Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-06-04 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COl\1l\1IITEE INFORl\1A TION l\1EETING MINUTES JUNE 4, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Secretary Whittenberg indicated there was not a quorum of the Committee, and therefore no business could be undertaken this evening. The purpose of the meeting was to also receive a presentation from KEA Environmental of San Diego, the recently selected City archaeologist to prepare the "Research Design" for the Hellman Ranch project, and the Committee members present could receive the presentation. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the basic purpose of the session with KEA Environmental Associates was to accomplish the following four things: . 1. 2. To allow the full Archaeological Advisory Committee to meet the firm; To receive KEA's presentation on the purpose of a research design document and what their general approach is in its preparation; To allow the Archaeological Advisory Committee to make their comments to KEA on particular areas of concern which must be dealt with and evaluated; To allow the public this same opportunity. 3. 4. Mr. Whittenberg to the audience that copies of the Staff Report, the approved Scope of Work, and a copy of KEA's proposal. He further indicated the Committee was also provided a copy of a recent research design prepared by KEA for a project in San Diego. He turned the meeting over to Jamie Cleland from KEA Environmental for introductions and a short presentation. Dr, Jamie Cleland * KEA Environmental Dr. Cleland introduced the firm and their qualifications. KEA is an interdisciplinary environmental consulting firm specializing in preparing Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) and archaeological work, biological investigations, etc. They have offices in San Diego and Sacramento and have approximately forty persons in their firm. . He joined KEA in 1992. Prior to that he had managed the cultural resource group for Dames & Moore. He has 20 years of experience working on complex, controversial projects such as the Hellman Ranch. He has a Ph.D. in anthropology, and he believes, C.\My Documom1.~\ARCIICOMM\06-04.97Injo MlIlul.:~ do.:\LW\07-03-97 ArchaeologIcal Adl'/sory ('on/nl1l1,-e bifo17l1011011 J.t('('(lI/g AlII/lites JUl1e 4. 1997 a statewide reputation for quality work. He has been President of the California Archaeology and served on the Governor Wilson's task area force covering cultural resource policy on statewide level. He has consistently worked well with Native Americans since he came to California, and he has substantial experience in all phases of cultural resource investigations, including survey work, developing research designs, testing and mitigation. He has substantial Southern California experience from Santa Barbara to San Diego. One of the projects he worked on in Santa Barbara was the Santa Ynez unit development for the Exxon Company. They had a situation where there were some rock alignments that mayor may not have been a medicine wheel. He was able to avoid those. That resource was of very much interest to the Chumash and he was able to work with them and develop a treatment plan. He then introduced Mike Baksh. . Dr. Mike Baksh * Tierra Environmental Dr. Baksh will assist KEA with the Native American component on the project. Mr. Baksh said he is the principal anthropologist at Tierra Environmental Services located in San Diego. Tierra has been in business for 4 years. Before that he worked for a number of other environmental firms in San Diego. He has been involved in cultural resource management for 20 years. He has a Ph.D. in anthropology and specializes 10 Native American consultations. The types of projects he has worked on are the preparation of treatment plants, preparation of Memorandums of Understanding, treatment of human remains and a wide variety of other cultural resource projects. He will be consulting with Native Americans on issues and concerns throughout the project. . Dr. Cleland * KEA Environmental Dr. Cleland indicated KEA has been retained to develop a research design for the evaluation of the archaeological sites that are known to exist on the Hellman Ranch project. Just so everybody has a clear understanding of that, the purpose of such a research design is to identify the approaches to how you determine whether the sites meets the criteria of either eligibility for the national register, or the criteria of significance under the CEQA. To do that, you have to take a close look at the resources in question, how they fit in with scientific understanding of the Native American past and how the Native Americans themselves view those properties. We would begin with a very thorough review of the existing documentation that has already been prepared for the project. A Jot of work has already been done. We will spend the first two or so weeks reviewing the documentation that has already been prepared. It will be within our scope to review to the comments on the DEIR, but not to respond to them. Some of the comments address the scope of our work and for that reason we want to be sure we know and understand the public's concerns. At the same time we will review the regional literature - both the archaeological and the ethnographic . 06-04-97 Info Mmullllo doc 2 ArdweologlcalAd",soIY Conml/llel! II//017l/allol/ A1el"1l1g A1111Ult!~ JIII/e 4. 1997 . literature, so we can tie the sites into the bigger picture. We will identify important research questions that the sites could possibly address and we'll be looking for any data gaps that are there, and the existing records that might be able to fIll in site data gaps. We understand that there are two projects the DEIR identifies which we have to consider in the Research Design. One is the Bolsa Chica project, the results there and also some of the work that has been done on the Bixby Hill. It appears now that some of the work that has been done on Puvunga might be relevant as well. We also want to look at the Naval Weapons Station, because some of the sites appear to go under the road into the Station. The second component of the work will be site visits. He and the field director will spend a couple of days looking at the sites. He understands that one of the issues is site boundaries. Everyone who has been out there has named sites differently. They will compile all that information. The DEIR consultant made some steps in that direction. We will take that information to the field with us and confirm for ourselves the existing conditions. As we're in the field we'll be looking closely at the kinds of field investigations during the testing phase that would be necessary to lay some of those questions to rest. . The third component will be out working closely with the Native American community, and he turned it back to Mike Baksh to address that issue. Dr. Baksh * Tierra Environmental Dr. Baksh said their general approach would be to involve Native Americans in this project from the beginning. One of the first steps will be to compile a list of all Native Americans who are interested or potentially interested in the project and then to send out a letter describing their overall task. They will solicit any input anyone would like to give on the project. The Native Americans may want to hold meetings. He worked on the Puvunga project, and similar types of Native American involvement were used for that study. He will also help with the Pre-Excavation Agreement, this will be a part of the Research Design and it will also be prepared in consultation with Native Americans. Dr. Cleland Dr. Cleland said one of the goals of the pre-excavation agreement would be to address the treatment of human burial remains, if they should be discovered during any of the test work and also during subsequent stages of the project. . The fourth component of KEA's work will be contacts with professional archaeologists who are interested in the area. For example, KEA prepared a Research Design for Las Padres National Forest. They compiled a list of 15 interested archaeologist and 06-04-97 Info MlIlute:. doc 3 Arcl1a,.ologlcal AdVIsor:)' ('omn11l1ee J11fi.11711a11011 Alee1111l{ AI11/1/1es JIII/e 4, J 99 7 interviewed each of those people. At the same time, this is going to require a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers. That will bring in a Section 106 consultation. We will be advising the City to try to initiate a Section 106 consultation through the Corps of Engineers. We'd like to try to bring the Corps and SHPO up to speed on the project, where it's at and what we're trying to accomplish --- and get their input early on. It won't come as a surprise when we get our Research Design going. We'll know the background and why we're headed in the direction we're headed. . Once we've gotten all those four steps taken care of, we'll be into the writing stage. He emphasized that it's a very clear process for evaluations. It will summarize the background information, identify important research questions and data gaps and what the sites are going to have in them to either meet the criteria or not. We will try to set up a very objective process. We will also include how the Native Americans would continue to be involved in the evaluation during the actual field days, whether it's through monitoring or other involvement. Dr. Cleland indicated that would conclude their presentation. Mr. Whittenberg stressed the following point to the public and the Committee. As Dr. Cleland has indicated, the City has provided a copy of all the comments received on the cultural resources section of the DEtR. Comments already received by the City to date have already been turned over to KEA, and those comments do not need to be repeated. Also, all the working field notes from Dr. Stickel, surface artifacts, site survey maps have been placed in the custody of KEA. That information will be a part of their evaluation process. . Mr. Whittenberg asked if the public or the Archaeological Advisory Committee if they had any questions? The public was requested to ask their questions and present comments and concerns first and please limit their comments to five minutes. Dr. John Jeffredo Dr. Jeffredo said he has concerns because he is the only culturally affiliated, Federally recognized band that has anything to do with this area. They want to make sure that the work is conducted strictly in accordance with NAGPRA. If any of you don't know what NAGPRA is, it's the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act. We'd like it followed to the letter. Eugene Ruyle * Cal State Long Beach Mr. Ruyle said he has been here before. One of the things I wanted to do, is last time 1 was here I gave you some assigned greetings on archaeology and ways to conduct it . 06-04-97 Info MlIlul.:lo doc 4 A,.('''a..oh)~'('al AdV/S01" COnml111ee 111(01711011011 A/l'l!llIIg AII/Il/II'S JIIIII' 4, J 997 . . and so on. I have another stack of things. This was the article I mentioned to you last time --- "Archaeology and the First Americans", I made copies of it and it's included with the comments I submitted to EQCB. He was pleased to see the KEA team here, especially Dr. Cleland. We shared a few years at the University of Virginia. I'm glad to see this is going to be conducted in an up-front, co-operative manner. This is very important, the City of Seal Beach has an opportunity here to conduct its operations in a way that will bring out the concerns of Native Americans. This has not always been done. He mentioned that he spoke briefly to Dr. Baksh briefly before we came. I was interested to see he had done the Puvunga report for Cal State Long Beach. Unfortunately that report, while I understand it was a good report, has never seen the light of day. Cat State Long Beach doesn't want to release it. We are still trying to get it out of them. One of the problems has been about the legal case is the reports of archaeologists and ethnographers dealing with the site and the controversial issues are not always made public. For this reason, he felt, a lot of Native Americans don't have a lot of trust in the process. There have been problems in this regard in Seal Beach, such as the firing of Dr. Gary Stickel. Native people believe he found too much and that's why he was let go. In the minds of many Native peoples there is a lot of distrust towards the City of Seal Beach. A couple of months ago when several dozen Native American people came here to express their concerns, there was a very offensive cartoon printed in the local newspaper. It contained offensive stereotypes of Native Americans and was drawn by the Mayor's husband. This hasn't created a lot of good feelings between Native peoples and the City of Seal Beach. He hoped everyone could get past this because he didn't think the Native peoples were against developing as such. They were concerned about respect to themselves as the first people and for respect for their views on the sites out there. They want their concerns taken seriously. Additionally, in working with Native Americans he felt it was very important to understand the degree to which past archaeology and past development has split the Native American community between those people who are paid by archaeologists and developers and those who are not. This has been an issue in the Tribal Counsels for both Juanei'io and Gabrieliiio communities. He hoped people would keep this in mind and speak to all the communities involved. There are five communities of Gabrielii'io's. All of these people have to be consulted. The Native Americans should be asked what mitigation measures they would suggest. . As he read the DEIR, it said there are four archaeological sites that are significant, and possibly a couple more, that will be destroyed. It says "and that's just too bad". He felt this must be looked at. We need to ask what ultimate mitigation measures are there to simply excavating and reburials? At Newport Beach some 600 human burials were excavated and reburied for a housing development. This was done without the knowledge of most Native people and without the knowledge of most people in the archaeological community as well. He would not like to see that happen in the City of Seal Beach. When discussing this issue with Native Americans, it is important to ask 06-04-97lnfo Mmul.elo dole 5 ArchOl'ologlcal AdvIsol)' COn/nil"!!!! /lIf0171/(/11011 Af!!!!ll11g Afllllll!!S J1I11(' 4, /997 them what mitigation measures they would suggest, what kinds of alternative ways they would suggest for handling these things; such as avoiding known burials. . Adrea Stoker * Long Beach Ms. Stoker said she thought the City has a very professional and ethical-sounding group of archaeologists. She would be very pleased if everything they say is carried out. Her concern is that it has not been carried out in the past. Mr. Whittenberg said all public comments are in the fumished packet and she was not sure her comments were included. She has turned in other things that were lost. She asked to see her comments. Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't have the packet with him at this time. He said if she would come to his office tomorrow he would be happy to show her the packet. They could both go through the packet and verify her comments were included. Ms. Stoker agreed. She asked what will happen if her comments are not included? Mr. Whittenberg said he would mail the comments to KEA. Ms. Stoker asked who would send it? Mr. Whittenberg indicated she could watch him mail it if she wanted to. Ms. Stoker said Mayor Forsythe said she wanted to include consultations with Native Americans, and asked if she could get together with Lillian Robles. "It never happened. . Lillian is still waiting for the call". She asked who was contacted at State College when Dr. Baksh was working on that project? Do you remember any of the people you talked to when you did that report? Were there more than two or three? Dr. Baksh said he talked to nine or ten. Lillian Robles was one of those people. Ms. Stoker said you are probably doing fantastic work. Her concern is after the work is done what happens to it. If a report is done, is there any way we can guarantee that Puvunga's can see it? Dr. Baksh said that would be up to the client, and that is the City in this particular case. On other projects he submitted his report to the client, and it up to the client what to do with the report. Ms Stoker asked jf he was paid for the report? Dr. Baksh said he was paid Ms Stoker said she heard they held up on that. Ms. Stoker asked what Nancy DeSautels role would be in putting together this archaeological report? Mr. Whittenberg said P&D Technologies have retained Nancy DeSautels to prepare the cultural resources section of the EIR. Her firm will prepare the responses to comments on the EIR, and they will prepare any necessary and appropriate revisions to the cultural resources section of the DEIR. That will be their . 06-04-97 Info t.hnute<< doc 6 Archaeolog/C'al AdvIsory' ('onml1t1ee l1if0171I011011 .~ !,'elll/I!. AlII/illes JUl1e 4, 1997 . involvement with the EIR. Any involvement they have with KEA Environmental would be in the area of KEA contacting them to review their information or mapping process. They will not be assisting KEA in doing any of their work, other than providing professional information and/or courtesy. Hopefully this would be the same for other archaeologists who have worked on this project in the past, such as Dr. Stickel. Ms. Stoker said she was not sure if this could be done but suggested there be a committee of perhaps 30 Native Americans who can come, one or two at a time, to the site, if there is construction, or any other time to monitor the monitor, because monitors have been bought of in the past. That can be true of Native Americans or non-Native Americans. We all have our weaknesses. Dr. Jeffredo said we know of all these problems that have happened in the past, it is our intention, as the Maritime Shoshone group to eliminate all this because we know who's doing this. We just don't want those people involved at all. We have monitors, I have talked to Vera Rocha, she'll cooperate and has a monitor of her own. We don't want these other people involved, they don't belong here. They are not Gabrielino's and they're not Maritime Shoshone, we only want those people, the people involved in the project. . Mr. Whittenberg said if there were no other comments from the public at this time it would be appropriate to hear from the Archaeological Advisory Committee members. Speakers name cannot be determined She asked ifany one knew what happened to the 700 bags? Mr. Whittenberg said that to his knowledge no one knows where the 700 bags are. The loss of these bags occurred a number of years ago - about 1990. There have been extensive efforts to find these bags, but it has not occurred. The collection of the 700 bags of artifacts was work done between an archaeologist and a developer who had an option on the property at that time. The City was not involved in the process, nor was the property owner. The speaker asked if Mola could be contacted? Mr. Whittenberg said those contacts have been made. To the City's information, the material has been lost. Dave Bartlett . The landowner has made repeated attempts to obtain information on the 700 bags of lost materials. One of the first things they did when they decided to present this project was to send letters. They did what they could to get the materials back. The answer they received was they don't exist any longer. 06-04-97 Info Manute!- doc 7 Archal'ologlcal AdvIsory COn/nllt/c'" IlIformatloll Afel'tll/g AlII/utes JUlie 4,1997 Mr. Ruyle said he was surprised when he heard SRS would continue to prepare the EIR. He said he didn't know the status of the work KEA would be doing. If the EIR is going to be done by Nancy DeSautels, that's SRS. In particular, if sites are found to be significant and if there are conclusions in the KEA report which contradict things in the EIR, he didn't know how they would be resolved. . Mr. Whittenberg addressed the question by noting there are two different documents being discussed and each has a different purpose. The EIR is prepared by a City to allow its decision-makers to understand the potential environmental impacts a project might have. It doesn't define specifically the impact each and every one of those impacts may have. The document gives the City Council and Planning Commission a general view on the types of impacts a project's approval may cause. The Cultural Resources section of the EIR identifies, at this point, all the sites on the property as having the potential of being significant. There are some sites that haven't had enough evaluation to make that evaluation. But until that work is done, they are going to be considered to be potentially significant. As a result of that finding, the City must approve mitigation measures that mitigate those impacts to a level of less-than- significant. This could include avoidance of those areas, deriving an evaluation to determine if in fact the site is significant or not. If a site is determined to not be significant, then the significance issue goes away. The EIR will provide a general direction on this to the City and indicate that further analysis needs to be done to identify at each of the site what each of the significant features may be. KEA's work will take that evaluation and will focus on the site boundaries. They will take that information and make sure they have a clear understanding where they should investigate. They will investigate based on significance criteria under Section 106 for the National Register. Regardless of what the EIR says, they will be looking at everything for Nationa\ Register eligibility criteria. If they find something that meets those criteria, then the City will have to evaluate things and it may involve modifications to the development plan. . Mr. Ruyle said it clarifies, but it doesn't alleviate any of his uneasiness in terms of the process. Again, with SRS being the primary source of information, that in effect creates some problems. He would feel more comfortable with KEA's input be done earlier. For example, if it is eligible for the National Register, that doesn't mean it will be put on the National Register, particularly if the landowner doesn't want it to be. He asked if the questioned 'Site boundaries are to be defined archaeologically or by Native People? What archaeologists define as site boundaries may not correspond to what Native Americans understand the dynamics of an area. Mr. Whittenberg said that is the type of comment that will be addressed in the Research Design. The Archaeological Advisory Committee members spoke next. . 06-04-97 Info Minutes doc 8 Archal'ologlcal AclI'lsol)' ('onml/ttee III/omlOtloll A1el'tlllg A1111ulL's JWIl' 4, 1997 . Member Fitzpatrick said this has been a very frustrating experience. The time-lines are very slow. He was surprised that KEA hasn't reviewed the literature and has not done the two-day walkover. Dr. Cleland said KEA did review the literature in preparing their proposal. They haven't gone over it as thoroughly as they want to. They are reasonably familiar with the work that's been done which was provided by the background packet. They received their Notice to Proceed last week and they wanted to have this meeting prior to going out on the site. They want to move this process along too. . Member Fitzpatrick said that based on this response, could he give the Archaeological Advisory Committee some basic time frames? Dr. Cleland said they expect to provide the draft Research Design for the City's review in mid-July. Mr. Whittenberg said the terms of the contract between KEA and the City give them 45 days from the date on which they receive the Notice to Proceed to provide a draft for staff to review. Staff then has 15 days to review it, make any suggestions or corrections we think necessary. It will then go back to KEA for final draft preparation. The final draft will come to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for review. The review will be very similar to work on Dr. Stickel's research design. At that point the City would hope the document is in an acceptable, professional format and that the Archaeological Advisory Committee can consider its review at that time. The City Attorney's Office recommended minor changes to the agreement and revised pages had to be sent back to KEA. The City also had to wait for the proof of insurance coverage's. He anticipated that about August 1 the Archaeological Advisory Committee and the public would have the Research Design document for public review. Member Fitzpatrick said there is friction between various Native American factions. He asked how it would be determined how and when the monitoring will take place and by which groups? Dr. Cleland said the treatment of human burial remains, under California law, the Native American Heritage Commission makes the determination of most likely descendent. That weighs pretty heavily in the determination of monitors. KEA will be asking everybody for their recommendations on who should be monitors. He didn't think there would be that many different people being suggested. In the past when they've had more than one group with an interest, KEA has proposed they share monitors, where one week there is one monitor and the next week someone else. He didn't think they'd have 30 people out there at one time. He couldn't think of a time when they have not been able to come to terms with the various Native American groups. Member Johnston indicated there have been quite a few professional people in the community who have made comments on this EIR. Will KEA be taking those comments from professional people seriously and cite them in your research design? . Or, will KEA cite the EIR itself? 06-04-97 Info Mmutes doc 9 Arclwl'ologlcal Adl'lsol)' Comnlll1ee II/forma/lOll A/I'I'/11/~ A//III//I'S JI/I/e 4, 1997 . Member Johnston asked if KEA would be looking at Dr. Stickel's work also? Dr. Cleland said one of the issues, obviously, is that Dr. Stickel had increased the site boundaries substantially over the past site boundaries. It looks like SRS has reduced them again. SRS did that, if I recall, based on a count of 25 surface findings of shell per square meter. From my experience, that is a very high density, and normally you might define a lower density to be included in the site, in a situation where you don't have good ground visibility. That's one of the things I want to look at on the walkover. We don't know, because it's not clear in his report, what Stickel's criterion were. That may be too generous, it may be something in between. It's hard to say right now. I did think 25 is a little too restrictive. Member Johnston said the Archaeological Advisory Committee had a problem with the difference in the boundaries. Member Willey said it was 1500 feet. She received a call from Mr. Bartlett indicating that the SRS measurements are probably - but again, obviously Dr. Cleland will be looking carefully at the various determinations of scale and how they go together. . Member Johnston said first of all I want to say that there are many non-Indians out there as well as Indian people who feel the same way about sacred land. She wanted to commend those people for assisting us. People are constantly saying Native Americans do have non-Indian support. She also commented on Mr. Ruyle's comment about mitigation. Native American's don't have methods of mitigation, we don't make it a point of digging up and removing our ancestors or our burial grounds. There was a comment in the paper attributed to Nancy DeSautels that we did that as a practice in order for us to have a significant re-burial ceremony. She was appalled at that. Many of us are vehemently opposed Nancy DeSautels and/or SRS being on this site. However, our opposition did not pose any seriousness here. We are indignant that she has anything to do with the site, a lot of people who feel the same way. We're here to protect and preserve our sacred sites and our burial grounds. It's very emotional, the burials Newport Beach, we were not able to properly mourn them. We do not have a tradition with burial ceremony that we can say that they were properly reburied. What is that? Properly reburied. There is no such word in our language. I'm sorry, I'm not normally like this. . Member Goldberg said she wanted to clear up one item. And that it's important to say that with the EJR, the sites were sited where they are, but the size has changed so much. The question seems to be that that will not hinder KEA in the Research Design if they say the site is "X" amount of feet in distance or width. This will still give KEA the legal right to pursue full disclosure. Dr. Cleland said KEA's intent is to test the entire site and determine how prior researchers identified sites. It's not unusual for different researchers to identify . 06-04-97 Info MlIlulc$ doc 10 . . . Archaeological AdvIsory,' Conml1l1e(' Jl1{imllatlol1 .~ feel11lj!. .\ f11lutes JUl1e 4. J 99 7 differences in site boundaries. This is probably a little more of a discrepancy that you'd usually have to deal with, but testing programs commonly address the issue of site boundaries. So we will be addressing that. KEA won't be restricting their sub- surface exploration to areas that are defined in the EIR. KEA will go beyond that in order to confirm appropriate site areas. Member Young said that since one lady indicated there have been a lot of problems with monitors at other sites, perhaps volunteer monitors could come out just to observe the trained monitors. Is that possible? Dr. Cleland said he understood her comment to be there could be a committee of up to 30, but at any point in time there might only be 2 or 3 at a dig. From KEA's point of view as archaeologists, he would not have a problem with this but there are other concerns that need addressing. Among these would be access to the property, that would be matter for the property owner. We often encourage members of the public, Native Americans and the general public, to come and look at our work. In response to a comment from Member Young, Dr. Cle]and said he has heard a lot about the Newport project but has never visited the site. Mr. Whittenberg said since there are no additional Archaeo]ogica] Advisory Committee comments it would be appropriate to end this session. He thanked everyone for attending and noted a Special Meeting may need to be called to deal with the Research Design and FEIR if they come before the Committee's next regu]arly scheduled meeting. Member Young asked if that would be before August 6? Mr. Whittenberg said there is potential for that. . ~HJ~~ Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory Committee 06-04-97 Info MUlUlo:l- doc 11