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 7 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 ........ excavation materials went when that institution discontinued Archaeology as a discipline. This is a very important map because it takes a topographic map of the time period and plots all of the sites on the topography of the USGS map. The sites are very accurately plotted. You'll see two more maps that we also find in the Redwine notes that have close-ups of all of the sites that we're dealing with. He put on the maps the archaeological hand units that he excavated. Those are from blue- line maps from the development that was going to take place at that time. So this is the first really good piece of information that we were able to find in our research that allowed us to plot the maps accurately, not only for comparison with the maps from previous investigators but also to be able to say exactly w)1ere these were relative to the land use plan being prepared for this project. ~ Dave Hocking went into the detail of how SRS took each of the prevIous investigators maps and compared them to Redwine's map. To produce the graphics and to try to overlay different maps that we had found for the project was to locate his (Redwine's) relative to current modern day features --- to be able to plot exactly where his site locations were. He took a modern USGS map and scanned that into a computer so he'd have a visual scale that could be enlarged or reduced. The prominent features in that map are Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach Boulevard and the LA/Orange County line --- which also showed in Redwine's map. By taking these three points he was able to establish a 3-point fixed system by which to compare other maps to that map. The advantage of having this on the computer is clarity without distortion when enlarging or reducing. So, this map was derived directly from Redwine's map. He then went to other maps that had been prepared over time and compared those to this map, by the use of overlay maps. Archaeological Associates produced the first map in 1980. This map was contained in a document prepared by Ultra Systems in 1980. They outlined, based on their survey, the location of several archaeological sites which they called Ora-256, 257, 258, 259 and so on. This overlay mapping programs indicates that different investigators have mis-numbered and misidentified various sites on the property, with Mr. Hocking explaining some of those inconsistencies in more detail. '-" Mr. Hocking continued, reviewing a map Prepared by SRS for a very cursory 1981 investigation on the site. This also shows cases of mis-numbering and mis-locating sites. Mr. Hocking continued, stating SRS also reviewed the most recent information from the ERA survey data, collected in 1996. ERA had identified areas of shell concentrations on the surface of the property based on transects that were walked and collected at definite grade intervals. They mapped those on an engineering map of the property. So we were able to correlate those to this same map. ERA's survey resulted in site locations shown on the overlay map. The overlay-mapping program, in most cases, shows that where sites have been identified, they do overlap, but sometimes the nomenclature has changed over 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 8 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 ~ time. You'll notice for instance, Landing Hill 9, which was recorded by Redwine and identified by PCAS as Ora-264 was later recorded as Ora-263 by Archaeological Associates and by everyone else after that. Landing Hill 8, identified by John Peter Redwine, was later recorded as Ora-852 and identified as Ora-852 by everyone after that. Landing Hill 3 or Ora-258 has archaeological remains that were labeled Ora-259 by Archaeological Associates and ERA after them. So, really, any materials that would have been collected say, from Ora-852 should be compared with materials collected from by Redwine from Ora-263, because they're one and the same site. That was the gist of our mapping process, to try to make sense of the location of the archaeological sites on that property. As you can see by the different names associated with some these sites there has been a lot of confusion as to what the proper name for each location actually is. As a result of having this map now, where all the site locations based on different investigators have been overlapped, based on non-moving geographical figures from Redwine's investigation to the present, they put together a particular table outlining for each geographic location for a site recorded by Redwine what other investigators had called it. Mr. Hocking presented the table on the overhead screen, indicating as an example, in Redwine's notes on his project, his first set of notes identified a site as Landing Hill 4-B, which later on when he wrote a draft of the report, which UCLA has a copy of the report, he identified as Landing Hill-8. PCAS recorded that site as Ora-263. During Archaeological Associates survey of the area in 1980, they identified that as Area 5, which was later recorded as Ora- 852. SRS followed AA's recording of the site at that time. LSA who did a project here in 1990 has followed that same nomenclature. It has basically been called Ora-852 since then. The problem arises when AA identified Ora-263 a different site, but which is the same as Redwine's Site 264. Hopefully, this makes things a little clearer. It's a way to identifY if an artifact is found from a specific site, what site actually it was found on, based on who recorded it or who recorded where it came from. '-" '-' Nancy DeSautels then indicated when you go to compare the various methodologies used by the various people through time, some interesting things come to light. SRS obtained Redwine's field notes, as we explained. We also had Roger DeSautels' field notes; the actual notes from the field, not a report. Then we compared those two to come up with site boundaries as well, and also to look at the depth of the deposit and what types of materials were coming from each site. And by the time we were through, then ERA's field notes were available and we compared ERA's field notes to SRS's and Redwine's field notes. That will be the next phase of our discussion here. This table, which was presented in our report, is a copy of Redwine's chart that he actually has in his field notes. He actually prepared this himself We simply went ahead and computerized it. It gives you an idea, which I think the committee is aware of anyway, the extent of what Redwine did out there. On these sites he conducted surface collections on every single site. There were some sites where he also had some sub-surface excavation materials. 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 9 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 ''-"' '-' And so, we took his information on the surface collections and compared it to his surface boundaries and found in fact that they were very accurate. Then we took his sub-surface information and compared it to SRS' s. The information in the field notes from SRS --- there were very few artifacts collected by Roger DeSautels from the surface. The majority of the work was a sub-surface excavation plan. What this table is that we've prepared and is in the EIR shows stratagraphic profiles of each of the backhoe trenches that were excavated by Roger DeSautels. The trenches are listed by TT numbers, for example TT-24. And then, what the legend indicates is that there are indicated where filled soils were determined, #1 is non-cultural top soil, such as dump material, #11 is midden, and #III is sterile soil. In some cases you get a transition between the midden and the sterile soil but what was very interesting, that came out of the field notes, was that on several of these sites, like 264 off to the bottom right, you'll see that we have designation in trench #1 and #2 of2-A and 2-B. We found that by looking through the field notes, that that site is probably a stratified site. 2-A indicates the midden on the top that has shell mixed in, but 2-B according tot he field notes is still midden but it doesn't have any shell. Now what that means is that the two --- the lowest level, the 2B - would be older in time. And then there was another occupation on top. So that in several of these sites, just by looking at the soils and the available soils information in the notes by SRS, we have indicated in the DEIR that there is a high possibility that these sites are multi-component, that they were inhabited at two different times at least, and potentially by the same people. Over time those sites were used during at least two different time periods. This was very exciting information which had not been discovered previously. And was based on looking again strictly at the field notes. We have indicated when it was possible, like on Ora-260 and Ora-261, you'll see off to the right "JPR". When Redwine excavated on these sites we also put his depth of deposit and how he designated his soils right next to the SRS profiles. This let us see the information. These profiles are listed in the report from North to South and also from West to East. And so what we had presented in the report is a cross through the site so that you can look at the profiles and the maps and see the numbers on the maps that match the profiles and actually follow the soils through the site in one direction or the other. And that allows you to tell when you're coming into site midden and going through the site and getting out of the site midden. Again on 260 you'll see off to the left the first trench TT7. It has a "1" on the top with a question mark. That was some sort of material that was non-midden material and then sterile soil below it. That trench is outside the boundary of the site. Then the next trench that you get into on that particular site again had 2-A and 2B. It seems to have a stratified deposit. And then below that the sterile soils. You can see the heavy areas on the site, the lighter areas on the site and where the disturbance is. ~ The third set of field notes that we examined and analyzed and compared to the site boundaries based on Redwine's surface and sub-surface material and SRS's sub-surface materials were ERA's field notes --- when they became available to the 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 10 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 ,-,. City. ERA conducted something completely different from SRS and Redwine. Redwine's work was surface collection with hand-excavated units. SRS's work consisted mainly of backhoe trenches. But ERA concentrated on surface collections. They conducted transects through the site where at set points along the transect they would collect shell and indicate the soils on the surface. For instance the first part of the number is a description of the soils according to a standardized Munsell chart that archaeologists use. It has circles in it with different soil colors. You match the soils to the colors. Underneath that designation you see an "S" number and that's a shell number. It's the number of pieces of shell that he found at each increment along his transect of the site. The principal investigator, I presume at ERA, drew a line right here indicating that if you look at the numbers starting from the bottom and moving up, the shell is 0, the shell is 4, the shell is 3 and then all of a sudden, the shell jumps to 28. From that point on it increases rapidly - 47, 153, 175 to 200. The investigator drew a line here as the probable area that you're getting way outside the site with this part of your transect. But at about shell 25 or above, you're getting into the shell midden. You use this information to draw a line on the transects and pretty soon you have a circle of the site. ......... Ms. DeSautels turned the presentation back to Mr. Hocking, who will show the map and compare that actual point of ERA's investigation on the map of Ora-260. Ms. DeSautels continued, indicating if you look at the line on the transect between 30 and 31 - that happens to be the place where Redwine's site boundary was drawn. So that lends a little validity to using ERA's shell concentration data as defining site areas. As part of the last section, once we'd outlined which sites were which, we tried to put together a composite map of the area of Hellman Ranch that had subsurface investigations and careful surface collections on it. We tried to put all the data points together to show where the collections originated from. She referred to a map by Redwine ofLH-3. '-' First of all, we found a map by Redwine on Landing Hill 3 with a scale showing the locations of his excavations on it, plus the topography at the time. It's actually adapted from an engineering service topographic map presumably produced around the same time Redwine was doing his investigations - in the late 1950's. Using Redwine's data for the location of his units, we were able to overlay that, use his topography, overlay that with the project area boundary and with Stickel's transect data where they actually walked and where they took collection samples. I have a scale there. You have a good idea where these excavations happened in relation to the specific Hellman Ranch property. This particular site, Ora-258 is on the south side of the project boundary. It's in the area that is now developed. The specific reason for Redwine's investigations in the 1950's were because that area was in danger of being developed fairly quickly. It makes sense that he would have picked an area outside a developed area. We now have a composite map or Ora-258 showing its location in relation to the property. Redwine also produced a 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 11 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 '-' map showing his site planning for Landing Hill sites 4, 5 and 6. Ms. DeSautels indicated each of those sites on the overhead map projection. Redwine excavated all 3 of those sites - three units here, two units there and a set of units running along a couple of lines there. Using his topography, and noticing he used an engineering topographic map with a careful scale, I scanned it into the computer and checked against the topography to be sure the scale was accurate. Overlaying that on a current topographic map we now have an excavation map for Ora-259 with just Redwine's units where he excavated. Ora-259 is also outside the project boundary to the south; it is now developed. Once again, this is one of the reasons why Redwine was excavating --- because that area was going to be developed. The other two archaeological sites on Redwine's map were at Landing Hill 5 and Landing Hill 6. You can see his units there. These two sites were also excavated by SRS. SRS produced a map, right here, which has the existing housing and property boundary of Hellman Ranch with trench locations where the excavation was performed at the back of the trenches. This information was also incorporated into the map I just showed you. The other thing incorporated into this map is ERA's survey transects that they used to define areas of surface shell concentrations. Now you have a complete map showing areas that were surveyed by ERA, fairly accurate representations of excavation locations of trenches performed by SRS and excavation units done by Peter Redwine in 1954-55. There's Ora 260-61, Ora -262IRedwine's Landing Hill 7, and transected by ERA in their recent survey. Additional sites excavated by SRS in 1981 included what was then called Area 5, what they described is actually Redwine's site Ora-263. What was then called Ora-263 is actually Redwine's Ora-264. And an area called at that time Ora-262, which Redwine had not identified as an archaeological site. These are the location of the trenches excavated by SRS in 1981. Overlaying those trench locations on a map with a scale and including ERA transect data, this is Ora-263/852. We have SRS trench locations. ERA survey transects and Redwine's defined site boundary. Moving up a little further north on the property, we have the site identified by Redwine as Ora-264, with the survey transects performed by ERA on that archaeological site. The trenches excavated by SRS in 1981 on that same geographic location, and the area that was identified by AA and SRS in 1980-81 as Ora-262 with the locations of investigations there and transects performed by ERA last year. So what we've pretty much done is come up with an overview map that takes the eastern side of the Hellman Ranch property and shows where the archaeological sites are within the project area boundary, where excavations have been performed on these archaeological sites, where the surface survey transects have been taken and basically provided the framework for someone else to compare all the data and say "OK something found here and something found by this other investigator at this location ... are in the same site, in the same area and they can be lumped together to show what the archaeological record for that archaeological site has shown. '-" '--' 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 12 Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 '-' END OF TAPE FOR THIS SIDE. - Completion of presentation not recorded. Mr. Whittenberg said there's been a request that you hold your meeting later than 5:00 p.m., so individuals who are interested in coming could get here and not have to deal with work schedules. If you schedule your meeting on a Wednesday which would not conflict with a Planning Commission meeting - May 14th or May 28th , the time of the meeting does not become a conflict Mr. Whittenberg said "We would need a motion and a second to continue this meeting to a date and time certain to hold your public input meeting". Discussion took among the Committee as to the appropriate time and date to schedule the public input meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee to meet on May 14 at 6:00 PM to receive public comments on the Cultural Resources section of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR. At the conclusion of the May 14th meeting, the Archaeological Advisory Committee has the option to schedule an additional public input meeting. ~ MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Goldberg to Receive and File presentation from City Staff and Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. and to Continue this meeting to May 14th 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Public comments will be received on the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze None Johnston NOES: ABSENT: COMMITTEE CONCERNS - None STAFF CONCERNS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no other business and no objections, the Chairperson continued the Archaeological Advisory Committee Meeting to Wednesda May 14, 1997 at 6:00 PM. '-" 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 13 '-" ~ '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes April 30, 1997 )~ ~1fsecrct~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of April 30, 1997 were approved on 4vt;Usr ~ ,1997. 04-30-97 Minutes.Doc 14