Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-08-27 . . .~.. NOTICE OF ADJOURNED MEETING ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 1997 HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TO WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997, AT 5:30 P.M. AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 211 EIGHTH STREET, SEAL BEACH bt' 'r August 29. 1997 Date ~ Whittenberg, Secretary ~~li'aeological Advisory Committee C.\My Documents\ARCHCOMM\Adjoumed Meeting Notice 8.doc\L W\08-29-97 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADJOURNED MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 27, 1997 CALL TO ORDER ChaiIperson Johnston called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. in the City Council Chambers ROLL CALL Present: Goldberg, Fitzpatrick, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Johnston Also Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services . APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Willey to approve the agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: NOES: Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Adrea Stoker * Long Beach Ms. Stoker asked, "Have the Native Americans been consulted about the Hellman project? Where do I get my answer? Chairperson Johnston stated, "I don't know. I can't talk for other Native Americans. I think you need to talk to Mr. Cleland or Mr. Baksh .... I know that I have been sent a letter and received a voice mail. But I have not been called a second time. Nor have I called them." . Ms. Stoker stated, "It says that they are to be consulted before this gets started. Who do I talk to? Anybody here? Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I'm not understanding what the comment is. Is the question .." Ms. Stoker interrupted, "The question is ..." Mr. Whittenberg asked to complete his question, "Is the question regarding have Native C \My Documents\ARCHCOMM\08-27-97 Mmutes doc\LWlO-13-97 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meetzng Mmutes August 27, 1997 . . Americans been contacted about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or about the Research Design document. Which are we talking about? Ms. Stoker said, "The Native Americans were to be contacted before this got off the ground." Mr. Whittenberg asked, "Before what got off the ground? Ms. Stoker said, "The EIR. Before the Research Design." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "No. They were to be contacted as part of the Research Design. We are not talking about the Research Design this evening madam. We're talking about the EIR. I'd like to make sure we're talking about the information that's before the Board." Ms. Stoker said, "Well, I misread this. I understood that the Native Americans were to be contacted as a process of putting this EIR together." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "They have been. They have been made aware of the Public Hearings. There have been people in attendance at the meetings before this Committee in the past on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Stoker said, "I don't mean that kind of contact. I mean to sit down --- the Mayor, Mayor Forsythe said months ago, to Lillian Robles that she would be in contact with Lillian. And that they would work with the Native Americans." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "That's the Mayor's comment. I can't comment on whether or not the Mayor has been in contact with Lillian Robles or not. She indicated she would do that as an individual. The Public Hearing process on the EIR has been a public process from the very beginning. Native Americans have been informed of that process. They've had an opportunity to provide comments. Comments are provided in the EIR. They have been responded to. So, I'm not sure what it is ---." Ms. Stoker stated, "My question is, they're not a part of this process." Mr. Whittenberg said, "They're here in the audience this evening to participate in the process madam." Ms. Stoker said', "I thought they were to be closely --- working closely --- with the archaeologists from moment ...." Mr. Whittenberg said, "There's two different processes going on and I want to make sure you're understanding the processes. An EIR is a document that is prepared by a City. The City puts that document out for public review and comment. That has been done by the City. The City does not bring in private individuals to help write the EIR. The City hires a consultant to do that work. That has been done. The document went out for public review and comments. Comments have been received. A Final EIR is now before this Board and eventually it will before the Planning Commission for comment. The other process which is going on at this point in time is the initial phases of, hopefully, a future archaeological investigation on the Hellman Ranch property. The fIrst step of that process is the preparation of a Research Design document. That process is being undertaken separate from this EIR process. In a parallel time period but it's a separate process all together. As part of that process, there has been --- and it's indicated in the Research Design document --- there are a number of Native Americans that have been contacted by the frrm that the City has hired to do that Research Design. To seek clear input into the Research Design process." Ms. Stoker said, "Well that was my question --- who are they?" Mr. Whittenberg said, "It's in the Research Design document. I don't have it in front of me." Ms. Stoker stated, "Names?" Mr. Whittenberg said, "We're not talking about that document tonight." Ms. Stoker: asked, "Do you know who they are?" Mr. . 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 2 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meetzng Mmutes August 27, 1997 . . Whittenberg stated, "I just answered the question. I don't have it in front of me." Ms. Stoker said, "Well, it just seems to me ---. Mr. Whittenberg said, "It's about fIfteen individual Native Americans that have been provided a copy of the Research Design. They were sent that document by the City. They were sent agendas of the meetings when the Research Design was considered by this Board on August the 6th and August the 13th. They were invited to come, to make comments at those meetings. They were also made aware that the comment period for the Research Design is open until September 1st. If they could not be at a meeting, they could provide comments to my offIce by September 1"t. They have been given every opportunity to come and sit in meetings, provide comments to the City on the process. Ms. Stoker said, "I understand that thoroughly. My question is, is anyone from KEA sitting with Native Americans, consulting with them now? Before this process starts? Before the fIrst shovel is put in the ground?" Mr. Whittenberg said, "No shovels are going to be put into the ground for quite some period of time. I don't know if KEA has actually started meeting with individuals. I know they sent letters out informing Native Americans of the process. And that they will be contacting them for follow-up interviews and so on. Whether or not they have actually started that process at this point I don't know. And that's not a process that is part of the EIR. I want to make that very clear. That's not the process that we're here to talk about this evening." Ms. Stoker stated, "All right. When the monitor is chosen, my big concern is --- and I know --- I understand that that will not be done now --- but when the monitor is chosen, time after time after time, if it's in --- many people that have worked for SRS are involved in it --- things disappear, like 700 sacks, bags of artifacts from Hellman Ranch already. I don't want that to happen again. So, I'm still concerned as to who the monitor will be. And if someone will be able to monitor the monitor from the Native American people. Mr. Whittenberg stated, "The monitor will be selected by the Most Likely Descent for the project that has been identifIed by the Native American Heritage Commission. The Most Likely Descent is Vera Rocha. She will select the Native American monitor." Ms. Stoker asked, " So is there any other committee of Native Americans, of her choice, that will be able to ---." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "You would have to discuss that issue with Ms. Rocha." Ms. Stoker said, "Okay. All right. Thank you. " Chairperson Johnston thanked Ms. Stoker for her comments and asked if there was anyone else wishing to address the Committee. Mr. Whittenberg responded to a question from the audience that could not be heard, stating, "I think what the question is, will you allow people to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) when you get to that item on the Agenda? And I would suggest that you allow people to provide any comments to you when you get to that item. Chairperson Johnston indicated the Committee will go on to Scheduled Matters. . 08.27.97 Mmutes doc 3 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meetzng Minutes August 27, 1997 . CONSENT CALENDAR - No Items SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. RECEIPT OF PUBliC COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REVIEW - Cultural Resources Section of Hellman Ranch SpecifIc Plan Final EIR Recommendation: Upon conclusion of recelvmg all appropriate public comments, staff recommends the Committee review the discussion and the proposed mitigation monitoring measures for the Hellman Ranch SpecifIc Plan Final EIR. The Committee should forward a recommendation to the Environmental Quality Board as to the adequacy of the information provided, and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the adequacy of the proposed "Mitigation Measures". Approval should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 97-1 or 97-1A and Resolution 97-2 or 97-2A (Attachments 1 and lA, and 2 and 2A, respectively). . Chairperson Johnston asked if the Committee wanted to go right on to public comments before Committee discussion? . Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I think it might be helpful just for the audience and for the members of the Committee both for me to make a couple of introductory comments. Kind of what the purpose of your session is this evening and a brief review of the FEIR. And then at that point, if you wish to receive comments from the public, you may do that. We also have representatives from P&D here this evening-- Bob Rusby and Sylvia Salenius, who were responsible for the preparation of the EIR itself. And they can respond to questions you may have of them. And also, I am available to try and respond to any questions or comments you may have. You are here this evening for basically two purposes. As the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) to the City you have two separate charges before you. The fIrst is to make a recommendation to the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) as to adequacy of the information that's provided in the Cultural Resources section of the FEIR. In that FEIR there's been a complete re-write of the Cultural Resources section and you have that in your information packet as part of the FEIR. We've prepared draft resolutions for your consideration this evening. They give you two options. One is to say that the FEIR, in the form as it exists at this point in time, is adequate under CEQA. The second alternative is to say that you feel there are defIciencies in the document as it exists at this point in time. And the alternate resolution allows you then, as members of the 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 4 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meetmg Minutes August 27, 1997 . Committee, to specify to the EQCB what you feel those inadequacies are. So that's one action you're going to be asked to consider taking this evening. . The second action is to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures that are included in the FEIR in relation to Cultural Resource protection measures. And again, we have two resolutions for you. One which says the measures, as they are presented, in your opinion are adequate. And the second one, which says they are not adequate, you need to do these following things to make them adequate. And so, that's the ultimate action we'll be asking you to consider taking some time this evening. And I want to indicate at this point that if you're not comfortable in taking those actions this evening, you may continue this matter to a future meeting to consider'making those recommendations. I will let you know thought that the Planning Commission Public Hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, September 3rd. So if you defer this matter and take an action at a point after that meeting, or after the Commission ultimately makes a decision on the project, your recommendation may not go to the Commission. It may go directly to the City Council for their consideration. And that just depends on the timing of when you might ultimately decide to take an action, compared to when the Planning Commission might ultimately decide to take an action. The EIR document that is before you this evening represents the culmination of about a seven-month process. You saw the DEIR in April and May of this year. And there were extensive comments regarding the archaeological Cultural Resources section of that document. As part of the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation process, once the EIR has been prepared and circulated, a document which is called the Responses of Comments, must be prepared. That is included in your FEIR. And, we've provided in that document copies of all the minutes of the meetings that this board held, copies of all the written documents that were either presented to this Committee or received by the City commenting on the Cultural Resources section of the document. And each of those documents are reproduced in the packet along with responses that have been prepared both by our consultant staff, by our staff, and reviewed entirely by our legal counsel also. So, those represent, at this point, what the City feels are adequate responses to the comments. I should also note that the document itself, particularly for cultural resources, has been completely revised. There has been extensive revisions to the document which are shown in a red-line/strike-out format, so it's hopefully fairly understandable to you as Committee members and to the public, as to what changes have been made based on the comments that were received. . The one point I do want to conclude with, is that there were an extensive number of comments received on the document. The comments themselves did not change the initial evaluations of the sites, and the initial determination of signifIcance of impact to those sites that the City made in the DEIR. In the DEIR the City indicated that all the archaeological sites on the property either, based on current information, are deemed to be signifIcant or do not have enough analysis done of them at this point to be --- to 08.27.97 Mmutes doc 5 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meetzng Minutes August 27, 1997 . . make that determination one way or the other. But the City's conclusion was that since there wasn't enough information on those sites, we considered all of them to be signifIcantly impacted by the project. Therefore, each site on the project has been determined to face an ultimate signifIcant impact on the FEIR. A lot of the information that has been provided to you through the meetings you've had, and tlrrough the public comments, were providing additional information regarding artifacts found at the locations, differences of opinions as to which site was where, what artifacts were found at what site based on the mapping program that was undertaken as part of the fmal DEIR process. But the ultimate conclusions that each of the sites may be signifIcant and that each of those sites would be impacted by the project, and therefore each of those sites requires further evaluation and potential mitigation have not changed from the issuance of the DEIR itself. And those conclusions still remain in the document. And that is the reason why the Cultural Resources section of the document was not re- circulated for additional review and comments --- as were some other sections of the document - back a number of months ago, particularly regarding biology and hydrology. Because in those areas there were new impacts that came forward as part of that public review process that we had not anticipated and discussed in the initial DEIR. In the staff report itself, we go back and provide you some information as to what, under CEQA, is an adequate EIR. I won't go into the language of that at this point in time. But once you've had your public comments and had some discussion among yourselves, if that becomes a point of concern with the members of the board, I think then we could return to what legally, under CEQA, is an adequate EIR. And what you need to be considering as to what makes up an adequate EIR. And with that, I conclude my comments and turn it back to the Chairperson." Chairperson Johnston thanked Mr. Whittenberg and asked for any public comments. Moira Hahn * Seal Beach Ms. Hahn addressed the AAC, indicating she distributed comments to the members of the Committee which should be in front of you on the table, and there are a few extra copies for members of the audience that would like one. Ms. Hahn stated, "I'm not going to read my comments verbatim because you have them to look at and I don't want to take up your time. But I would like to mention a few points in here for your consideration before you begin discussing the issue of the acceptance of the EIR or what changes should be made before it's accepted. . First off, it still doesn't consider the question of whether the archaeological sites on the Hellman Ranch property are or are not part of the Puvunga complex. And that's a unique group of sites that has tremendous cultural and religious signifIcance to Native Americans and to others. So, I understand that KEA will be doing some kind of --- I think, it's not really very clear from reading the Research Design --- but it seems to me that the FEIR indicates that KEA will be doing something about the question of Puvunga. But, it's not among the research questions that KEA has written that it will 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 6 . . . ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meetzng Minutes August 27, 1997 be addressing through the Research Design. And I'm also concerned about the EIR sort of passing the buck to KEA on that question, because I think it really has to be answered in the EIR. 2. The ethnographic component. Although a contact letter has been sent to some Native Americans to inform them of the project, neither the EIR nor the Research Design describes the ethnographic component in detail. I think that merely sending a contact letter to Native Americans that will be affected is not enough. Here's --- this is from a letter that's in the EIR. It came to the City from the California Coastal Commission and this is a direct quote, "The City must ensure that appropriate Native American groups have been consulted in the development of the investigation". Now, the word consulted is key here. It doesn't simply say you must notify the Native Americans or some of the Native Americans. The word consulted implies a collaborative process. And I think the intent is to include them in the planning of the investigation. So, KEA's Jamie Cleland says that after the Research Design has been approved, when the testing process begins, that's the point at which KEA will take some testimony from the Native Americans. In my opinion, that's too late. They can't help plan the testing program if they're not brought in .until the middle of it. So that's my second point. 3. The FEIR still contains a multitude of false and misleading statements that will lead readers to form false conclusions regarding historic resources know to have been discovered on sites on the Hellman Ranch. Number four --- artifact diversity data. Oh, I'm sorry, let me go back. Especially conclusions regarding burials that have been found on the project site and evidence that it was used, the project site was used, as a religious or ceremonial area. First off, fmding burials implies it was a religious or ceremonial area. But beyond that, there have been artifacts found that any archaeologist will tell you are found in that context are burial artifacts. Or they were medicine to. It's a shaman thing, it was used for religious purposes. 4. Artifact diversity. In the FEIR is still incomplete. Now SRS justifIes this by stating that it doesn't have to give every little detail of every artifact found on the property. And I understand that. But, the FEIR's data base as to the site's value, chronology, how rare things are, that's all coming from their artifact catalog. So, they need to present the facts in total in order to reach scientifIc conclusions. 5. The FEIR still does not consider the sites directly across the street on the Naval Weapons Station (NWS). But, if the facts are examined within the context of them being part of the same complex, the EIR's conclusions of occupational chronology and site usage diversity and value for the archaeological sites that 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 7 . . . ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Adjourned Meetzng Minutes August 27, 1997 are on the Hellman Ranch development project site are inaccurate. They need to look at the whole picture. For example, across the street, 260, where it's 322/1,118. They found what looks like glass debitage and other things that would have a historic connotation. We wouldn't know that if we didn't consider them as part of the picture --- it changes things. 6. This is very important. SRS has deferred answering a lot of questions regarding the archaeological sites because, as it states in the EIR, KEA will be doing the fIeld investigation to determine those facts. Now, I know you guys want to protect the City and CEQA, as well as numerous recent court decisions, forbid this practice. You can't defer a study and say we'll fIgure that out later. We're doing it but for now, just approve the EIR. You have to answer the questions and present the full range of archaeological information before the EIR is considered. So, I would be concerned about the City passing something that isn't fInished yet. The EIR cannot be fmalized until KEA's fIeld investigation has been completed and the facts about historic resources remaining on the project site have been fully disclosed and understood. 7. SRS and KEA have obfuscated important issues in the EIR as well as the Research Design concerning reported ancient human burials discovered on the project site. There are a number of different ways they have done that and I've stated what all of them are. In particular there are a couple of things that I'm concerned about. Site Ora-262 has been re-named Area D. And, that's where Cottrell and Cooley, previous archaeological researchers, said several aboriginal burials were found. The present investigation as outlined by KEA calls for only two standard units to be excavated there. It is highly unlikely to provide an accurate assessment of potential remaining human burials. Another issue, SRS in the DEIR and FEIR has stated that due to the fact that Redwine's original maps were lost, a lot of researchers from the 1970's through the 1990's were using the wrong site numbers. Now if this is true, the site that was called Ora- 263 is really Redwine's Landing Hill 9 or Ora-264. The reason this makes a difference is because Redwine's one or two burials, as well as religious and ceremonial artifacts, therefore are likely to have been discovered on the Hellman Ranch project site rather than to the north of it, where Rockwell and the Police Station now stand. Up until now we thought that was gone --- it was history, it had been destroyed decades ago. The fact that --- if they're right about the mapping system, that means that those burials are quite likely to have been on the project site. 8. Leonard Cutuli, the dentist that lives on the Hill in Seal Beach. I don't see any discussion in either the Research Design or in the EIR regarding the map that his patient provided of an ancient burial ground on the Hellman Ranch project site. Another issue that hasn't been addressed is Mr. Glenn Peasley's testimony 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 8 . . ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 regarding two burials and a steatite artifact he found in site 852; it's also on the project site. I couldn't fmd a discussion in either document. Now whether the City agrees or not, I think it is required to present the full range of information in the EIR. 9. Project alternatives. I couldn't fInd anything in the FEIR, any discussion of project alternatives that would avoid the archaeological sites. The developer only considered alternative confIgurations that would also destroy the sites. Maybe they could come up with a different plan. But the plans that they presented wouldn't be any better in terms of preserving cultural resources. And I don't understand why that is the case. I don't see why they couldn't have just put a pocket park somewhere, done something, took out a unit, moved something, to preserve part of the sites. So that's a question I have. Okay. 10. And then fmally, the rings and ellipses 15' to 25' in diameter that appear on computer enhancements of infra-red photographs taken last year of the Hellman Ranch project site have not been investigated. This is important because one of the things CEQA and the National Historic Preservation Act for that matter wants you to consider is whether unique resources exist. Now, if they can't fInd any historical basis for those rings and ellipses, that would make them very unique. And it needs to be taken into consideration by the City. Thank you very much." Chairperson Johnston thanked Ms. Hahn and asked for any other public comments. Eugene Ruyle * Professor. Cal State Long Beach Mr. Ruyle stated, "I just wanted to endorse Moira Hahn's analysis. I really think that the --- I hope that the AAC will ask the --- I don't know how this EIR can be made good personally. But I hope --- I could think that you could just take her comments and make them your recommendation because they are very good and to the point. But a couple of other things I wanted to say. I live in Long Beach, as you know . You may know about Long Beach's attempts to take over the Naval Station there and lease it for a shipping terminal. And you probably know also that the court intervened and blocked that process, because Long Beach had already decided that it was going to build a shipping terminal in the port. And they didn't consider any alternatives such as preservation and things like that and the court intervened. And that project is still on hold. And I think the same thing's true here in Seal Beach. The Hellman Company and the City of Seal Beach have already decided to destroy those archaeological sites. They've decided they're going to do that. And now they haven't considered any alternatives. They haven't proposed any mitigation measures. I never considered mitigation a dirty word but recently I've started to think of it that way, because mitigation simply is another way of destroying those sites. And I've heard members of the AAC say well the sites are going to be destroyed anyway. They don't say what is . 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 9 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meetzng Minutes August 27, 1997 . feasible or not feasible. Again, I really have a lot of problems with bringing in an archeologist to determine the signifIcance of sites. And again, I don't think Indians need archaeologists to tell them sites are signifIcant. They know which sites are signifIcant. They know if their ancestors are buried there. Those are signifIcant sites. And you can see that these archaeologists really don't know what they're doing. They've spent forty years digging out there and they still can't fIgure out what the sites are, where they are, what the boundaries are or anything like that. So again, these archaeologists are now going to tell Indians what the signifIcance of the site is. And again, I think the process is all-wrong. Indians have been coming to the AAC, they've been coming to the Planning Commission asking that their concerns be met. This has been dodged around, it's been shuffled back and forth between SRS and KEA. No one is taking responsibility for dealing with the concerns of Native Americans. People have said well, we'll deal with that later. We're going to consult them sometime in the future. But again, once the EIR is passed, it's going to be like a steamroller and they're going to pass right forward unless there's a lawsuit to stop them. And again, there are alternatives. It's not written in the laws of nature or anything else that those sites have to be destroyed. They're only going to be destroyed because Hellman needs to make money. And I was kind of interested. I always knew the Hellman family was a rich family but I didn't realize until reading the EIR here just how rich they are. They are one of the richest and most powerful families in Southern California history. The founder of the family, Isaias Hellman, made his fortunes primarily in land speculation here in Southern California. One of the places that got him started was purchasing Los Alamitos and this site here. So, they've already made millions of dollars out of this site. And if you look at income statistics about what's going on in our county in the last decade or so, the richest families in the United States have been involved in the most massive transfer of wealth from the rest of us to them. So, I don't know how much more the Hellman family needs to made out of this property. Again, I'd urge you to reject this EIR. It does not consider any alternatives. It does not --- it has absolutely 110 protection for the concerns that Native Americans --- many of them have come here again and again asking you to listen to their concerns. The archaeologists haven't done this. The City Council hasn't done this. They major hasn't done this. And I hope that you will." . Chairperson Johnston thanked Mr. Ruyle. . Dave Bartlett * representing Hellman Properties Mr. Bartlett stated he wanted to make a few comments, stating, " First of all, Jerry Tone and Susan Hori are here to answer any questions. I think I'll have Susan address the CEQA issue that was brought up. But the alternatives, or actually the project, does include the preservation of the sites in Gum Grove Park. If you look in the EIR, one of those sites, I believe, has a very high cultural diversity index. And so, the project does include the preservation of the park and those sites in it. The project also includes the restoration of the degraded wetlands system. And it includes a significant amount 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 10 ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 . of open space for everybody to enjoy. The point regarding CEQA I'd like Susan to address. It's a very important to us. Our attorneys have reviewed the mitigation measures in the FEIR as well as the fmal Cultural Resources report. It's very important to us that it meets the legal standard and goes beyond in some cases. We're in agreement with the City Attorney's OffIce that it does so. I think maybe we can clarify the CEQA issue real quick. And then we're available for questions if there's any questions by the Committee. " . Susan Hori * representing Hellman Properties Ms. Hori stated, "I'm representing Hellman Properties and I'm an attorney. And I wanted to only address one specifIc issue and that was the issue that Ms. Hahn brought up regarding whether or not the City would be improperly deferring studies if they were to approve this EIR. There is a line of cases that talks about the deferral of studies and how local agencies should not do that in order to avoid --- by doing so they avoid making a determination as to whether or not there is a signifIcant impact on the environment. In this situation, however, Seal Beach I think is taking a very conservative approach in addressing cultural resources. Because after reviewing all of the data that has been reported from the site, based on all the prior archaeological excavations, the City has determined that a number of the sites would have a signifIcant impact if the development were to occur. And for those sites where there is insufficient information because either they haven't been tested or there is a lack of complete data --- rather than saying that the impact would be insignifIcant, the City has taken a very conservative stance and said, no we believe that those impacts are also signifIcant even though we don't have the data to make that determination. And therefore, we're going to require the developer, prior to being able to develop this site, to implement a series of mitigation measures which are set out in your Archaeological Element and also in CEQA, which requires the completion of the Research Design, the preparation of test programs and test excavations on that site to make sure that before any development and grading occurs on that site that those sites have been looked at and have been examined. So there really hasn't been a deferral of any studies. And in fact what has occurred, based upon the current studies that have been done to date, the City has very conservatively said, these sites are important and therefore, before any development can occur, mitigation measures have to be applied to each of the sites. And those mitigation measures are in total compliance with CEQA and are consistent with State law and State procedures regarding the protection of cultural resources. I wanted to just clarify that point. " Chairperson Johnston asked, "Does anybody have any questions about that or wanted to make comments?" . Moira Hahn * Seal Beach Ms. Hahn stated, "I just wanted to understand --- how is following the City's Archaeological Element of its General Plan going overboard on mitigation measures? 08-27-97 Mmutes doc 11 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adj.ourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' Wouldn't the Hellman's be required to do that? It's part of our General Plan. That's the procedure. And also, I'd like to know more about the specillc mitigation measures. I know Gum Grove Park will be saved. Beyond that, what will be done? Thank you. " Chairperson Johnston asked, "Can anyone answer that?" Mr. Whittenberg suggested, "Rather than trying to get into answering each question that somebody comes up with, and keep coming up and back and up and back, I think it'd be better to get all the comments and then allow us and the consultants who prepared the document to respond to those questions and comments that people may have. " Chairperson Johnston stated, "Okay. Did we have any more public comment on this?" Mr. Ruyle Mr. Ruyle stated, "I mean, I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Mitigation measures are covered on pages 66 through 68, right? That's it? Those are the mitigation measures? Towards the back here. Under --- sixty --- I just want to make sure that I'm reading correctly. I have --- " Mr. Whittenberg stated, "If I might, the mitigation measures are shown on Table 15-1. ~ Mitigation measures CR-3 through CR-I1. And, once we've gone through the comments, I will kind of go through those individually to go over what the proposed mitigation measures are in the EIR document itself. Are there any other comments from the public at this point in time?" Ms. Hahn Ms. Hahn stated, "One of the mitigation measures is that the Research Design will be peer reviewed. Who is selecting the peers this time and when will that be done? Will the Committee get a vote?" Mr. Whittenberg respnded, "It's being done at this point in time. The peer review people were indicated in the proposal from the frrm itself, at the time they were selected." Ms. Hahn stated, "So KEA selected its own peer reviewers?" Mr. Whittenberg stated, "They were approved by the City when the City approved the contract with them." Ms. Hahn stated, "But KEA selected the archaeological fIrms that will be reviewing ... ." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "KEA suggested people that the City concurred with." Ms. Hahn stated, "That seems a little out of whack to me. It seems ----." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "You can take that issue up at the City Council, they approved the agreement and approved the Research Design people, and that's not part of the EIR that we're talking about at this point." Ms. Hahn stated, "It's not part of the EIR? But we were just told that this is part of the compliance for the EIR." Mr. Whittenberg responded, "The people who have been selected is not required as part of the EIR. The EIR requires a peer review to be done. '-'" A peer review is being done. Whether or not you, professionally or personally, may 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 12 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' care for the people that are doing that peer review is a separate issue from a peer review being done." Ms. Hahn stated, "Okay, but to satisfy the EIR, one of the steps that's being taken is that the developer is following the City's Archaeological Element, part of the General Plan. By following their steps, they need to do a Research Design and it is going to be reviewed but not independently. By three --- by how many consultants this time Lee?" Mr. Whittenberg stated, "It's being reviewed by three." Ms. Hahn stated, "By three fIrms selected by KEA." Mr. Whittenberg responded, "By three individuals, not particularly fIrms. Two of them happen to be professors at universities within the State of --- one in California and one in Oregon." Ms. Hahn asked, "Was this run by the Committee or was it just the Council's decision?" Mr. Whittenberg responded, "It was run by the Committee when they considered the frrms. It was included in the proposal that the Committee members considered when they interviewed the fIrms. It was considered by the Council when they hired the fIrm." Ms. Hahn stated, "Okay, so it's not independent. It was up to KEA who would review them." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I don't know what you mean by independent. When it was reviewed by this Committee, the Committee made no objections to those people. The Council had no concerns. So I'm not sure what you mean by independent." Ms. Hahn stated, "Okay, I know what I mean by independent. It seems to me that you're not getting a pure review if KEA can select who will review them. But anyway, that's it. Thank you. I'll have more comments later, maybe on the Council level. " '-" Chairperson Johnston thanked Ms. Hahn and asked is there any other comments? There was no one else wishing to address the Committee. Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I think at that point I would like to respond to a couple of the comments and concerns that you've heard this evening. And then I'll let P&D if they feel I haven't responded to some of the things that they think still need to be responded to - allow them to do that also. The first issue, and it goes back to the comments that Ms. Hori provided to you, is that in our mind the EIR does not defer studies unreasonably to a point at a future date. As we have indicated, the document clearly indicates that from the City's viewpoint each of those sites has the potential to be a signifIcant site and would be signifIcantly impacted by the project as proposed, and then recommends a number of steps to investigate those sites to do a couple of things. The fIrst is to determine if they important under CEQA. If a site is important under CEQA then there's mitigation that needs to be undertaken for that site if it is not able to preserve it in place. And the CEQA guidelines very clearly indicate what is considered an important site. The CEQA guidelines defme what is important. And that is the definition that is used in this document for what is an important site. And I'd like to just read those both for the Committee and also for the audience. And this is the criteria that you as Committee '--" members need to be considering when you're looking at the documentation itself. 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 13 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-" There are fIve different criteria that defme a site as being important under CEQA. The first is the site associated with an event or a person of recognized signifIcance in California or American history or a recognized scientifIc importance in pre-history. Secondly, can the site provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifIcally consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions. Third, has a special or particular quality such as the oldest, best example, largest or last surviving example of its kind, (D) is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity and (E) involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. Those are the criteria that the City considered when it made a determination that each of the sites on the property may be important. Whether or not those sites ultimately are determined to be important will be an action that would be determined by KEA as part of a Phase IT test level investigation. That is when you actually determine whether a site is signifIcant. And as you might recall, in reviewing your Research Design document, they will be looking at it from both CEQA requirements and also from eligibility standards for National Register of Historic Places. Those actions will be taken once, or if, a project is approved. And at that point, then the test level investigations would occur. If a project is not approved, there is no impact to the sources that are out there at this point in time, so there'd be no additional actions taken. '-" The second comment I had is that the EIR itself has been gone through in an extreme amount of detail by our offIce, by our consultant and by the City Attorney. And the point that you need to keep in mind is, again, it kind of goes back to a number of the issues that have been brought of in the comments --- that information may not be directed to the right site. It may be misleading. Different people may disagree as to what the importance of those areas may be. But that doesn't change the conclusion in the document. The document still says each of the sites has the potential to be signifIcant and that needs to be evaluated at a later point in time. And that is what is required of CEQA. CEQA doesn't require you to do all of the evaluation before a project is approved. It requires you to indicate if there's a potential impact and if there is, how can you mitigate that? Mitigation does not require that a site be not impacted. Very clearly, in the appendices to the CEQA documents, it indicates that mitigation is an allowable action to take on archaeological sites and mitigation may include testing of sites and excavation of areas to determine what is or is not signifIcant in those areas. And that is very clearly outlined in the CEQA guidelines. So, I just want to make sure that you understand that there are certain things in the CEQA guidelines that control what the City's information is at this point in time. The Research Design process is a separate process from what you're considering at this point. What you're needing to focus on, is whether or not this document, in the form it is in, would allow the Planning Commission and City Council to understand that the project would have an impact on archaeological resources. And that's the extent that CEQA requires you to go. You must be able to forward a document that gives them a reasonable '-" 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 14 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 ~ understanding of the impacts of the project and a reasonable basis on how to base the mitigation measures that are proposed in the document. And whether or not you feel those mitigation measures are adequate to address the impacts to the best of the ability of science as it exists at this point in time for the project. I think that would kind of conclude my comments. If either Sylvia or Bob might have a couple of other comments before we turn it back to you for some deliberations." Sylvia Salenius * P&D Consultants Ms. Salenius stated, "I'm with P&D Consultants. I think I just want to stress one key point that Lee has made. Again, we know as a result of this project that up to ten archaeological sites are going to be directly impacted by the development. There are another fIve that are in Gum Grove Park which would not be disturbed. But we know that, we have determined that this is going to be a signifIcant impact and that is our obligation under CEQA is to determine whether the impact could be signifIcant or not signifIcant. We have stated it will be signifIcant. We've identifIed the mitigation measures that we think should be followed up according to the requirements of CEQA when you have signifIcant sites. So that's the essence of what the archaeological report is all about. And I think we're real clear about that one --- that one call on signifIcance here. Thank you. " Ms. Hahn '-" Ms. Hahn stated, "I have a question if you don't mind. You say up to ten archaeological sites will be impacted and fIve are in Gum Grove. What is impacted? Ms. Salenius responded, "Impacted is essentially disturbed and destroyed by development. So, the question is though --- I mean --- we have a Research Design that allows the retrieval of information from those sites before the actual construction occurs. That's the parallel track that's going on here, while this environmental document is being considered. And the Research Design is intended to determine additional scientifIc information from these sites. So the actual activity of research disturbs sites too, obviously because you've got to excavate them. But once you've gotten the information that you intended to get out of the Research Design and if the development project is approved then construction would occur. Is that clear? Ms. Hahn continued, "Okay, then a question that I have is okay, ten of the sites are going to be destroyed by development. And what we'll get out of this is whatever scientifIc information can be gotten through the testing investigation and the writing the Research Design as a sort of planning document for how that test investigation will be done. But, none of the research questions involve Puvunga. Now, I think if it's a forgone conclusion that these sites are history, they are going to be destroyed, that we need to know whether or not is Puvunga and they need to do a very thorough job of analyzing the data on those sites so that we get something out of this before they're destroyed. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much." '-' 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 15 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' Chairperson Johnston said, "Excuse me, I have a question Moira. Are you talking about comparisons to Puvunga? Whatever artifacts are removed, are you saying that they need to compare it to Puvunga?" Ms. Hahn responded, "Yeah, and just to do the ethnographic component. Talk to the Indians. See what they can fmd out. Get as much data as possible about the times of occupations, the types of artifacts in order to answer the question whether or not this was part of Puvunga. Because right now KEA has drafted, I believe it's ten, proposed research questions and none of them involve Puvunga. It's the fIrst thing in my mind. And I think it's something the City should want to know and it should be part of it. Thank you." Member Goldberg Member Goldberg stated, "I think we're getting things mixed up. We're mlxmg oranges and apples together, Moira. That KEA is doing a Research Design, we're not talking about that this evening. We're talking about the EIR. She answered your question as a follow-up for what they found. And then what the next step would be. " Chairperson Johnston asked how the Committee should proceed? Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "At this point it's really, I think, up to the AAC to proceed as you feel appropriate. I would want to indicate though that you may want to go through .,-, those mitigation measures particularly, to ensure that those, in your mind, are either adequate or inadequate. You'll be asked sometime this evening or at a later point in time, to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding those measures particularly. So, at some place along this evening, I'd suggest you focus your attention to those. But fIrst you may want to go back to the general issue of the EIR document with the revisions and responses to comments. As to whether you feel that the Cultural Resources section that's been provided in the FEIR adequately presents enough information for a Planning Commission and Council to make an informed decision regarding the project. And that may be where you want to make your focus, your discussion at initially. Member Young asked, "What's the defInition of a resource?" Mr. Whittenberg responded, "A cultural resource? That is a site. Well, that's what they're suggesting. And let me go back, because I think there's some discussion on that someplace else. And we've indicated in the past that KEA will be providing --- and they've already provided to you in your Research Design document, a proposed test level excavation plan. You might recall a discussion that Lorraine kind of addressed that issue at the last meeting. Regarding the appropriateness of the number of test pits and shovel test probes that were being proposed in the Research Design. So, this is what the suggestion is in the EIR. You need to keep in mind that that is a minimum and that the Research Design will be defIning something different than that." '-' 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 16 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-" Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg responded to a question regarding Mitigation Measure CR-5.b, stating, "Well, that's your call. I would suggest, in that particular area, since we know that KEA is already proposing something different than that, that you may wish to change the language of that just to indicate that that should be determined by the actual fIeld investigator on the site. I think that would be the most appropriate recommendation for that. Chairperson Johnston stated, "Okay, so if we like decide to approve it, that would be one of the modifIcations we could add to it." Mr. Whittenberg stated, " Yes. If, you know, the Committee agrees with that. I would think that would be a reasonable suggestion. " Dave Bartlett Dave Bartlett stated, "I would like to make a brief comment. And hopefully we can stick to the subject at hand here. But, excuse me, the subject at hand, which is the EIR. On page 41 of the Research Design it clearly states that there are questions going to be asked about Puvunga and that relationship. So, I just wanted to make it clear that the Research Design does cover that issue. And, it's an important issue that KEA has covered. And, it's not part of the CEQA process. And if we can stick to that issue. We're here for this meeting on the CEQA aspect. I just wanted to make that issue clear. " '-' Member Willey Member Willey stated, "I don't know why it is, but I spent a great deal of time trying to fIgure out exactly what I'm going to say this evening. Because there are a variety of things that need to be addressed. And I'm not sure whether this comment should be at the beginning or the end, but I'll start with it since it's something that concerns me. It is an unfortunate situation that SRS was the one that, either through the intervention of Hellman Properties or through the intervention of the City, obviously approved by the City, or the choice of P&D that SRS did this design for the EIR. It is unfortunate because no matter what decision we make, whether we accept it, whether we reject it either whole-heartedly or otherwise, or whether we accept part of it, the Native American community are certainly not going to be happy. Because they have been totally unhappy with SRS. So, I feel that to some degree we were put in an untenable situation. Now, aside from that, there are two sections here. We have the Appendix section, Section B, which is I believe an addendum and truly an appendix to the EIR. What is of concern in the EIR is Table 1-2, pages 18. A qualifIed archaeologist retained by the City of Seal Beach has conducted a literature research from baseline survey and cultural resource records and has confirmed whether each archaeological site on the Hellman Ranch SpecifIc Plan is important under CEQA. Well, as Lee has particularly stated, there isn't enough information. And the City has said that they're all important and need to be investigated further certainly, before any type of destruction can take place. No matter what SRS has determined, in terms of whether '-'" low, medium or high, it's inadequate. This statement, and of course I will question, 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 17 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 .~ qualifIed archaeologist as well. But in any case, this statement, it goes too far. I don't believe that SRS is capable, from the information given, of making a determination about the value of those sites. Not enough information is known. And therefore, the City is right, in terms of their evaluation, that more information needs to be acquired to make the determination. This is --- we have here a conflict. This is saying one thing, the City is saying something else. I don't believe that this should say this. '-" Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg responded, "Let me just go back, because I'm not sure where the disagreement is. The mitigation measure says that the City will select an archaeologist to evaluate the sites prior to site preparation, grading or construction. The City started that process using KEA ---, CR-3. Prior to any site preparation, grading or construction activities." Member Willey stated, "It says that a qualified archaeologist retained by the City of Seal Beach has conducted a literature research." Mr. Whittenberg responded, "No. The City shall verify that a qualifIed archaeologist --- right, but it's prior to construction on the property. Not at this point in time." Member Willey stated, "It's not clear. And that needs --- to me that's not clear. Given the fact that you have a document as the Appendix E, which goes into great detail to say this is low or high, it appears that this part has essentially already been done. I would be more comfortable, it said, that a qualifIed archaeologist retained by the City of Seal Beach will conduct --- you know --- it's just --- it seems to give more import to SRS' s report that I feel is justifIed." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "That change, I think, is one that doesn't change the basic condition. And as staff, I wouldn't have any objection --- . " Member Willey stated, "And when someone reads this. And if I see it this way, someone else is likely to see it this way, and say, oh, this is already done. The City has accepted it. This is what we're going to go by and that would make me extremely uncomfortable. Okay? Okay." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I understand the clarifIcation then." '-' Member Willey Member Willey stated, "CR-4, as you pointed out, it should say ten sites, it says seven. CR-5, CR-5 I had a problem with in the fact that, and this is I think something that was mentioned previously. The mitigation plan is very detailed. One unit per resource, wants a mechanical program, preferably auguring to verify boundaries, et cetera. I'm uncomfortable with that as a part of it, simply because it seems to defme what KEA should do. And I feel that that is out of place. Yes, it is right to say mitigation measures. I would much prefer if it say something to the effect of, excavation needs to be done in order to determine site boundaries and signifIcance of the site, rather than describing how the next archaeological group that is selected should do it. That is to me totally out of place. Because again, it's the same problem. It's not that I don't trust the City, it's just that the composition of the Council, the composition of a variety of other institutions that are involved in this may change. And as that change takes place, to come back to here and say well, this is the way it says it 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 18 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 ~ ~ should be done, creates a level of discomfort because I believe this is an inadequate design for mitigation or for even testing. Whatever KEA does later, we'll deal with when we're dealing with the Research Design. Mr. Whittenberg stated, "Maybe just to go along with that comment, if the suggestion would be that we change the language just to reference that the actual fIeld investigation program would be determined by the City-appointed archaeologist and that program will be set forth in the Research Design document. Does that address the issue?" Member Willey stated, "To me, I would be much more comfortable, simply because I don't want, in essence, for someone to come back and say, well, it's in the EIR and this is the way we're going to do it, whether it's right or it's wrong. And because I feel it's wrong, I'd rather leave it --- rather than more specific, more general. So that we can deal with it on a level of a true Research Design with the archaeological frrm involved. And be really detailed in terms of our analysis of it at that level. Okay, I concur in CR-6 where the need for additional excavations at each site. That statement I'm happy with. I'm happy, at least at one level, all construction-related documents will include notations clearly identifying those areas on the site that shall be preserved as environmentally sensitive areas. I would also, somewhere in the document, and I did not see it, like a statement that would say that a qualifIed archaeologist and monitor would be on the site even after the excavations are done. Simply because no excavation can fully --- unless you literally dig every square inch of the affected area --- no archaeological excavation can fully fmd everything that's there. So if you're going to disturb the entirety of that area, it would be of great benefIt both from understanding of the site that an archaeologist and a Native American monitor be there during any grading and excavation in the area just in case something is found. Because it is human nature that you want to get a job done and it's oh so easy to just not see what flipped up with the backhoe or the grading machine. I just like extra monitoring to be sure that indeed, we are not trampling on the cultural resources if the project is approved and if the sites are truly destroyed. Yes, it's mentioned that the design for fInal mitigation will be prepared. I noticed through there that there was an understanding that the Research Design involves initial testing upon which determination for a phase three --- and I am glad that is clarifIed. I see in CR-lO that information has been added that the research both archaeologically and ethnographically will --- one of the questions that will be focused on are related areas, Puvunga et cetera. Okay, it does say all site preparation, grading and construction activities will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist --- which is what I wanted. I did not see that a Native American --- so please, in CR-12 which does address my previous point, I believe it would be important to say that a Native American monitor as well as a qualifIed archaeologist will be there. " '-' Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "Just going on that point, if you go back up to CR-9, the last sentence in the non-highlighted paragraph, it says when all site disturbance activities are complete, a Native American monitor will prepare a final monitoring report for submittal to the City of Seal Beach." Member Willey responded, "Yes, but that is in 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 19 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 \w- reference to the archaeological fIeld activities. I want to see also a reference to the grading and the construction activities as well. I don't see that. Yeah. I see that as the monitoring of the archaeological fIeld activities. Which of course I agree. In addition, location of all archaeological resources that require grading shall be indicated (fInished reading). Yeah. It's not as specifIc as I would like to see." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "You'd like, actually, some more clarifIcation in that highlighted paragraph under CR-9 --- perhaps would be the place to put the language." Member Willey stated, "Oh, I'm sorry. It's --- CR-12 is the historic resources. The same kind of thing needs to be said for the pre-historic resources. But, once you have an archaeologist on the site and once you have a Native American monitor whether the content that's found is historic or pre-historic, both, any archaeologist should be cognizant of. That is essentially my comments. In terms of the EIR itself, have lots of markers in terms of the appendix. I don't know whether I should bother to go into that." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "The appendix is a supplemental document to the EIR. And I would be more concerned if you have comments on the revised Cultural Resources section of the EIR itself. If you feel there is still inadequate information in there to allow the Council to make an informed decision is really what you need to be looking at. " '-' Member Willey Member Willey continued, "Right. To tell you the truth, as much as I read through this document, the only section that I could fmd that dealt with it was the mitigation and the appendix. Where did I miss it? Mr. Whittenberg asked, "Where did you miss what? The revised Cultural Resources section? I'm sorry, Appendix A is the revised Cultural Resources report." Member Willey stated, "That's what I was wondering, whether or not you wanted me to go into detail." Mr. Whittenberg said, "No, I don't. Let me --- the revised Cultural Resources section of the document is Appendix F. That's the actual chapter of the EIR itself. That is the actual body of the EIR document that has been revised, based on the comments received during the public comment period." Member Willey stated, "I looked through this and somehow missed that --- unless I made some comments on it. Oh I see why. Because it looked to me like it was pretty much a paraphrase of ---." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "It's a distillation --- may be is a good word to use. It distills the information from Appendix A, which is kind of a technical background document and summarizes it in an EIR format." Member Willey said, "The green page stuck together. However, what I can do, I can briefly cover the things in E. And if you fInd them in F --- that you used them in F --- those are the things I'm uncomfortable with. Let's go to page 1 of the introduction in terms of Appendix E. All right, second paragraph towards the bottom it says the location of prehistoric shellfish scatters on these knolls have been noted by archaeologists over the last 43 years. If you use this statement, I would not --- it minimizes the extent of the occupation. It's a nice comment that in essence --- there nothing but shellfIsh scatters. It's not true. Perhaps as you go through the whole document, yes, it pales in signifIcance with the information given. But if you follow ~ 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 20 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' the rule that several college students I have known well follow, of reading the fIrst and last sentence of any paragraph, and then assuming that they have acquired the knowledge, I feel that it minimizes and it makes me uncomfortable. On page 3 it says the LSA work was not completed, we don't really know the extent that they completed it unfortunately. I've heard various conflicting stories that they did excavate everything and have the records for it but they were all lost. I've also heard they never completed it because they were stopped before they completed the excavation. The fact is we just don't know. And so again, if you use that statement anywhere it's not valid because we don't know. Yeah. Ms. Salenius * P&D Consultants Ms. Salenius stated, "My question there would be, I know that the folks at SRS talked with the LSA principal investigator about that and she indicated that they had been stopped and that the cultural materials were given to the property owner." Member Willey stated, "As we understand it, the cultural materials were given to the property owner. But I have heard a variety of statements that conflict with the amount that was actually completed. Yes." Ms. Hahn Ms. Hahn stated, "There's an article in the Seal Beach Journal in August of 1990 that it had been completed because at that time Mola still wanted to build even though the '-'" City Council had voted it down." Member Willey stated, "That's what I thought." Mr. Whittenberg stated," If I might, I'd prefer we not get into a lot of comments back and forth again. I think that's going to take away from your purposes. The one comment I would make is that there may be a disagreement as to whether or not the work was done but does that change the information in the document to where ... it makes the information not understandable to the Council as they're determining whether or not there's a signifIcant impact, and I think that's what you need to focus on. Does that detail make it uncertain to the Council that there are signillcant impacts to the site? Mr. Bartlett Mr. Bartlett stated, "Let me just clarify that they weren't given to the property owner, they were given to Mola. " Member Willey Member Willey said, "You're right, my apologies. There are a number of comments along that line as well. One of the things that I must laud SRS for was their mapping efforts. They appear to be well done. Certainly the discovery of the Redwine maps, the real one, are of extreme importance. From my reading of several documents I do not doubt their validity. What I'm unhappy about, and this is just an aside just for your general information, what I am unhappy about is I do not know when those came to '-' light. And if they came to light at any point prior to SRS contact with P&D to do this 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 21 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-" study, SRS is in serious violation of archaeological ethics for not immediately turning them over to UCLA. Comment aside, but I needed to make it. Let's see, interpretations. There is a great deal of discussion, and I've marked more than one place, where discussion has gone on which site is which. At this point there are a lot of conflicting ideas in terms of how the sites should be named and so forth. It does not impact on its signifIcance in some respects but in other respects, given what SRS placed as signifIcant it certainly has an effect. I believe at this point, that the only people who can make that determination are UCLA and later KEA, or whoever eventually does the excavation. I think that those groups must sit down together and make a fmal determination and issue a paper that will resolve the question once and for all about which is the proper designation to be given --- just so that all the information from the various sites can be put together properly. Because it would be a great shame if in the mix-up that we misplace artifacts and therefore misplace the signifIcance of an area if we misinterpret the relationships of areas because of this semantic fIght. And there are just whole sections of this that are of concern. Another section I was concerned with, I'll try to wrap this up very quickly, the diversity index that was done appears to be to be simply an attempt to minimize the value of the sites on the Hellman Ranch property. To limit the diversity index and their evaluation of the sites to Redwine's collections is wrong. If you're going to use Redwine's surface collections, you need to use the surface collections of every group that worked on that site. It is unfortunate we don't have everything. I would, however, concur that the hearsay evidence of so-and-so happened to fmd --- you're welcome to note it but at this point scientillcally you can't say that this has an impact. But it can give you a direction to start looking. You know, they say that these things were found. It does provide a direction that this possibility exists. But it cannot be included in terms of analysis, simply because it's not verifIable. But I do believe that SRS in their analysis and in their designation that the majority of the sites that are on the property right now are of low signifIcance is incorrect. I would like to see it removed from any quotes that P&D may have used because Lee has admitted the City considers them all signillcant. And I don't like to see anything in the EIR that would allow people to go back and say but this is what the EIR says and they're not of signillcance. Essentially that I would throw out. Again, there are comments all over here in that section of something being valid doesn't take into account surveys. Let's see, again there's all sorts of inequalities by not using all the data that was collected, and at that point I will essentially quite talking and let anyone else who wishes to comment do so." ~ '-" Member Fitzpatrick Member Fitzpatrick stated, "My only concern at this point were the infrared photographs. They didn't show up and I'd certainly like to know why. I've been out of the country for six weeks so I might not be exactly in the loop on that. But I think they're very signifIcant. And I think we're selling ourselves short by not having them." Mr. Whittenberg said, "I can address that. From the City's standpoint, we have sent a letter to the individuals that prepared that document and evaluated the 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 22 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-" photographs requesting to purchase the photographs that they have in their possession. They have not answered the City's letter to this point in time." Mr. Whittenberg, responding to a question from Member Fitzpatrick, stated, "The letter was actually sent --- not that long ago, sent about three weeks ago. Again, I'd indicate the EIR indicates that information is available. Because of the quality of the Xeroxes they really can't make a judgment. But the City's determination is that regardless of that at this point, we still consider all the sites signifIcant." Member Willey Member Willey stated, "I only had one comment on that in terms again of what SRS said. And that was how they determined it was done at an oblique angle. I have seen those and in fact, I have seen the enhanced photographs. And I'm just real curious where they saw it as being taken as an oblique angle. If you have included that information you need further clarifIcation from SRS on how they made that determination. Especially if the Xeroxes are so bad that they can't really see the data. I just found that very difficult to understand. So that's another point that needs clarifIcation. " Member Young Member Young stated, "Well, I still think that it shouldn't be just one two-meter square excavation because of these resources are several hundred or thousand square ....... meters. And one --- excavation isn't going to tell you anything. And let's see. I also believe that the infrared photos need to be studied. And if we can't get the originals, maybe it should be done again because there are things there. Those photos did show ellipses and circles. So you can't say the things are there. And if you can't get the original photos then maybe it should be done again. And in the EIR, I believe to alternative was considered that was avoidance of the sites. If there's any way to avoid any of the sites, especially like 264 --- at least save something. I wish they would have had something in there about that. And, let me see, okay that's all." Chairperson Johnston Chairperson Johnston said, " I just have a few things I'd like to say, especially about Ora-262. I'm real disturbed about that. Either it's in or it's out or it's destroyed or it's there. And this is the area; this is the site where the burials come up from. I'm, you know, real disturbed about that and I'm real concerned about that. Because that's the area that no one really does anything with or says anything definite about. Any time there are burials it is signifIcant. It's a burial ground. As a Native American I am opposed to any destruction of any sacred site or ceremonial site. And to me this is a sacred site. We do not have methods of mitigation. We do not want our burials destroyed. We want our burials left alone and that's our preference. I am not an expert and I don't know much about archaeology, I'm going to admit that or anything like that. I just know how I feel. I'm being taught by good, smart people. I listen to '-' people like Lori and the Committee members who also are friends, our professional 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 23 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' friends who are here to help us. I have a lot of problem with this EIR. I have a lot of problems with SRS. I vehemently opposed them in the beginning and still do. They have been a part to the destruction of many of our ancestral burial grounds. And I cannot resolve or reconcile to them --- maybe never. So, I've had a problem with this from the very beginning --- that SRS was employed to do the EIR. And at this point that's all I have to say, thank you." '-' Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg said, "I think at this point, I don't know if you wish to try to deal with the resolutions that we've suggested you consider this evening or if you want to continue this matter to another meeting to do that. It's really up to you as Committee members as to where you wish to go from here. Again, understand that if you do not take some sort of an action before September 3r'" you may not be making recommendations to the Planning Commission, you may just be making recommendations directly to the City Council. The Planning Commission Public Hearing is scheduled for September 3rd. Given the track record of the Planning Commission, I would be surprised if they make any determinations that night. They will be in the position to. So I don't want you to think they will not. They could if they felt they were ready to. They may not. If they do not, they would continue the matter to their meeting of September 17th. And then at that point, they still may continue the matter again --- it's hard to predict where --- how long it will take them to deliberate the matter. So, I just want you to be aware that if you postpone from tonight until some time after September 3rd, you may not be making any recommendations to the Commission but just directly to the City Council." Chairperson Johnston asked, "How is the wording on your resolutions?" Mr. Whittenberg indicated they are in your agenda packet, stating, "They're the ones that were delivered in your agenda packet - in the mail to you. Actually, they were delivered about a week ago. But before you consider the resolutions, I think we need to go back to the purpose of your review. It's to determine whether or not this document is adequate under CEQA for the purposes of CEQA legislation. And I just want to read the section of CEQA that talks about what is an adequate document; it says An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive. But the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. But the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have to look not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure. That is Section 15151 of Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. " Mr. Whittenberg continued, stating , "To follow on that point, to just reiterate it, we as staff, the consultant team, the City Attorney's OffIce has reviewed all the comments. Particularly, the City Attorney's OffIce and us have spent a lot of time in reviewing the responses to ensure that we feel that the responses to the comments are '-' 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 24 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' adequate under CEQA and under case law that has come about over the years since CEQA has existed. In the City Attorney's opinion and in our opinion as staff, we feel that the document before you is an adequate document in accordance with that section of the CEQA Guidelines that I just read to you. You as Committee members obviously have the discretion to disagree with our judgment and that is perfectly fme. But I just want you to understand when you're making your responses to either the Planning Commission, the EQCB or the City Council as to the adequacy of the document, the adequacy should be judged within the framework of the language of that section of CEQA. Whether or not there's again a concern as to which site is or is not in the project, what artifacts mayor may not be attributed to one site over another site, in our mind those are details that don't change the determinations in the document. The document says yes there are number of sites on the property, and there are more sites now on the property than there were at the beginning of this process. And that each of those sites has the potential to be a signifIcant site. Each of those sites needs to be evaluated. And you need to make a determination as to whether or not that information is adequate for the Council to make an informed decision once they consider whether or not to approve the project. " '-" Member Goldberg Member Goldberg stated, "I think the Committee should make some type of a decision tonight --- either accepting it or rejecting it, because I think it is important that we present all of our fmdings to the Planning Committee. If there are some minority that oppose it or accept it and they're the minority, then I think that have the privilege of going to the Planning Committee and making their statement. I don't have a problem with having another meeting for the public but I do have a problem if we don't make some kind of decision so the Planning Committee gets it on September 3rd. " Member Young Member Young stated, "Well, Bruce hasn't had a chance to go into it in any detail. If four of us vote, because he'd probably abstain, right? Member Young asked Member Fitzpatrick, "Are you ready to vote? You are, okay. Well, I don't think we should rush it, either way. The Planning Committee might not vote on it is what Lee said." Mr. Whittenberg said, "All I said, was given their previous track record, it's unusual for them to make a decision on a project of this nature at the very fIrst meeting. But I can't guarantee that they won't. And I just want you to be aware that if you defer taking some sort of recommendation until after September 3rd, you may not be providing any information to that particular reviewing body." Member Young stated, "But actually the City Council is who makes the decision ultimately." Mr. Whittenberg indicated that is correct. Member Young continued, stating, "So our recommendations would hold a lot of weight to them. They would to the Planning Commission too, but, I mean, it's not the '-'" determining body." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "It's just that I don't want you to assume 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 25 Archaeological Advisory Committee AdJourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' that if you don't do something by September 3f'\ that the Planning Commission is going to consider it, because they may not be in a position to do that if they've already made their decision." Member Young stated, "Okay, I would be willing to come back on the 10th, a week before. If anyone else wants to." Member Goldberg indicated the Commission is meeting on the third of September. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Fitzpatrick that the Committee make a decision tonight. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 3-2 Goldberg, Fitzpatrick, and Willey Young and Chairperson Johnston Mr. Whittenberg stated, "The first set of resolutions begin on page 10 of your staff report. The alternate resolution on page 13. Given the comments you've provided at this point in time, I would think you might want to go to the resolution on page 13, which says that the EIR itself, you feel, is adequate subject to certain changes being made in it. And what I've heard at this point is that the changes that were discussed in the mitigation measures would be included in this resolution as things that would need to be corrected to consider the document adequate. The comments regarding the information in Appendix E document would be carried along, into the Appendix F '-' document if that same language appears in the Appendix E. In all cases I'm not sure that's the case --- in some cases it is. And so I think that's my understanding of the concern that I've heard expressed by one member of the Committee. And that may be where you want to start to focus on. And then if there are additional issues that you feel need to be added to that consideration of things that still need to be considered for changes that's probably what you should focus on." Member Goldberg Member Goldberg stated, "One thing I'd like to see be added onto that would be the photos. I agree with Barbara, if we can't get the original, is it a possibility that we could have them taken again?" Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I understand the concern. At this point, I think that's probably a more appropriate item to deal with as part of the Research Design. That's my suggestion to you. Because again, having photographs done at this point isn't going to change the conclusions that the City's already reached, that each of those sites are signifIcant and each one of them is going to be impacted. The importance of those photographs, in my mind, is to assist the actual fIeld investigator when they're doing their test level investigations --- as to where to focus those investigations. I don't think --- I think the appropriate place for that type of concern is in the Research Design so that it's very clear that the City has a concern that where those aerial photographs show an area of concern, that those areas be focused on as part of the test level investigations." '-r 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 26 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' Member Willey Member Willey said, "In looking at Appendix F, now that I've had an opportunity to do so, certainly from page 160 to the middle of page 164, that is simply a reiteration of the table I went over so very thoroughly. All of my comments, I feel that in order to even begin to say I approve it, those changes would have to be made in that section of it. I do note that in terms of level of significance after mitigation, it does say that the proposed project will impact ten important archaeological sites. I am gratified to see that. I wish there were a way that Appendix E could simply be dumped, it would make life much simpler." Mr. Whittenberg stated, "If I might, just from the City's standpoint it's a technical document that's used to prepare the rest of the information and it's really needed as an administrative record for the City's protection." Member Willey responded, "I recognize that, I just don't like it. " '-" Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "Maybe if I might then, what I would recommend to you us that the Committee may wish to consider the adoption of Resolution 97-1a, which is on page 13 of your staff report. On page 16 is an Exhibit A, which indicates the AAC met on August 2~ to review the above-referenced portion of the FEIR. The following is a summary of what we believe are the key inadequacies of this section of the EIR. And in that section then we would go through and list the changes that are felt to be appropriate to the mitigation measures and provide direction from the previous discussion we've already had as to which areas of the Cultural Resources Section itself should be considered for revision based on the comments of the Committee." Member Willey said, "There is no question that we have a list of things, I don't know whether the AAC agrees with my comments on those mitigation measures. Those certainly, I feel, need to be in there. Obviously we need to vote whether you agree as well. I don't know whether we're ready for a motion, I think we need to start listing the inadequacies. " Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "From my point, the inadequacies that you have listed as far as the mitigation measures, we would go through those and list those in the document here. I would then go back to the tape and list the inadequacies that you indicated in your comments and that the other members have listed in their comments in this section and forward that on to the Committee. " Member Willey Member Willey asked, "Would you have that done in time that we would review it and see if there are any other additional ones that need to be put in there or not?" Mr. Whittenberg said, "At this point I can only put in the ones you have stated on the tape." Member Willey stated, "Well, that's what I'm saying --- but would we see that to make sure you didn't happen to miss any?" Mr. Whittenberg said, "If you would --- """ what I would suggest to you, we could have it in a draft form for you to consider on 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 27 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' September 3 at 5:30 p.m. before the Planning Commission meeting that night." Member Willey said, "I think we need to look at it. Unless we can fully formalize everything right now. " Member Goldberg Member Goldberg stated, "Let me say something. The question I have is you that you could get together with Lee and see if everything's in there, and if it isn't you could go before the Planning Committee that night and add anything additional to it." Mr. Whittenberg indicated, "Sure that's a possibility. The other thing we're going to attempt to do before the Planning Commission meeting, if not, we will do a set of minutes from this meeting for presentation to them that evening so they will have a record of your discussion. We usually go into a fair amount of detail as to what the discussion and concerns were. And we usually try to get particular concerns very exact in the minutes. So that is also something that the Planning Commission would have by that point in time. I can't guarantee we'll have them ready for September 3rd because we only have tomorrow and Tuesday to get them done because of the holiday and the work schedule. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I'm not going to guess what they're going to do. People always ask me what are you going to do or what's EQCB --- yeah. Well, I don't know what they'll do. And it's really what you '-" as a Committee have a comfort level. If you want --- we can pretty well have the general comments drafted ftrst thing Tuesday morning, probably. Because I happen to work Thursday and Friday both this week so I can have this part pretty much done by Friday afternoon to where I can get it out to you over the weekend. Hopefully, if not, it'd be Tuesday morning." Member Willey After discussion among the Committee, Member Willey said, "1 found the same section in terms of the letter which .., if the concerns Exhibit A are addressed we consider it adequate. It's such a hard thing because what CEQA requires this probably does meet if these concerns are taken care of. And much as I, to some degree, hate to admit it, simply because of the archaeological concerns that I naturally have. Because we're being put into this framework of CEQA, if the concerns are addressed, essentially it does. It does not necessarily make me feel warm and fuzzy that everything that we want as archaeologists are going to happen. I can only hope that our detailed discussions with KEA will resolve those. But obviously, we're going to end up going to the next step, one or the other. And either we take some action and make sure that our concerns are known before we get steamrollered --- I don't want this Committee to end up being ineffective, saying that because we don't like everything about it we're just not going to do anything. In that I think we would not fulfill the purpose for which the City has appointed us. So, my recommendation is that we --- I make a '-'" Motion that we approve Attachment lA as written, that we will recommend that the 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 28 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' EIR is adequate as far as the Cultural Resources section is concerned, if the changes as addressed on the tape by all of the individuals involved are listed. " Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg said, "Let me clarify one point. When you say by all the individuals involved is that as articulated by the members of the Committee? Okay. I just wanted to make sure what the intent of that comment was." MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Goldberg to recommend to the Environmental Quality Control Board that the EIR Cultural Resources section is adequate subject to the modifIcations that were discussed regarding the mitigation measures, and the language in Appendix F that members of the Committee had a concern with the language in Appendix E that might be carried over into that section. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 3-2 Goldberg, Fitzpatrick, and Willey Young and Chairperson Johnston Member Goldberg After discussion among the Committee regarding reconsideration of the motion, Member Goldberg said, "Let me ask a technical question. If we approve this on a vote ~ tonight and it comes back next Wednesday, does it get voted on again? I mean --- this is getting to be too complicated. It think that if we vote and it's passed 3 -2, it has to go now before the Planning Committee as we assume the things that we want changed or suggested in changes will be there. And if members disagree with that, in a negative or the positive, have a right to come to the Planning Committee and make another statement." Mr. Whittenberg said, "I think that's a determination of the Committee. What I would suggest to you --- you may want to have some more discussion on this. If you, as a Committee, take an action to have another meeting to review it, the resolution before it goes to the Planning Commission, whether it's Wednesday or Tuesday, what your motion should be at this point is to instruct us to prepare the resolution for your review based on the comments. If you feel though that you do not want to have another meeting to look at the resolution before that meeting, then your resolution should just be to approve it subject to us putting information in, forwarding that to the Planning Commission, and then you as members of the Committee always have a right to come down and address the Planning Commission and say they didn't get it quite right, this is really what else should be in it. It's really a choice as to how you as a Committee want to proceed. " After further discussion among the Committee, Chairperson Johnston said, "We're a democracy I see and the motion is passed." Mr. Whittenberg said, "That motion has been approved on a 3-2 vote. The motion at this point that's been approved instructs '-"' me to prepare a resolution for submission to the Planning Commission that includes all 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 29 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-" of the concerns as expressed by the Committee to this point in your meeting. Now if there's a motion for reconsideration in that, we'd need a motion and a second to reconsider. And that would need to be an approved motion before you can reconsider it. MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION by Young; SECOND by Johnston to reconsider the previous motion of the Committee. MOTION FAILS: AYES: NOES: 2-3 Young and Chairperson Johnston Goldberg, Fitzpatrick, and Willey Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "We will try to distribute the Resolution, with the attachment, Exhibit A, based on the discussion, to all the members of the Committee prior to the Planning Commission meeting." Member Willey asked, "I understand that even if you didn't actually get it out to us, if we come to the Planning Commission that resolution will be there because it will be in their packets. Is that correct?" Mr. Whittenberg stated, "It will probably be delivered to them that day." Member Willey inquired, "So \w. we would still get it as long as we showed up before the meeting so we can double- check it quickly?" Mr. Whittenberg said, "Yes, we'll have copies available for you." Member Willey Member Willey said, "The other thing, if I may, that I wanted to point out is, because you voted "no" you will be in the NAY section. It's not as if --- oh yeah --- oh absolutely. But it's not as if we're just not letting them know there was disagreement." Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "If I might, you have one other resolution to consider. The resolution you took an action on is actually a resolution that goes to the EQCB regarding the adequacy of the Cultural Resources section. You also have a resolution and I think you would want to go to page 21 of the staff report. This is the actual resolution to the Planning Commission that indicates whether or not you agree or disagree with the mitigation measures. And again, Exhibit A would list those changes to the mitigation measures that have been discussed by the Committee. And it would be appropriate to have a Motion to approve that resolution with those corrections to the mitigation measures. And then that resolution will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. And this is the one that will actually go to the Planning Commission." MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Fitzpatrick to approve Resolution No. 97-2, '-'" subject to corrections to the mitigation measures as set forth by Member Willey. 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 30 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adfourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' In response to a question of the Committee, Mr. Whittenberg stated, "It's different in the fact that this will only deal with the mitigation measures. It won't deal with the discussion in Appendices E and F and what should or shouldn't be in that part of it. Because this is only for mitigation measures only. In the EIR - and the changes that have been discussed by the Committee this evening. And the changes. Those will be indicated in Exhibit A. " Chairperson Johnston asked for the vote, indicating the motion passed 3 -2. MOTION CARRIED: 3-2 AYES: NOES: Goldberg, Fitzpatrick, and Willey Young and Chairperson Johnston Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "Thank you very much. I appreciate your struggling. I know it's not been an easy process for the Committee to go through. Your next item on your agenda is Committee Concerns. " '-' COMMITTEE CONCERNS - None STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "The regular meeting is not until October 8th --- I think the 8th is the date. As you discussed at your last meeting regarding the Research Design, the public comment period on the Research Design ends September I 8t. We're suggesting that you may want to schedule a meeting for September 10th to review the Final Research Design. That will be the revised document based on the comments received during the public comment period, prior it going to the Council on September 22nd. I would indicate to you at this point that's a date that's tentative, assuming that we have everything done by that date. But we would suggest that you continue this meeting to that date to consider the Final Research Design." Member Goldberg suggested meeting on September 17th. Mr. Whittenberg indicated, "That's perfectly fme. It gives us more time in case we're not done by that point in time. But we would anticipate being done by then. " '-' After discussion among the Committee, Mr. Whittenberg indicated there would need to be a motion to continue this meeting to September 17 at 5:30 p.m. to consider the Final Research Design on the Hellman Ranch project. 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 31 Archaeological Advisory Committee Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 1997 '-' MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to continue this meeting to September 17, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. to consider the Final Research Design on the Hellman Ranch project. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: NOES: Goldberg, Fitzpatrick, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None Mr. Whittenberg Mr. Whittenberg stated, "I have one other document that was just given you at your desk this evening. It's a document we received from the Navy regarding IR site 1. In accordance with your directives to us from a number of meetings ago, we're providing the document to you at this time for your review. It will be on your regular agenda for October for consideration at that point. There's no time limits indicated in the document one way or the other so we're assuming none. If there's a change that we become aware of we would do something to make you aware of that and try to schedule a special meeting. " ADJOURNMENT '-' There being no objections, Chairperson Johnston adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee ~k~ ~hittenberg. Secretary ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of August 27, 1997 were approved on OC-ThS~ 8 ,1997. '-" 08-27-97 Minutes.doc 32 To: The City of Seal Beach From: Moira Hahn '-' Date: August 26,1997 Subject: Initial Comments and Questions about the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan I hereby object to approval of the project in it's present form. The following comments and all references contained therein are hereby incorporated into the official record of proceedings of this project and it's successors. (PRC 21177(b).) I have not had time to prepare a full listing of the inadequacies of this FEIR. I intend to submit further comments to the City prior to the close of the review period for the FEIR. '-' 1. Many local Native Americans and archaeologists believe that the archaeological sites on the Hellman Ranch project site are part of the Puvungna Village complex, a unique group of sites that has tremendous cultural and religious significance in Native American cultural history. Puvungna is believed to have been the birth place of Wiyot and his descendant Chinigchinich, figures revered as Gods by many California and other Great Basin Indian tribes. Puvungna should therefore be considered analogous to Jerusalem in the latter city's importance to Christian and Jewish believers. The Hellman archaeological sites' relationship to Puvungna has not been explored in the FEIR or in the Research Design. 2. The ethnographic component is missing. Although a contact letter has been sent to some Native Americans to tell them about the project, both the FEIR and the Research Design describe an "ethnographic component" that will somehow bring the Indians into the process, However, neither the FEIR nor the Research Design specifies how, when, where, or by whom local Native Americans will be interviewed to permit them to contribute expertise and knowledge to the development of a testing program. It is not clear whether any Indians will be interviewed, the time frame during which the ethnographic intake part of the process will take place, whose knowledge will be sought, how that determination will be made, or how information that may be received will be incorporated into the planning of the investigation, Mr. Jamie Cleland of KEA stated at the SBAAC meeting on August 13 that the ethnographic study will not be in the Research Design because it will be conducted after that document has been approved, during the testing program, This is a backwards approach. The Native Americans have indicated they want to be involved from the beginning of the process. They can't contribute to the ~ development of a testing program that they will not be invited to participate in until it has been approved by the City and is already underway, ~ Furthermore, the California Coastal Commission stated in it's May 27, 1997 letter to the City (included in the FEIR) that the City must ensure "that the appropriate Native American groups have been consulted in the development of the investigation". 3. The FEIR contains a multitude of false and misleading statements that lead readers to form false conclusions regarding Historic Resources known to have been discovered at the sites, Key examples that contradict the documented facts on record with the Planning Department at Seal Beach City Hall and with the State's regional archive at UCLA include a denial that numerous human burials have been found on the project site, and a denial that the project site was ever used as a religious or ceremonial area. 4. Artifact diversity data in the FEIR is still incomplete, which SRS states is sufficient because it is not required to provide every detail and artifact; yet the FEIR relies on these incomplete artifact diversity inventories and descriptions to make determinations concerning the archaeological sites' values, Thus the City is basing it's scientific conclusions on an incomplete data base. Much of the data left out of the FEIR concerns ceremonial artifacts and materials and burials found there by previous investigators, ~ 5. The FEIR does not consider the sites directly across the street that were contiguous before Seal Beach Blvd. existed, yet they are, by all professional accounts, continuations of the same sites on the property. If the facts are examined within this context, the FEIR's conclusions of occupational chronology and site usage/diversity/"value" for the archaeological sites on the project site are inaccurate. 6. SRS, the firm that drafted the Historic Resources chapter of the FEIR, has deferred answering most questions regarding the archaeological sites, because (SRS states in the FEIR) KEA will be doing the field investigation to determine those facts. CEQA and numerous recent court decisions forbid this practice. It is putting the cart before the horse, The facts regarding Historic Resources present on the development site must be disclosed in the EIR before the City can consider it. The EIR can not be finalized until KEA's field investigation has been completed, and the facts about Historic Resources remaining on the project site are fully disclosed and understood. 7. SRS and KEA have obfuscated important issues, both in the FEIR and in the Research Design, concerning reported ancient human burials discovered on the project site, The firms have accomplished this by renaming state registered archaeological sites, moving sites off the project site, claiming sites are mapped elsewhere on the property than what is shown in the latest State Registered site survey forms; and, at least in the FEIR, 'confusing' the documented facts about '-' the burials found there. ? Examples include SRS' 'confusion' regarding the metacarpal from CA-Ora-852, Chief Stearns' comments regarding the presence of human remains as reported "-" by Archaeological Associates (AA) in it's 1980 survey (FEIR incorrectly denies the passage in AA's report exists), the 1990 Coroner's report that the FEIR implies the City and SRS still haven't seen (even though the report is actually in the ' FEIR, because I submitted it), and what appears to be a deliberate attempt to confuse readers to the source of two separate ancient skulls, one identified as Gabrielino and the other showing Paiute characteristics, found in different places on the Hellman Ranch and in the river bed that forms a project border, 22 years apart. CA-Ora-262 has been renamed Area 0, for some reason, and that's where previous archaeological investigators said "several aboriginal burials" were found in the 1970's. The present investigation calls for only two units to be excavated there; this is highly unlikely to provide an accurate assessment of potential remaining burials. The FEIR states that what had later been mistakenly mapped as CA-Ora-263 is really Redwine's LH-9, or CA-Ora-264. This makes a difference, because one or two burials Redwine discovered as well as a substantial portion of the inventories of religious and ceremonial artifacts therefore are likely to have been discovered on the project site, rather than to the north of it on ground that was destroyed by development. From the 1970's until this year, previous professional archaeological researchers believed that sites 264 and 265 had long \..... since been destroyed. This point was not made in the FEIR. 8. There is an inadequate discussion in the FEIR and in the Research Design of how Seal Beach resident Dr. Leonard Cutulli's Native American cemetery map of the proposed project site, and Mr. Glenn Peaseley's testimony regarding two burials and an artifact he found in site 852 (on the project site) will be investigated. I couldn't find any discussion in either document. 9, The FEIR does not consider project alternatives that avoid the archaeological sites. The developer only considered alternate configurations that would also destroy the sites, 10. The 15-25' rings and ellipses apparent on computer enhancements of infrared photographs taken last year of the proposed project site have not been investigated. If these features can not be explained by post-contact activity, they would be unique resources of great interest to the Native American, educational and scientific communities. '-" 1