Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 2002-10-09 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of October 9, 2002 I. Call to Order The meeting of the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) was called to order at 5 :33 p.m. on Wednesday, October 9, 2002. The meeting was held in the City Hall Council Chambers.\ II. Roll Call Present: Absent: Members Coles, Fitzpatrick, Hoy, and Vesely Dixon Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director III. Approval of Agenda MOTION by Vesely; SECOND by Coles to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Coles, Fitzpatrick, Hoy, and Vesely None Dixon Member Dixon arrived at 5:38 p.m. IV. Oral Communications Mr. Doug Korthoff stated that what happened on the Hellman Mesa is the worst thing that could possibly have occurred. He said that the bulldozing of Native American remaInS took place in a very dIsrespectful manner. He stated that when this permit was granted on October 11, 2000, Lillian Robles, an elder of one of the Native American tribes spoke with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and requested that the remaInS and cultural relics of her people be handled with respect. She maintained that there were graves and artifacts on this site and had requested that Native American monitors be on site, that the momtors be given the power to stop the bulldozers if anything were dIscovered, and to ensure that 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting C \Documents and Settmgs\LWhlttenberg\My Documents\ARCHCOMM\IO-09-02 Mmutes doc\LW\\2-05-02 Clty of Seal Beach Archaeologlcal AdvlSOry Commlttee Meetzng Minutes of October 9,2002 . every construction document contained this information. He indicated that one of the conditions of the CCC permit was that there was to be no destruction of cultural resources. He stated that when the permit was granted, it was split off into a mini-permit to do an archaeological investigation, which was thought to be deficient because it would not discover remains if they were more than 40 centimeters deep. He said that before anything could be done the archaeological investigation was supposed to guarantee that there were no remains on the site. He noted that the archaeological investigation failed to reveal the presence of any remains, but when the bulldozing began all of the Native American monitors saw the violation and attempted to call this to the attention of the developer, and were ignored and even threatened with the tractors and with possible arrest. For the record he read the account of this incident as told by Mr. David Jordan, Native American monitor. (Copy on file in the Department of Development Services.) He encouraged the archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) to support the preservation ofthese burial sites. Ms. Sue Corbin stated that she was in agreement with Mr. Korthoffs comments. She requested that the AAC not "rubber stamp" the Staff Report on the "Archaeological Investigations Within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area" as presented tonight. She stated that the AAC must find out exactly what is going on at this project site and why all of the conditions for approval of the permit were not followed. . Ms. Reva Olson stated that she had attended the pilgrimage on Sunday, October 6, 2002, and was shocked to learn that two Native American monitors had been fired because they were honest. She said that this site has always been known to be a burial ground and there should be more respect for the indigenous cultures. She reiterated that the monitors should not have been fired. She commented that she would not want anyone digging up her grandmother and the Native Americans deserve more respect. Ms. Lisa Rosen also spoke in favor of preserving the Native American burial sites. She encouraged the members of the AAC and CIty Staff to lend their support in any way possible. . Ms. Kay Cope, stated that she is Cherokee and they have always known where the Native American burial grounds were and did not have to mark them until the Europeans came to Turtle Island, the former name for the United States of America. She said that this is not the first time that issues related to the burial sites on the Hellman Mesa have had to be addressed. She emphasized that they were the first people on this continent and when the land was taken from their race, none of it was paid for. She noted that every treaty made with the Native Americans has been broken. She stated that the least that could be done is to leave the graves alone. She said that these ancestors have the nght to have decent burials and not have their bones broken up and scattered. She commented about similar situations occurring at various locations in Southern California where remains were removed and no one knows where they were taken. She noted that American cemeteries are protected and there never has to be concern of their ancestor's remains being disturbed. She requested respect for the gravesites and noted that the Native Amencan Grave Protection Act should be honored and that the law be obeyed. 10-09-02 Mmutes 3 . . . Czty of Seal Beach Archaeologlcal AdvlSOry Commlttee Meeting Mmutes of October 9,2002 v. Consent Calendar 1. RECEIVE AND FILE Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re: "Seal Beach Weapons Support Facility, Installation Restoration Program - Receipt of Final Site Management Plan", staff report dated March 27,2001 (Note: correct date of Staff Report is March 27, 2002) Member Dixon requested that Item Nos. 2 and 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. MOTION by Hoy; SECOND by Coles to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Coles, Dixon, Fitzpatrick, Hoy, and Vesely None None 2. RECEIVE AND FILE "Archaeological Investigations Within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area, Seal Beach, California", prepared by EDA W, Inc. (formerly KEA Environmental, Inc.), dated September 2002 Member Coles stated that the City had performed its due diligence with respect to the minimum mitigation requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said that the recommendations as indicated by KEA and EDA W were carried out by the developer. He stated that typically projects of this kind will have a mitigation plan and the document which he has read holds to that, and whether or not these measure were performed lies beyond the scope of the AAC. Member Dixon referred to the first paragraph on Page 71 of the report and asked why EDA W did not note that the sites were also eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. He then read the "ConclusIOns" paragraph on Page 75 with special attention to the reference to Chapter 1. He then read from the "Project Summary" section on Page 1 of Chapter 1, beginning with Line 9 and pointed out that trenching is not a part of data recovery. He explained that this is simply exploration. He questioned who in the City is qualified to make an archaeological determination of what is or is not redundant. He noted that the consulting archaeologist should be considered a business that has to satisfy the clients and satisfy professional standards in order to maintain their reputation. He noted that the terminology of the report should reflect what the project had determined, and not what the CIty had determined. He requested a statement from the consultant providing clarification as to what the actual determination was. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the CCC issues two gradmg permits: The first permit for mass grading of the project to accommodate future home development, and a separate permit is then issued for the final grading and utility installations. The second permit has not yet been issued. He indicated that the archaeological investigation report by EDA W dated September 2002 was done for the mass grading permit to be approved. He noted that the remams were discovered 10-09-02 Mmutes 4 . . . Clty of Seal Beach Archaeological AdvlSOry Commlttee Meetzng Mznutes of October 9, 2002 when the mass grading began. He indicated that a final report on the cultural findings would be provided in the future. He emphasized that the September 2002 report is not the report of final findings. He stated that the research design that was approved by the City and CCC for the rough grading activity was a test program to determine through this process if there were additional burial sites. He said that when this program was implemented there was nothing to indicate that there were additional burial sites there; however, when the mass grading began burials were found. Member Dixon briefly described the usual testing procedures for potential archeological sites and inquired as to when approximately the research design was circulated. Mr. Whittenberg reported that it was circulated in 1998-99 with ample time for review and response. He indicated that the AAC would have an opportunity to review the final report and make recommendations as soon as it is available. Member Dixon commented that testing for this site should have been completed years ago, as, unfortunately, now the work has been stopped and the developer is losing money because burials and archaeological resources are now being discovered and are being damaged and the site destroyed. He indicated that someone should be held responsible for not having addressed this sooner. Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that the research design document had been circulated and reviewed by the AAC, Native American groups, and the CCC. He again explained that when the program was implemented and the grading begun, the burial sites were dIscovered and the mass grading was stopped and a controlled grading program was implemented, removing soil in one- inch increments rather than 12 to 18 inches, which is normally done. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff would prepare a letter for the Committee to send to EDA W requesting clarification regarding Member Dixon's concerns about the National Register and "CIty determination" questions. Member Hoy confirmed that the report received is reflective of what the research design was, and that what the City, the Native American Monitor, and CCC had approved was what was done. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was correct. Member Coles stated that what happens during the monitoring process and the initial approval and design phase of the research document are two separate issues. He asked who set up the transects and if they suspected that there was something there why did they not increase the density of the transects. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would prepare a letter to consultants requesting clarification on these Issues. Member Coles reported that in the past he has worked with both KEA and EDA W who are both very reputable firms. He stated that the subject document is a good quality document, based on generally accepted engineering practices. He noted that he is not an archaeologist and would defer to Staff in that area. Mr. Whittenberg clanfied for the record that the City, not the developer, hired the archaeology firm. Member Vesely asked whether the grading is to continue. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this would be an issue between John Laing Homes and the CCC as far as a conditional compliance issue. He indicated that once this is resolved, assuming the "cease and desist" order is lifted, 10-09-02 MInutes 5 . . . Czty of Seal Beach Archaeologlcal AdvlSOry Commlttee Meetzng Mznutes of October 9,2002 grading will continue in accordance with the permit and the report will reflect what occurred during completion of the grading. Member Dixon stated that he would like reassurance from the CCC regarding what their determination will be. He noted that there were Native American and archaeological interests to be considered. He reported that in recent years more and more Native Americans are becoming archaeologists in order to have a better understanding of information on cultural resources. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the CCC has met with the most likely descendent (MLD) for the project and are discussing these Issues. The members of the AAC requested that a draft copy of the letter to the consultant be provided for their review. MOTION by Hoy; SECOND by Coles to RECEIVE AND FILE "Archaeological Investlgations Within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area, Seal Beach, California", prepared by EDA W, Inc. (formerly KEA Environmental, Inc.), dated September 2002 as presented and direct Staff to prepare a letter to the California Coastal CommIssion and the consultmg archaeologist to reflect the concerns expressed by the Archaeological Advisory Committee in reviewing the subject document. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Coles, Dixon, Fitzpatrick, Hoy, aDd Vesely NODe None 3. RECEIVE AND FILE Status Report re: Hellman RanchlHeron Pointe Archaeological Program Member Dixon noted that the final page was omItted from Attachment 2 (distributed to the Advisory Committee as Agenda Item V-3). The document is Pubhc Resources Code 5097.94 and 5097.98, with three lines from 5097.99. He read the missing portion into the minutes because they have particular importance III view of current events. Member Dixon indicated the missing page has three subsections. It completes subsection (a) and includes (b), regarding obtaining or possessing artifacts or human remains from a Native American grave or cairn. Member Dixon indIcated he believes that subsection (c) IS particularly significant: "Any person who removes, without authority of law, any Natzve Amerzcan grave or cairn with an intent to sell or dissect or wzth malice or wantonness is guilty of afelony which is punzshabZe by imprzsonment in the state prison." Member Dixon stated he has not checked the dictionary definition of "wantonness", but the dictionary definition of "wanton" include such words and phrases as: without regard for what is right, just, or humane, malicious, careless, reckless, etc. 10-09-02 Mmutes 6 . . . Clty of Seal Beach Archaeological Advlsory Commlttee Meetzng Mznutes of October 9, 2002 Member Dixon added that subsection (c) has particular relevance because of allegations reported to the Advisory Committee, to the City Council, and in the media. If the alleged conduct meets legal definitions of malice or wantonness, that may be a felony under state law. While not in the jurisdiction of the City of Seal Beach, he beheves it would be advisable that the city attorney request the state attorney general's office to review the matter. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believed these issues should be addressed to EDA W, as they are the archaeologists that have been out in the field working on this project. He noted that his understanding of the removals that have occurred is that this had been m concurrence with the MLD. Member Vesely asked who was responsible for paying the Natlve American Monitor. Mr. Whittenberg reported that they are on EDAW's payroll. Member Vesely interjected that the monitors were "let go." Mr. Whittenberg stated that he did not believe this statement to be correct. He indicated that because of the "cease and desist" order stopping the work, the monitors were not needed at this time. Member Dixon inquired about the alleged refusal of the bulldozer operator to stop the grading. Mr. Whittenberg reported that this is an issue currently being addressed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NARC), whose representative met with the MLD and the property owner. Member Dixon indicated that because the allegations have reached the Advisory Committee as hearsay, there should be written reports from those who were on-site witnesses to the events, including the MLD, Indian monitors, the machine operators, and supervisors. . Mr. Whittenberg stated that he had no idea of this and stated that the MLD is not at the site the majority of the time and the monitors are his representatives. Member Coles indicated that typically the monitors keep a daily log of what activities ensue. He requested a copy of this log. Member Hoy asked whether City Council had enforcement responsibility or whether CCC is responsible for this. Mr. Whittenberg stated that CCC would be responsible for enforcement. He explained that City Council does not have any enforcement ability over CCC condItions. He said that a CCC permit compliance issue, which is the result of an interpretation of the language of a condition, has caused the "cease and desist" order. He commented that he did not believe anyone would say that there have not been some difficulties in working through the MLD with regard to how burials should be handled as discovered, what type of treatment should occur around those burials, and what type of testing programs should occur. He said that thIS is why the NARC was brought in to serve as a mediator to work with the MLD in conjunction with the archaeologist and the property owner to come up with a transect program that met the concerns of the Native Americans and John Laing Homes. He reported that the process agreed to is to be formalized into a written report and submitted to CCC in an attempt to resolve the interpretation issue and lift the "cease and desist" order. Member Coles asked if once the "cease and desist" order is lifted, would a procedure be established for the developer to follow that would allow for appropriate handling of additional remains should they be discovered. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this would be part of the CCC's concern. Member Dixon stated that there appear to be several potential liability issues involved. Mr. Whittenberg noted that these were issues of law and would be addressed m the consultant's final report. He reassured the Committee members that all of the remains that were found complete have been retained as such. He noted that this particular property has been disked for fire prevention for 40 years and it is quite possible that some of the remains may have been damaged during the disking. He encouraged maintaining a calm and objective approach to data coming in via the newspapers, flyers, etc. 10-09-02 Mmutes 7 Clty of Seal Beach Archaeologlcal Advlsory Commlttee Meetzng Mznutes of October 9,2002 . Member Coles asked once the "cease and desist" is lifted, what could be done to ensure that further degradation of the Native American burial sites does not occur. Mr. WhIttenberg stated that Staff could prepare a letter through the AAC to send to CCC encouraging responsible and respectful treatment of burial remains to the greatest extent practicable. He pointed out that the owner of the property has a right to do certain things on his property, but the MLD does not agree with this. He indicated that one of the items under discussion between John Laing Homes and the CCC is whether it will be possible to preserve the existing remains in place and somehow redesign the project. He stated that John Laing homes has authorized the City's archaeologist to look at how the approved development plan would have to change m order to attempt to accommodate this. Member Dixon again emphasized that this all should have been done years ago as a change in development plans could cost a fortune. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the only way of knowing what is out there is to go through a complete grading of the property. . Member Vesely compared the two schools of thought operating here: prime real estate with the almighty dollar and sacred Native American burial grounds. He stated that they are not compatible and he is saddened by the fact that the dollar is going to win out in this case. He noted that although unrealistic, his vote would be to scrap this project. He stated that what has transpired over the last two weeks is appalling and he would be hard-pressed to vote in favor of any future grading. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that these issues have already been decided. He stated that he would be happy to check with the CCC to see if they would feel comfortable in referring the proposed mitigation program back to the AAC for some sort of review prior to taking final action given the confidential nature of the documents and the fact that this Committee cannot meet in closed session to discuss confidential documents. He noted that the CCC's legal counsel would have to deal with this issue. He indicated that when the proposal is submitted to CCC, they would forward a copy to the MLD for his review and comments, so perhaps it would be possible to have it sent to the AAC for comments. He cautioned that these comments could not be made during a public meeting, as information on specific burial site locations is confidential and would need to be discussed in a closed session meeting. MOTION by Hoy; SECOND by Coles to RECENE AND FILE Status Report re: Hellman Ranch/Heron Pointe Archaeological Program and direct Staff to prepare a letter to the California Coastal Commission requesting the ability to review and comment on the plan to be submitted by John Laing Homes. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Coles, Dixon, Hoy, and Vesely None None Fitzpatrick . 10-09-02 Mmutes 8 . . . Clty of Seal Beach Archaeologlcal AdvlSOry Commlttee Meetzng Mznutes of October 9, 2002 VI. Scheduled Matters 4. Approval of Minutes of August 7, 2002. Recommendation: Approve Mmutes with any corrections determined appropriate. MOTION by Vesely; SECOND by Fitzpatrick to approve the Minutes of August 7, 2002 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Coles, Dixon, Fitzpatrick, Boy, and Vesely None None VII. Committee Concerns Member Vesely asked if meetings could be convened on an emergency basis. Mr. Whittenberg stated that ifthe AAC needs to call a special meeting they could do so. Member Coles commented that the manner in which this development is being conducted is not the way things are typically done. He stated that he is deeply concerned. Member Hoy cautioned that the AAC must be careful that they not "crucify" a developer. Member Dixon noted that there is a history in California and Orange County of developers who have neglected to handle these issues in a respectful manner, while others have taken great care in dealing with remains. He also noted that there have also been extremely unethical consultants and Native American Monitors while others are extremely idealistic. Member Hoy stated that quite honestly the majority of the information they have received has been what has been reported in the media. Member Fitzpatrick requested more information on the MLD. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it is an indIvidual who is the tribal chairman of the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Group, appointed by the NARC, and under state law he has the final say as to the disposition of remains in cooperation with the property owner. He stated that the City has had a number of meetings with the MLD and the monitors and there is always much discussion among them before decisions are made. Ms. Corbin inquired regarding the responsibility of the City with regard to handling of burial remains. She asked who the lead agency is. Mr. Whittenberg reported that two of the agencies involved are the City and the CCC. Ms. Corbin insinuated that perhaps the City had "dropped the ball" when handling this issue. Member Hoy stated that it was not procedurally correct to respond to comments from the public at this point, however, from his perspective the AAC is not lined up with anyone, and certainly not with the developer. He stated that there are many things that the AAC has neither responsibility nor authority to do. IO"{)9-02 Mmutes 9 . . . Clty of Seal Beach Archaeologlcal Advisory Commlttee Meetmg Mznutes of October 9, 2002 VIII. Staff Concerns Mr. Whittenberg reported that he provided for each of the members a status report on the various Restoration Advisory Board activities at the Naval Weapons Station. IX. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting of December 4,2002. Respectfully Submitted, ~^~~ Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary , Planning Department APPROVAL The Archaeological Advisory Committee on IZ-9-02approved the Minutes of the October 9, 2002 meetin~ 10-09-02 Mmutes 10