Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-05-14 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONTINUED MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. in the City Council Chambers ROLL CALL Present: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze (6:15 PM) Absent: Member Johnston and Chairperson Frietze . Staff Present. Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Mr. Whittenberg informed the Committee that Member Johnston had a meeting conflict and would not be able to attend. Chairperson Frietze has called and will be about 15 minutes late in arriving. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Willey to excuse the absence of Member Johnston. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-2 AYES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young and Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Member Johnston and Chairperson Frietze APPROVAL OF AGENDA . MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Young to approve the Agenda as presented C'\My Documents\ARCIICOMM\OS-14-97 Mmutes doc\L W\04-24-97 ArchaeologIcal AdVIsory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14, 1997 . MOTION CARRIED: 6 - 0 - 2 AYES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young and Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Member Johnston and Chairperson Frietze ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience There were none. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Receipt of Public Comments and Committee Review Cultural Resources Section Hellman ~'lnch Specific Plan DEffi . Staff Report Director Whittenberg said this meeting is the time and place to receive public comments regarding the Cultural Resources section of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (OEIR). Staff provided Committee members a staff report approximately 1 ~ weeks ago in their packet For the public, copies of this staff report, excerpts of the DEIR relating to the Cultural Resources section, the technical report relating to the Cultural Resources Section and tonight's agenda are provided on a table. Chairperson Frietze arrived at 6: 15 p.m. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Benjamin that comments on the Cultural Resources section of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan DEIR be limited to five (5) minutes and that the meeting does not go past 8.00 p.m MOTION CARRIED' 7 - 0 - 1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze . NOES: None 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 2 ArchaeologICal AdvIsory Comnllttee Continued Meeting Minuter May 14,1997 . ABSENT: Member Johnston Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the purpose of this meeting and this Committee's responsibilities. The staff report explains the basic purposes of an EIR and the adequacy issues He did not review all the items in detail as they had been reviewed at the Joint Study Session on May 23, 1997. He did highlight the following points: 1. The Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) is charged with reviewing the Cultural Resources section of this DEIR and providing a recommendation to the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) on the adequacy of the information provided. The Committee must then provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR. On May 6, 1997 the EQCB held one public meeting and they have scheduled another for May 20th. 2. The purpose of this meeting is to receive public testimony regarding the adequacy of information in the DEIR, including the adequacy of the mitigation measures. If AAC members or members of the public are not ready to make such comments at this time, they can do so in writing to the Planning Department by May 27th . The purpose of this meeting is not to take comments on whether the project should or should not be approved. The Planning Commission will conduct Public Hearings on project approval or denial once the EIR is in a final form and has been forwarded to them by the EQCB. As part of the EIR process, the DEIR is circulated for a 45-day public comment period; it will expire May 27, 1997. Once expired, the law requires the City to prepare a Response to Comments. The Response to Comments is incorporated in the FEIR. The FEIR will come back to the AAC and EQCB for final review and final recommendation to the EQCB . What is an adequate EIR? Mr. Whittenberg said the explanation of what an adequate EIR is at page 7 of the staff report He read the section from the CEQA guidelines on adequacy. He noted that page 8 of the staff report discusses how persons can effectively comment on the DEIR and he read that also. He recommended the AAC, when listening to comments, focus on the mitigation measures set for in Section 15 of the DEIR. Do those measures provide an adequate basis for the City to evaluate the potential of this project to impact cultural resources? Do the mitigation measures give 05-14-97 Minutes.doc 3 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14,1997 . the City the necessary tools to effectively evaluate those factors which could be caused by the project to archaeological sites? There were no Committee questions for Director Whittenberg Public Comments Chairperson Frietze requested public comments on the Draft EIR Adrea Stoker * Long Beach . She said the AAC has a great deal of patience and has endured many problems "Last week Nancy DeSautels didn't give your committee much credit when she had her assistant bore you for more than a half hour explaining what could be said in one sentence. Three other archaeology firms have dug in the same holes where SRS will dig. And each company has a different number for their holes. Why would SRS dig in the same holes? Because everything has been taken out So Nancy will find nothing and developers can develop. When one is looking for gold, one doesn't keep digging in the same hole. And where are those hundreds of artifacts that were found in those holes? Is no one held accountable? How will any new artifacts that are discovered by SRS be protected from being lost? And I go back to my last question before, why would SRS dig in the same holes? Thank you". No one else appeared to address the Committee. Mr. Whittenberg told the audience this is the one time they would have to address this Committee on cultural resource issues regarding the Hellman Ranch EIR. The Committee may decide to hold another meeting prior to May 27th or they may not. He urged everyone to make their comments at this time. . Terry Restivo * American Indian Movement Ms. Restivo urged the Committee to make sure all the cultural resources are monitored safely, according to law and according to the Native American Religious Freedom Act She said, "We do have a panel here We have somebody who can monitor and watch and make sure things are done the right way. The way I spoke last time was let's talk to each other. Let's make sure these things are done in the right way Each tribe has their own burial and reburial ceremonies. And if we come across human remains that should be done It's not asking any less, or any more, than what would be asked of anybody digging in a cemetery, anybody digging anybody's remains anywhere in this land here. So, I urge you please, make sure that everything is monitored safely and accordingly to the laws and accordingly to the Native American Religious Freedom Act --- according to everything that is right and everything that is ethical. We can all get along here. We can all talk together. We can all work together --- every one of us And I hope, I really hope, that this will be the first time that this is done and we can go 05-14-97 Minutes doc 4 ArchaeologlcalAdvlSory Conll/llttee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14, 1997 . from there and work hand-in-hand. And this will be a start and a precedent for every other sacred site. Thank you". The Chairperson asked for additional comments. No one came forward to speak. The Chairperson said this meeting was called to receive public testimony and asked those present if they were sure they didn't want to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Choice to Continue Meeting Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee could choose to continue this meeting to another date prior to May 27th. If the Committee feels that isn't necessary, staff has provided four (4) resolutions regarding recommendations it would be making to the EQCB and to the Planning Commission. The first set of resolutions relate to a recommendation to the EQCB on the adequacy of the discussion in the EIR document regarding cultural resources. If the Committee can make such a recommendation it would be appropriate to do so tonight If the Committee has additional concerns to consider, the alternate resolution to the EQCB allows the Committee to specifY the additional concerns. . There are two additional resolutions which do the same thing for the Planning Commission regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures. He said the Committee will get another chance to review the EIR document and the mitigation measures once the FEIR is prepared. It may be revised based on comments received from other persons and agencies not before the Committee tonight. This part of the process may be re-done but it would not involve public testimony MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Benjamin that the Committee not hold another Public Hearing for the Cultural Resource section of the EIR. The meeting was scheduled an hour later than normal to give persons an opportunity to be present Before the vote, Member Young said she did not agree with this, noting someone may have had car trouble on the freeway "You just can't have two people speak and that be it. It's a pretty big issue". Member Willey said this is a big issue. But people who wanted to make a presentation either would have done it themselves or would have sent a representative to make it She was not opposed to another meeting but was not sure it's required. She suggested the Committee get some idea on whether people would or would not attend and speak The Chairperson said people had until May 27th to make comments. She suggested to those people present, that they let others know about this deadline date . There was no more discussion. 05-14-97 Minutes doc 5 ArchaeologIcal AdVIsory CommIttee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14, 1997 . MOTION CARRIED: 6 - 1 - 1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: Member Young ABSENT: Member Johnston Member Goldberg said one of the things that disturbed her about the DEIR was that the Committee had no opportunity to ask questions at the presentation two weeks ago. Because of this she didn't feel she would want to make any recommendations on the DEIR. She asked if there was a way to get the representatives back to answer questions. "I thought that some of the presentation was extremely vague and didn't cover some of the things that we needed to know" . Mr. Whittenberg said the most appropriate way to deal with that situation would be to prepare a set of written comments on what you think needs to be clarified in the DEIR. The purpose of the meeting is not to get into a dialogue as to what is or is not in the document. Those concerns would then be addressed in the Response to Comments. If the Committee feels it is not ready, it does not need to make a recommendation to the EQCB on the document. Member Willey said two options were given. Is there a third which says the Committee rejects the Cultural Resource section, making a negative recommendation? Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee could do that but it should specifY why it feels the document is not adequate. Member Willey said, "That's the problem. It is totally inadequate". She said she could list a number of reasons And when she has the opportunity to do the remainder of her research she will do so. Mr. Whittenberg explained the resolutions and their options He said the Committee could make a recommendation of inadequacy, subject to concerns, and the resolution could be restructured. Member Willey asked if the Committee chose to restructure the resolution now or slightly later would Mr Whittenberg be willing to do that? Mr Whittenberg said he certainly would. . Member Unatin said "The question is, are we knocking ourselves around here going over this paper again? Is the important issue the mitigation? And is that something that we have input on of any value at a later date? I couldn't tell you". 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 6 ArchaeologIcal AdvISory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14.1997 . . Member Willey said "The material that is presented in the document --- the adequacy says the courts have to look for adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure. I feel that the document fails on the last two elements Based on data that I have been able to look at the Planning Commission in terms of being actually able to view, in perhaps in a little more detail than is actually presented in the map that we, the public, see. It appears that there has been serious omission in the sense that only part of the data has been accepted for inclusion, rather than all of the data presented by Stickel. A conscience decision appears to have been made to only list shells rather than to take the full interpretation of all the elements that Dr Stickel found during his survey work. What that then does, is to say that the sites are much smaller than they in reality are, to the best of Dr. Stickel's opinion. There may be --- and I need to continue to do my own research on this --- there does not seem to be a full and adequate and complete disclosure of artifactual remains at the various sites regardless of how they are designated. And on that basis, my view of the document --- the Cultural Resources section of the document as it stands --- is not complete and does not represent a good faith effort at full disclosure. This is totally apart from the mitigation, which again, I do not agree with. I think the mitigation as suggested in the report is grossly inadequate If that is, by any chance accepted, it should be with the stipulation that that document-- - in fact it should not be accepted under any circumstances. And the amount of mitigation should be determined by the archaeologists that have been hired to deal with the site --- which is KEA at this point I believe That's my answer" Chairperson Frietze asked if Member Willey was basing this on documentation that she has seen personally? Member Willey said "Yes. Documentation that I have seen in Lee's office. Because I had the opportunity --- as anyone of us can --- to view the actual maps. And in viewing those maps, and being able to compare them with data that Stickel also has in terms of his site boundaries. There is no question that a choice was made. Because I believe the discussion last week specifically stated that Dr. DeSautels had all of Stickel's information. If that is the case, and having seen his information as well as what she presented -and all the maps that we all saw - she stopped at shell deposits She did not appear to take into account the surface artifactual remains nor the soil information or Stickel's interpretation. If you are going to accept, as she did, Redwine's site boundaries and definitions without question or without comment, then I have serious questions about why you would not accept Dr Stickel's --- who has done the latest work. And use scientific and archaeologically correct procedures in order to arrive at that" . Chairperson Frietze said "Then what you're saying is you felt that because they didn't include Stickel's report with the body that they presented". Member Willey said "They only included part of it". Chairperson Frietze asked, "Picked and select". Member Willey said "Yes. And because of pick and select, that's why I feel it is not complete and why I do question the good faith a full disclosure". 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 7 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Comnl1ttee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14.1997 . Chairperson Frietze asked if Member Willey would like Mr. Whittenberg to set up a meeting with Nancy DeSautels to ask her directly? Member Willey said "There are a number of questions I would like to ask along the line of why did she choose to do it that way. But I would also like to ask questions similar to how long has she been in possession of Redwine's original maps? Because, that certainly impacts in an extreme way how you interpret everything else. She went through the mapping, and I know that seems to be very boring too, and not of importance. But in fact, it is of extreme importance. Because what we have, is a constantly repeated situation of the re-naming of sites. Therefore, in my own research, I will be going back and taking all of the artifact records that we have available, all of this information on sites which she put on the map --- in addition, the parts she didn't put, which is Stickel's actual interpretation of where the site boundaries are --- together. And see if I can come up with because when I also look at her artifactuallist, that also seems to be very much out of sync with even my own view when I look at where the various sites are, and the renaming and all of that. So actually that mapping strategy is a very important kind of thing. But again, it was very selective in terms of what it represented of other archaeologists' interpretations --- particularly Stickel's Which I could immediately look at and say that her designation of the shell areas presents probably one fifth of the territory involved than when you actually look at Stickel's designation of the site boundaries. So almost all of the area of Landing Hill that would be involved in the home development, probably 75% to 85% of it, is site, and would have to be mitigated. And there are documents going back all the way to --- and there are sites that DeSautel's claims have been destroyed, that if you go back that are available from when they did the Police Station, which one of those documents clearly states that directly to the south, in one area, is an extremely large, extremely important cultural component. Which, on those maps, appeared about half to a third of the size of what Dr. Stickel believes that to comprise. So that's the basis on which I am extraordinarily uncomfortable with the Cultural Resources section as it stands" . Member Unatin said he disagreed, "I"thought DeSautels proved without a question that all areas to be developed is a site Put everybody's maps together and they all said the same thing. The whole area is a site. Isn't that the general consensus of the Committee?" Chairperson Frietze said "All it did was prove there's a definite site out there and all of those mappings proved that". Member Unatin said the area may be a little larger, but generally the whole area. Chairperson Frietze said "We needed to know what they are going to find there." Chairperson Frietze asked Mr. Bartlett asked who the developer is, is it KEA? . Mr. Whittenberg said the archaeologist retained by the City to perform the actual field investigation on the Hellman Ranch is KEA Environmental from San Diego. This firm will be writing a research design for the site. Part of the work will involve an additional 05-14-97 Minutes,doc 8 ArchaeologIcal AdVl~ory Comnllttee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14,1997 . site survey of the property. They will do a walk-over of the property to get a feel for it. Once a research design has been approved, their investigations will study the sites. They will do that as set forth in the parameters of the research design. SRS will not be doing any field investigation work on this site. KEA will be doing that work. SRS has only been involved in preparing the written document before the Committee tonight. SRS will be involved in preparing the Response to Comments. Regarding Member's Willey's concerns, the Committee needs to consider these. He is hearing that it may be inappropriate for the Committee to make a recommendation regarding the adequacy or the mitigation measures of the DEIR now. It is not required the Committee make a recommendation at this time. He suggested the Committee may wish to have Member Willey to put her comments in writing. These would be responded to in the Response to Comments. This procedure would apply to all other Committee members. . Member Goldberg said she thought it would be important for the Committee to submit a letter which said everyone is part of the selection of approving changes or what the Committee wants. "I think putting all this on Lori's shoulders is not appropriate because some of us have some other ideas too that they want to express in this letter. I think it would be important that we do this as a committee". She added that she understood what Member Unatin was saying and asked what was the point of the EIR if the Committee would not be following it, and instead would be doing what KEA is doing in the research design? "What's the whole point of raking this over the coals if we don't have to? If we trust the archaeologist that we hired and we interviewed enough, and we felt that this is the best person to do the job. Does he have to follow anything that's in this EIR or can he just go on with the research design --- we accept that, and we move on from there". She asked Member Unatin if that is what he was saying? Member Unatin said "I think that they proved conclusively last week that the whole area is a site. Our problem is with the mitigation If we have to vote on the adequacy of this, I think what Member Willey said is concisely put" Member Fitzpatrick asked if it would be possible to adjourn this meeting and to go to the conference room and discuss this and get a consensus and vote on it tonight? Mr. Whittenberg said that could be done right here. This is a public meeting and the public has a right to hear what the Committee's deliberations are. He suggested the Committee stay in Council Chambers as the City Manager's Conference room is too small for the Committee and the public together. . Chairperson Frietze said the whole issue was whether SRS is going to be involved and she thought that had been clarified. She felt the Committee should be discussing the mitigation and KEA's report, which we will get "We can still address the concerns that we have with the document before us, and then recommend our comments to them" . 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 9 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14, 1997 . Member Willey asked Mr. Whittenberg, "What is the impact of this Cultural Resource document if we accept it? Can the City or the developer, for that matter, say "This is what the Cultural Resources document says. This was accepted. So therefore, we are going to limit it to the areas as defined by SRS in the EIR?" . Mr. Whittenberg said no. These are comments on a draft document. The Committee will be making another recommendation on a final document that may change the language of this section and may change the mitigation measures based on comments received. Secondly, the mitigation measures as proposed at this time require KEA to prepare a Research Design that has to be approved by the City. The Research Design will set out their methodologies, how they will determine site boundaries, how they will investigate the sites and how they will determine the significance of those sites The EIR says only that this a step that needs to be taken someplace along the way --- prior to development occurring on the property. KEA will prepare the basic document which will direct them. The City and the California Coastal Commission has the approval on how the future investigation on that site will proceed, and this includes the site survey again. The Research Design will discuss how they will determine site boundaries, how they will investigate the site, what investigation methodologies they will use, sampling programs, types of analysis, etc. The other steps in the mitigation measures deal with what is found once those investigations begin. Several mitigation measures are restatements of laws and procedures that exist at this time State law will be followed. Member Willey said "It concerns me that a document that I consider to be inadequate, incomplete and not necessarily in good faith, will be out there where someone can look at it and say well I prefer to look at this truth and accept this document as truth rather than another set of documents". Mr. Whittenberg addressed two different issues here One issue is the difference among experts. This may be what Member Willey is getting into here The EIR will address those concerns and indicate there are differences among experts regarding the adequacy of the information, how it was presented and how it was treated That information goes to the City Council and they will decide what expert they choose to agree with. Secondly, the comments on the good faith efforts, these need to be given to staff and they will be responded to in the Response to Comments. It may happen that the City goes back and revises the language in the Cultural Resources section of the document to address those issues and bring out the additional discussion. The FEIR's Cultural Resources section could be markedly different that the one before the Committee tonight. This would not be unusual. The EIR needs to go through the draft-to-final analysis to obtain the input it could not otherwise get. . Chairperson Frietze said she felt it would be best for the Committee members to write down their own comments. If the document were to be approved as it stands, at least the committee member's concerns would be in writing The comments would show what they had problems with. Member Willey asked if she was suggesting this be done 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 10 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14, 1997 . as a committee or individually? Chairperson said she thought it would have more impact if written as a committee. Mr. Whittenberg said staff needs direction on whether the Committee wanted to go through that process tonight or to schedule another meeting prior to May 27th to work on the comments. With the consensus of the Committee, the Chairperson recognized a person from the audience. . Donna McGuire * EOCB Member Ms. McGuire said this is not how she thought this meeting would go. She understood Nancy DeSautels would be present tonight She said she has requested Ms. DeSautels be present at the EQCB's meeting on May 20th. She said she has questions and felt the best thing would be for the person who wrote the document to answer the questions. She felt it would be best for the Committee to take this document, write down what's wrong with it, do not make a statement on the adequacy/inadequacy because this is just a draft. She felt things needed to be fixed. Based on her experience, if you say something is adequate and there are just a few things wrong with it. "Once you say it's okay, you're stuck with it ... if it's not okay don't say it's okay. This is the time to fix it. Every single other body that this is going to go to --- the EQCB, the Planning Commission and the City Council --- they are going to be stuck with your decision. We're at the bottom of the heap here, which is where I wanted to be after the election. Because when documents aren't right, everybody else gets stuck with that information all the way up. Unfortunately the longer it exists the more people believe it . . if there's a doubt that the information is not correct or complete and there was not a good faith effort, let's fix it here ...". At the EQCB's last meeting the May 27th deadline was adjusted due to new information. The date was extended. She said she would like to see the Committee and the EQCB prepare the paperwork so when the proposed project comes before the Planning Commission they can trust that the Committee and EQCB have done their jobs. Don't be pressured to hurry things through, or to approve things that aren't right. What is relevant is what kind of data are we looking at, and is it complete. Member Goldberg asked when the EQCB will meet? Ms. McGuire said the EQCB would meet on May 20th, she was hoping that P&D Technologies and Nancy DeSautels were present tonight so that she would have a clear understanding of the facts. If these firms are not present at the EQCB' s meeting she would not be willing to meet. "The bottom line is that we don't let people rush us --- we get it right". . Mr. Whittenberg said the EIR document is in a public comment period that will end on May 27th. There is new information regarding a new plant found on the site Portions of the DEIR will be re-circulated regarding that. At this time, the comment period will end May 27th and the Committee needs to conclude its deliberations by that date. The 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 11 ArchaeologIcal AdvISory Comnl1ttee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14,1997 . purpose of this Committee's and EQCB's meetings are not to get into a question and answer discussion on why the document was formulated as it was. The purpose is to receive public testimony on what is not adequate in the document and in the mitigation measures. He reviewed the Response to Comments procedure again. Member Fitzpatrick said he thought everyone would agree there is no such thing as a perfect document How accurate does something have to be? He spent hours reviewing this document and at each meeting he would express something else he was uncomfortable with. He is still bothered by the infrared photos not be included, nor reference to them. There is also no reference to the hearths. Where are these things? How are they described? The map, I'm sure that Redwine --- I'm not positive --- but I'm sure because I knew the man, the map that Redwine had would be based on contours. We just saw a sketch map. I don't think that was at all accurate or representative of his work. I personally looked for peat deposits down there and I don't find them. They're supposed to be at site 851 or in that proximity. I find no geological evidence for these The soil profiles are inadequately described. Where's the ground-probing radar? Why wasn't that used? Where are the soil resistively tests? It should have been done. If they were done they were ignored He said he was prepared to vote against the document. . Terry Restivo * American Indian Movement * Public RelationslMedia Contact for Orange County Chapter. National AIM Ms. Restivo said she was hearing good dialog, feedback and listening now She urged the Committee to re-open the Public Hearing to allow the spectators to comment on the new information. This could be at a second meeting. It would show good faith that we want to work with each other. Mr. Whittenberg said if the Chairperson was going to allow people to address the Committee it would be appropriate to re-open the Public Comment time MOTION by Benjamin, SECOND by Young to re-open the Public Comment time MOTION CARRIED' 7 - 0 - 1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT Member Johnston . 05-14-97 Minutes doc 12 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14,1997 . Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Shanks commented on committee procedural matters, noting various committees he belonged to. He felt it would be best for the Committee members to get their thoughts written down, and then meet again He felt sitting at the dais deadened the ability to sit down and achieve a consensus. He felt sitting together at a table would achieve this. . Craig Steele * Assistant City Attorney Mr. Steele said it would be most helpful for the Committee not to vote for/against a document now. At this draft stage, changes can be made and mitigation measures imposed to make sure the City is taken care of in this process, and to be sure that under State law we are adequately addressing the environmental impacts of the project. Committee members can provide the best service by going point-by-point and stating why they believe the document is inadequate or where it need to be changed. It's very difficult for a committee to agree on a number of points that need fixing The CEQA process requires a response to each individual comment that is made on the adequacy of the EIR. If the Committee as individuals were to put together you comments and forward them on to staff --- either in a meeting where they could be heard together or through a letter process --- then those comments get incorporated into an EIR. The consultant and staff have to respond to those comments and change the document where it's necessary to change it, or to tell you why they're not changing the document. At that time, this Committee would decide whether it wants to vote for or against the document. It's most effective do make the comments individually Moira Hahn * Seal Beach Ms. Hahn said she made a presentation before the EQCB last week and she has brought a copy of that. She wanted to be sure the Committee had a chance to review this prior to their deliberations She provided additional material, including an article by Dr. Dixon re Lan-272 and archaeological site on or near the project boundary. This is good background information. She presented the Committee with forty pages of documents, which include one document from Chester King, one from Diana Wilson, a short letter she wrote to Dr. Fitzpatrick, a memo from Dave Bartlett, and the article by Dr. Dixon. She wanted the Committee to have as much information as possible. . Eugene Ruyle * Professor of Anthropology * Cal State Long Beach Mr. Rule said he did his anthropology field research in Japan Most of his archaeology contact has been though textbooks, scholarly journals or books Regarding infrared technology, while it's cutting edge and very important, is as important as new ideas. One new idea is for archaeologists not to dig things up by themselves and try to figure things out. They need to develop new, cooperative ways or working with the living descendents. They need to work with living Native Americans because they have a wealth of information from cultural memories, from the oral history. He said there was an excellent article in the December 1992 issue of American Archaeologist by Randall McGuire. Its title is "Archaeology and the First Americans". It talks about the history 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 13 ArchaeologICal AdvIsory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14,1997 . of archaeology and Native Americans. It has been a dismal history, wherein for centuries Native Americans have been asking Archaeologists not to dig up their graves. Archaeologists have not been paying attention. In the last few decades this issue has been brought to the fore where current Archaeologists now feel it's essential to work with Native Americans. The Native Americans have a wealth of information that is not accessible to archaeologists working in the ground It's a difficult process because Native Americans may have a different idea on how to proceed and how to interpret things. He recommended this article to the Committee. He endorsed previous comments made by Diana Wilson of UCLA and Chester King. He also distributed two articles to the Committee. One article appeared in the Los Angeles Time in September 27, 1993, "Archaeology Today - Digging for Dollars". It talks about the sorry state of Archaeology in Southern California. It talks about SRS and Cal State Long Beach. He urged them to read this carefully. Additionally, he presented an article by a Native American in News from Native California, "When Archaeologists and Indians Cross Paths", an Indian perspective on what Archaeologists are doing On the reverse side of this article is a set of Archaeologists and Anthropologists ethical guidelines. He urged the Committee to read these carefully and let the ethical guidelines help their decision making. . Member Young said she found it difficult to share ideas while sitting on the dais. Member Unatin said he thought the AAC should get on with this matter Member Goldberg asked Donna McGuire when Nancy DeSautels would be at the EQCB meeting. Donna McGuire said that would be May 20th. Mr. Whittenberg said there has been a request for her to be present but at this time staff is not sure if Ms. DeSautels will be attending that meeting. He reminded the Committee that the purpose of these meetings is not to get into a discussion back and forth on why the document is in the form it's in. It's been prepared, you're in a comment period and the purpose now is to provide comments on what you like/don't like about the document. Member Goldberg said she felt the Committee would hold another meeting And she wondered if it should be scheduled after the EQCB meeting on May 20111 Member Benjamin said she thought the purpose of this meeting was to listen to any public comments made tonight. Then they would discuss them She said she wanted to assure everyone that the Committee would be as fair as possible and that all their comments would be addressed. Member Willey said it seemed to her that there's little choice but to hold another meeting because there is not enough time tonight to deal with the large amount of comments that she is sure each member of the Committee has. Member Fitzpatrick agreed, saying the next meeting should be as soon as possible. Member Willey suggested the next Committee meeting be Wednesday May 21, 1997. . Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Committee that May 21 st is a regular Planning Commission meeting night. The Committee would have to be out of the Council 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 14 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14, 1997 . Chambers by 7:30 p.m., or move to a separate room Member Willey asked if they could meet at 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Member Young asked if public comment would be taken then? Member Willey asked if it was legal to move the comments to the last part of the meeting? Mr. Whittenberg said his take on the question was that the audience wanted to hear the Committee's concerns on the document prior to them expressing their concerns. Who goes first is up to the Committee. If the public input on the DEIR is continued it would be during the public input time on the DEIR. He suggested the Committee members would come with their concerns in a written form. Staff could make copies of those concerns and hand them out to members of the audience. Then they could be discussed. Then, members of the audience could comment At that time the Committee would need to formulate a response. He didn't think it would be a recommendation regarding the document but rather a list of concerns Ms. Restivo asked if this meeting could be May 220d and in that way they wouldn't be rushed? The Committee members discussed who could make which date and at what time. They decided May 21, Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers . MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Young to continue this meeting, leaving the public comment period open, to May 21, 1997 at 5.00 p.m in City Council Chambers The members of the Committee would present their individual written comments and additional public comments will be sought. Those concerns will be formulated into a common set of concerns. Member Unatin suggested the meeting begin at 5:30 p.m. The Committee agreed With the concurrence of the maker and second of the motion, the meeting time will be at 5'30 PM. Member Goldberg asked if it would all right for a few of the Committee members to get together and write comments? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, as long as they did not have a quorum. Mr Steele said the Brown Act prohibits any group of members from reaching a collective concurrence on issues. Not just a majority of the body We would prefer you stay away from that type of meeting He noted that any discussion of City business outside of a public meeting is prohibited by the Brown Act The most preferable course of action would be for each member to write out their individual comments and bring them to the meeting. . 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 15 . . . ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory COlllmlllee Continued Meeting Minutes May 14. 1997 MOTION CARRIED: 7 - 0 - 1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Member Johnston Mr. Whittenberg indicated to the audience that this meeting has been continued to Wednesday, May 21, at 5.30 PM to receive additional public comments on the DEIR, and the Committee will be providing written comments that evening COMMITTEE CONCERNS - None STAFF CONCERNS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no other business and no objections, the Chairperson continued the Archaeological Advisory Committee Meeting to Wednesday, May 21, 1997 at 5:30 PM ~~ Archaeological Advisory Committee e Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory Committ e Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of May 14, 1997 were approved on ~G-U5T (;., .1997 05-14-97 Mmutes doc 16