Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-05-21 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONTINUED MEETING MINUTES MAY 21,1997 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. in the City Council Chambers ROLL CALL Present: Members Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze (5:40 PM) Absent: Member Benjamin . Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg informed the Committee that he has not heard from Chairperson Frietze, and that Member Benjamin had called and indicated she would not be able to attend. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 6 - 0 - 2 AYES' Members Goldberg, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, Young and Vice- Chairperson Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin and Chairperson Frietze . C \My Documcnts\ARCHCOMM\05-21-97 MlIlutes doc\LW\05-28-97 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Comnllttee COlltmued Meetmg Mmutes May 21,1997 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience There wee none. CONSENT CALENDAR - No Items SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Preparation of Committee Comments And Receipt of Public Comments Cultural Resources Section of HeUman Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR Staff Comments Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is the Archaeological Advisory Committee's second meeting to receive public comments on the DEIR. A week ago the Archaeological Advisory Committee conducted a meeting and determined to continue it to allow Archaeological Advisory Committee members to prepare written comments and to receive additional public testimony. Staff noted they provided copies of the Cultural Resources and other sections of the DEIR for persons attending this meeting. . Once the Archaeological Advisory Committee has received public testimony tonight that will conclude the opportunity for this committee to receive public input prior to the closing date for comments on May 27th Persons who do not want to make oral comments may make their comments in writing to the City. They should be received by May 27th but if for some reason this is not possible, the City would still accept them two days later and would still include them in the Response to Comments. Mr Whittenberg next explained what a Response to Comments is and its preparation process. Once the FEIR and the Response to Comments have been prepared, the Cultural Resources section, as revised, will return to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for review and for a recommendation to the EQCB The recommendation to the EQCB will be whether or not the Cultural Resources DEIR section is adequate. The Archaeological Advisory Committee will be looking at a revised document, not the one they originally looked at Secondly, the Archaeological Advisory Committee will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether or not the mitigation measures for the Cultural Resources section adequately address the issues that need to be addressed. Once the Archaeological Advisory Committee makes these two recommendations, that will conclude their involvement with the EIR. The committee will still be involved with the field investigation work on the property. The main work will be done by KEA Environmental Meetings will be scheduled with KEA to discuss their Research Design and approach They will seek the committee's input on points you . 05-21-97 Mmutes doc 2 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Contmued Meetlllg Mmutes May 21, 1997 . would like them to consider as part of that Research Design. The public will also be allowed to comment. Craig Steele, City Attorney's Office, said the Archaeological Advisory Committee does not intend to make a decision on a document. Therefore, this meeting is not a situation where the testimony is intended to influence the members of this committee. He wanted to make the audience aware that comments presented either to the EQCB of the Archaeological Advisory Committee at a previous meeting will be a part of the DEIR and will be responded to. It is not necessary to repeat comments that have already been presented to one of the two boards at another session. This is a cumulative process of gathering information and that is why it's not necessary to repeat comments. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked members of the Committee if they had comments regarding the Draft EIR. Member Johnston indicated she has not completed her review. . Member Unatin said he would cheat, and was going to read things he thought should be a part of our comments on this document. Most of these comments were stolen from Moira Hahn. He indicated everyone had copies of her comments and asked if the individual comments needed to be read? Mr. Whittenberg said if he was going to reference comments which have already been made by somebody else regarding this project we really don't need to hear them again, other than to say that you agree with the comments made by a particular speaker. Member Unatin said he wanted to take part of the overall list of reasons that we're dissatisfied with the archaeologist's work that has been done, and the comments that we're making on this ErR. Mr. Whittenberg asked if this was a full memo that Member Unatin intended to read into the Record --- or parts of it? Member Unatin said some of the items in the memo were already in Members Goldberg and Fitzpatrick comments. So it might be simpler to cross-reference certain items. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick indicated for the record that he submitted a memo with six concerns regarding portions of the document. The concerns relate to the fact that: (1) aerial photographs which were taken are not mentioned in the plan itsel~ (2) infra-red images which were taken of the area are not mentioned in the DEIR; (3) additional methodologies regarding the use of ground-probing radar could/should be employed to confirm the possible burial and living areas reported on the site; (4) discussion regarding Redwine/Stickel investigations both indicating possible religious significance to the area, this should be further investigated or clarified; (5) clarification is requested regarding whether or not Redwine used contour maps or sketches; (6) clarification of disagreement about artifacts at Ora-851. SRS states there were no surface artifacts found at that site and this needs to be clarified. . Member Goldberg gave her comments on the April 1997 DEIR Cultural Resource section. She said this property has been studied so many times and yet this report did not include a great deal of information that is known and already recorded by other professional people The following points need to be answered: 05-21-97 M1I1utes doc 3 . . ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Comnllttee COlltll/lled Meetll/g Mil/lites May 21,1997 1. History ofEIR. DEIR does not estimate the potential archaeological resources on the property that are mentioned in other studies. This draft does not expand adequately on the information related to the site. It falls short of the existing archaeological evidence. It is important that cultural, religious significance be brought before the public and all information be presented with clarity, honesty and truthfulness. The DEIR Cultural Resource section has left out material that could hamper the site done by KEA. It would be in the best interest of all if this report not be accepted and it is done over by SRS with all information that is available in order for an adequate evaluation of the property to take place Since this firm has not shown good faith at other times, I strongly recommend that another firm be hired to do the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR which will meet the approval of the City as well as the Native American community. 2. 3. 4. 5. Member Willey said her comments are only partially complete. She asked Mr Bartlett ifhe could give a rough estimate on the number of feet for the site's boundary from Pacific Coast Highway to Seal Beach Boulevard? Mr. Bartlett said the only way he could give her an answer was from his own recollection. When the residential homes were sited, as was part of the current plan for the saltwater marshes --- that distance was over 2500'. Member Willey and Mr. Bartlett referenced a map and discussed her question. Mr. Bartlett stated the total distance was probably over 3,000 feet Member Willey said she asked this because as a professional archaeologist she has had the advantage oflooking at and studying the maps that various archaeologists provide. Looking at the mapping process, there is a serious discrepancy in a couple of the maps that the archaeologists have done Specifically, the maps appear in the DEIR, prepared by SRS, indicate that that length --- from Seal Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway, based on their scales is around 4,900 feet. When you look at Stickel's map which has the same configuration, based on their scales, his distance is 3,230 feet There is a significant discrepancy in the data. Somebody is incorrect and they are off by over 1500 feet. This is a critical number that needs to be solved. Member Willey criticized the lack of use of data in the Cultural Resources section She said she did a rough estimate of the bluff area where the homes will go. According to Dr. Stickel, roughly about 81 % of that area is archaeological site. She was guessing because she didn't have time to do rough figuring. As an estimate, 40% is what SRS estimates that the site boundaries encompass of that area. Again, this relates to a later point. When you look at the tables in the DEIR, Table 1.2, CR-3, one of the comments which is made in that section is "confirmation whether each archaeological site on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan is important under CEQA", I don't believe that can be detennined by the literature search alone, especially as things stand now . 05-21-97 MlIIutes doc 4 ArchaeologIcal AdVIsory Comn/lttee Contmued Meetmg Mmlltes May 21, 1997 . Regarding CR-5B, there is a mention of use of a mechanical program for digging, preferably auguring. She would see that to be limited only to auguring as the only type of mechanical excavation to be used on the site. Most of these sites are extremely shallow. To use mechanical equipment would very likely damage features and perhaps remove them completely. She wanted to see this change made. Another statement in CR-5B in terms of details of determining the scope and the extent of testing, they suggest one two-meter by two-meter square for testing purposes. She said this is inadequate and should be made by the City's archaeologist. To propose a mitigation of this limited scale, with the lack of knowledge we have, makes her very uncomfortable Regarding CR-9 and CR-12, there is a statement "To be monitored by a qualified archaeologist". She was not certain what that statement means. Do they mean a qualified archaeologist in addition to KEA's archaeologist or, are they talking about the principal investigative archaeologist of KEA as that qualified archaeologist? This statement needs clarification. Section 5.8, page 5-141, makes a statement about the most recent maps being used But when you look at the maps provided by SRS it is blatantly obvious that they did not use Dr. Stickel's latest maps. This needs to be remedied. . Page 5-142, significance of the site is based on the number and diversity of the artifacts. SRS is attempting to make that determination from the literature search alone This is not possible. It certainly cannot be done at this point because there is too much data missing All of the 700 bags of artifacts from LSA is a significant set of data which just isn't there There is just not enough data to make that kind of determination at this time. It needs to be left to KEA. Page 5-144. The statement is made that only one archaeological site in the Redwine complex is qualified as a late pre-historic site. That's based on artifactual materials among which are things like a steatite bowl, mortars and pestles which are listed in the artifactual material. There are at least two sites that have those same components To say there is only one site is a distortion of the archaeological record as it stands now It's too early to make those kinds of statements. Table 5-15 needs to be clarified. There are a number of places where ERA's data is listed. When they talk about site size and depth the comment is made <eN/ N' (not applicable). Again, because the latest site maps that Dr. Stickel provided were not used, there is an indication that that site no longer exists. There are small to relatively large remnants in Gum Grove Park which we expect to remain in an "as is" condition She found it misleading to say that those sites and/or remnants of the sites don't exist-- - this is the implication. . She didn't get any further than this and before May 27th the remainder of her comments will be submitted in written form 05-21-97 MlIlutes doc 5 ArchaeologICal AdvIsory Comnllttee Camllll/ed Meetlllg Mlllutes May 21, 1997 . Member Unatin said he didn't like to see the religious significance of the area blurred in the document. This aspect should be expanded upon. It may be a portion ofPuwnga and this should have been noted but was left out. He also said it underestimates the potential significance of the archaeological resources and it completely ignores the cultural and religious sacred use of the site by California Native Americans Again there is little, ifany, interpretation of the cultural significance. There were no additional comments from members of the Committee, and Mr Whittenberg suggested it would now be appropriate to receive comments from the public, unless members of the Committee had additional comments. Member Goldberg said although their individual comments will be addressed in the Response to Comments, she was hoping the Committee could write, tonight, their opinion on a few of the issues they talked about --- so they have representation from the committee's point of view. . Member Unatin asked staff if one of the things the Archaeological Advisory Committee was to do was to endorse the opinion that staff had written up or, not to endorse it? Mr. Whittenberg said the staff report indicated that the Archaeological Advisory Committee does not need to make a recommendation at this point regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. When the FEIR is prepared, the Archaeological Advisory Committee will be asked for that. Now, comments are needed on what needs to be improved upon, expanded upon, clarified etc. Public Comments Vice-Chainnan Fitzpatrick requested public comments regarding the Draft EIR Dr. John Jeffiedo] Dr. JefUedo said he saw many problems. In 1997, the State of California Repatriation Board recognized that the islands and a narrow strip of land along the coast as a separate culture, Maritime Shoshone culture. This should not be treated the same as the mainland. He feels all of the writings and various investigations lumped it together with the mainland Gabrielino. It's a different culture entirely and they don't go together And any conclusions that you make are going to be in error He is a lineal descendent of that culture, and he has investigated it for the last four years. . Moira Hahn Ms Hahn asked Mr. Steele about the Brown Act. Ms. Hahn said Member Goldberg was nice enough to have given her a copy of her letter and she said she would like to have copies of the written comments for her own records. Also, she submitted written comments to the Committee. Does the Brown Act say the public can have those comments? Because she would like them to be aware of her thoughts and research on 05-21-97 Mmutes doc 6 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Contl1llled Meetl1lg Ml1lutes May 21,1997 . this issue. Mr. Steele replied that all the documents that contain written comments will be part of the FEIR. Those will all be available to persons who have the document. The Brown Act says that documents, presented to a board like this one, are covered by the Brown Act and are to be available to the public as is practical When they're submitted by persons in the audience to the board, it's often not possible to make copies for a crowd like this, at that time. In response to a question from Ms Hahn, Mr. Steele said copies would be available to those people who wanted them from the EQCB's minutes. It's not a situation where we're trying to anticipate what documents would be available for different bodies. Ms. Hahn asked since the Committee has made copies of their comments for other Committee members, could copies also be made for the audience? Mr. Steele said the Brown Act permits us to do just about anything as far as making meetings more open and making documents available to the public It's not something the Brown Act requires. All of the records that are submitted to the City on this issue, with the exception of some professional archaeological records that are exempt from public records requirements, all of those documents are available to persons who are interested as a part of the public record. That's a separate issue from the Brown Act. The documents that are presented to you, in the midst of a meeting, the public is entitled to look at those documents. And if you ask tonight whether you could have a copy of one particular document you are certainly welcome to do that as soon as we can make a copy, which will be tomorrow, since we are now past normal business hours of the City . Ms. Hahn asked if the public would have to wait until tomorrow to receive copies of the written Committee comments? Mr. Steele said that was the practical impact. because we're here meeting past normal business hours. And staff will be happy to make those for you. Ms. Hahn said she was asking because she would like her written comments to be available to the public She also stated she had talked to the State Office of Historic Preservation today. The analyst that will be reviewing the Hellman work is Dwight Duchtky. He checked though his office and could not find the DEIR. He did not say it wasn't sent, but he couldn't find it. He asked her to ask the City to send it again so they have time to comment. Ms. Hahn said Dr Stickel's data that was left out ofSRS's review has another impact, one which she had not considered previously; she is not through with her comments Dr. Stickel's site 260 was estimated to be much larger than SRS's It looks to her as though it extends into Gum Grove Park. When they put the fire road in and other improvements, that may very well impact Site 260 in Gum Grove Park. She wanted the Committee to take a careful look at that issue. There are quite a number of artifacts that were noted in previous surveys, such as the steatite bead, which is pretty unusual for this area. She did not find this in the SRS inventory. . 05-21-97 Mmutes doc 7 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee COlltll/ued Meetll/g Mil/utes May 21,1997 . She also questioned why SRS was preparing this section for the City because the City worked so hard to include Native Americans. A democratic process was involved and everyone selected KEA. Her feeling is that KEA should have written this part of the DEIR. She further indicated the site estimates were really grossly underestimated from the maps provided by Dr. Stickel. There were artifacts that weren't mentioned. There are a lot of steatite artifacts that weren't mentioned, and they indicate probably maritime trading patterns with Catalina and the Channel Islands. One particular artifact that SRS did not mention was a steatite sucking tube that was showed to Redwine on Site 264. That's the designation which is at the State Office of Historic Preservation, and SRS may have given it a different site number. This is a very important artifact that shows religious views. Additionally, there is a lot of burial data coming to the City which was not covered by Dr. DeSautels group, SRS. She wanted to bring this to the Committee's attention This information is in the document that was submitted to the EQCB last night. For members of the public who would like a copy, the cut-off date is May 27th. . Ms. Hahn did not see any information about Landing Hill sites directly across from the site on the Naval Weapons Station According to the State's Office of Historic Preservation, there are sites across the street from the project site, at least one of which was contiguous before the construction of Seal Beach Boulevard, that is eligible for the National Register She thinks that indicates a potential for increased value of this site. In addition, Leonard Cutuli faxed a map of a Native American cemetery on the Hellman project site. She wants the consultant who prepares the DEIR to take that into consideration and research it. Mr Whittenberg verified this infonnation was included in the written documentation provided by Ms Hahn at the EQCB meeting of May 20th. Ms. Hahn continued, indicating the ethnographic component needs to be worked on. The City need to include the opinions of living Native Americans and people that have a history of growing up on that property, from the pre-historic to the historic period Member Unatin said he had forgotten one concern that should be on our list I don't feel that Dr. DeSautels recommendation in the EIR that the City excavates only one two meter square unit per archaeological site on the site where the last professional consultant employed by the City, recorded that the State Archives, is covering 42,980 square meters. This would not constitute an adequate scientific sample. I thought that was very important. . Adrea Stoker Ms. Stoker said she was from Long Beach, CA. She felt the committee was very knowledgeable and ethical. She asked who would maintain the wetlands after the first five years. She added that project monitors have conveniently overlooked human 05-21-97 Minutes doc 8 ArchaeologICal AdvIsory Committee Contmued Meetmg Mmutes May 21,1997 . remains and artifacts. Could a committee of perhaps 30 Native American volunteers be formed to drop by, one or two at a time, to monitor the monitor? The final report on the mitigation-monitoring program for each project developed under the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan will be kept in the relevant project files at the City of Seal Beach, attention Mr. Lee Whittenberg. She said she gave Lee Whittenberg a report on Nancy DeSautel's slap suit a number of weeks ago and it's conveniently lost. A few Native Americans have applied to positions on this advisory board and those have been lost --- both of those were lost by Mr. Whittenberg But he seems to be in charge. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick determined that no one else wished to speak. Mr. Whittenberg said that if that concludes the public comments on the Cultural Resources section of the document, that will conclude this agenda item, unless the committee members have concluding comments. He asked for written documents to be submitted by May 27th. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Young to close the public comment period on the Cultural Resource Section of the DEIR. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-2 . AYES: Members Goldberg, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick None Members Benjamin and Chairperson Frietze NOES: ABSENT: COMMITTEE CONCERNS Member Goldberg asked if their regular meeting was June 4th they won't be prepared for anything on the DEIR. She asked ifthere was anything else on that Agenda? STAFF CONCERNS . In response to the concern of Member Goldberg, Mr. Whittenberg said he had only received a couple of items for the June 4th meeting. KEA Environmental, under their contract terms, is scheduled to have at least two meetings with the Archaeological Advisory Committee and one meeting with the City Council to discuss the Research Design process They could come June 4th to meet with this committee. This committee would then be in the position to let KEA present their qualifications, background and approach. It would be a good time for the committee as a whole to come forward with ideas for KEA to consider as they're preparing a research design The public would also have a comment period. KEA would have their archaeological and ethnological people present too. 05-21-97 Mmutes doc 9 . . . Archaeologtcal Advtsory Comnltttee COlltmued Meetmg Mmutes May 21,1997 This meeting time has not been verified with all ofKEA's staff, but it appears very positive at this time. Member Goldberg asked ifKEA could bring some information regarding the island and mainland tribal groups for the information of the Committee? Mr Whittenberg indicated he would discuss that with KEA. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Johnston; SECOND by Willey to adjourn the meeting at 6:23 p.m. There being no objections, it was so ordered by Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick. /c~. Archaeological Advisory Committee ~e Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of May 21, 1997 were approved on /!tf-/(;;-VcS r ~ .1997. 05-21-97 Mmutes doc 10