Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 2003-04-23 t ) . CITY OF SEAL BEACH Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of April 23, 2003 I. Call to Order The Special Meeting of the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) was called to order at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Hall Council Chambers. 1 II. Roll Call Present: Absent: Members Coles, Dixon, and Vesely Fitzpatrick and Hoy Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director . III. Approval of Agenda So ordered by Chairperson Vesely. IV. Oral Communications None. V. Consent Calendar 1. RECENE AND FILE Letter Dated December 17, 2002 from John Bahorski, City Manager to Long Beach City Council re: "City of Seal Beach Comments re: "Fznal Environmental impact Report for the Bellflower Oll Drill Site" SCH 2001101132" (Continued from February 6,2003) 2. AUTHORIZE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN PROPOSED RESPONSE LETTER and RECENE AND FILE Revised "Archaeological Data Recovery Plan For A Portion Of Prehistoric Site Ca-Ora-322/1,118 To Mitigate Impacts Of SOli Removal Remediation", Attachment C Of "Draft Project Work Plan, Non-Time Critical . 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 t. . . . Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Meetzng Mznutes of Aprz123, 2003 Action, Installation Restoration Program Site 7 (Water Tower Area), Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach", Dated November 30, 2002. (Continued from February 6,2003) MOTION by Coles; SECOND by Vesely to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: VI. Scheduled Matters 3-0-2 Coles, Dixon, and Vesely None Fitzpatrick and Boy Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that Member Hoy arrived for the meeting. 3. APROV AL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2002 (Continued from February 6, 2003) Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections determined appropriate. MOTION by Dixon; SECOND by Coles to approve the Meeting Minutes of December 4, 2002 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Coles, Dixon, Boy, and Vesely None Fitzpatrick 4. APROV AL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2003 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections determined appropriate. MOTION by Dixon; SECOND by Vesely to approve the Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2003 as presented. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Mr. Coles would abstain, as he was not present at the meeting of February 6,2003. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 3-0-1-1 Dixon, Boy, and Vesely None Fitzpatrick Coles 3 City of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Meetzng Mznutes of Aprz123, 2003 . 5. RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REVIEW OF Boeing Specific Plan Project Final EIR - Section 5.7 - Cultural Resources Recommendation: Upon conclusion of receiving all appropriate public comments, staff recommends the Archaeological Advisory Committee review the discussion and the proposed mitigation monitoring measures for the Boemg Specific Plan Project Final EIR. The Archaeological Advisory Committee should forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council as to the adequacy of the Final EIR. Approval should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 03-1 or 03-1A (Attachments 1 and 2 respectively). . Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff has presented excerpts of the Final Boeing EIR that deal particularly with the Cultural Resources portion of the document. He noted that the document is to be reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB), the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC), and the Planning Commission which will consider it at a public hearing scheduled for May 7,2003. He said that the purpose ofthe review by the AAC is to look at the evaluation of cultural resource impacts as outlined in the document. He explained that the AAC is also to look at the mitigation measures, as they were revised from what was presented in the Draft EIR, and provide a recommendation for the PC and City Council (CC) as to whether or not the AAC feels that what is presented in the document is adequate under the state law provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He stated that if the AAC finds the document inadequate, these specific areas must be defined for inclusion as an attachment to the resolution to the PC and CC. The Director of Development Services provided a brief review of the project and then described the attachments included with the Staff Report. He noted that a new mitigation measure No. 5.7-3B has been added, which states that ifmore than one burial site is found during the project work, there is a whole other set of criteria and standards that would take effect. Member Vesely asked if a formalized mitigation plan would be in place pnor to construction. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this is a standard requirement for any project and would be in place. He explained that the Mitigation Plan states that if more than one burial site is found, then Mitigation Measure 5.7-3B would take effect. He commented that given the number of burial sites found on the Hellman Property, there is an increased probability that remains may also be found on the Boeing Property. . Mr. Whittenberg provided a review of the CEQA process with regard to EIRs and explained that after working closely with RBF Consulting on this project, Staff is of the opinion that the Boeing Final EIR is legally adequate. He continued by stating that if the CC does take action to certify the Final EIR as legally adequate and significant unavoidable impacts remain after all mitigation measures have been imposed, the CC must then adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, allowing the City to balance other economic/social benefits of a project against the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. He noted that the Staff Report includes resolutions finding the Final EIR either adequate or inadequate. He explained that should the AAC find the document inadequate they should indicate which areas they feel are inadequate and these comments would be included with the resolution under Attachment 2 finding the EIR inadequate. 4 . . . Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Meetzng Mznutes of Aprz123, 2003 Member Coles noted that having a pre-approved mitigation plan that is enacted prior to construction is a key issue. He said that there was a communication gap with the John Laing Homes Project. He stated that if the Boeing Project does go forward, some kind of newsletter should periodically be circulated to let the public know what is happening in order to help diffuse any controversy. Mr. Whittenberg stated that on the John Laing Project, when the CCC stopped work, it was because it was a security issue with a lot of concern by the archaeologist, CCC Staff, City Staff, and John Laing Homes personnel that it not become widely known that there were a number of burials open and exposed. He said that this is why there was a conscious effort to not highlight this issue. Member Coles said he understood, but he reiterated that if more information had been made available, this might have prevented some of the ill feelings. Mr. Whittenberg commented that many lessons were learned with the Hellman Project and that is the reason for applying the additional mitigation measures to the Boeing Project. Member Hoy stated that the mitigation measures appear to be adequate. Member Dixon stated that he has no questions at this point. Member Vesely referred to paragraph 5.7-lf on Page 5.7-12 of the mitigation measures and asked if the Native American Monitor (NAM) to be appointed by the City would be one approved by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. He clarified that unless a burial is found there would be no MLD, but during the time of grading an NAM hired by the City would be on site. He explained that should a burial be found, the MLD would then appoint an NAM to be present. Member Vesely then asked about the text that states, "The City selected archaeologist will have the power to temporarily halt or divert the excavation equipment in order to evaluate any potential cultural material ..." He noted that this sentence excludes the NAM. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this section describes a non-burial situation, but the Burial Sites section states that either the NAM or the archaeologist can halt the work. He said that it has been his experience to observe that when the MLD wants to stop the work the archaeologist will usually agree. Member Vesely then referred to the last sentence on Page 5.7-13 and asked who would make this determination. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the archaeologist and NAM would make this determination. He indicated that by state law, the determination on a first set of remains is to be made by the County Coroner. He also noted that the archaeologist and NAM have enough field experience to easily recognize Native Amencan specimens. He recommended revising the text to read: "If it is determined by a qualified individual that the find does not constitute a burial, the mechanical excavation shall continue." Member Hoy interjected that County Coroner Staff are really not equipped to make this determination and must depend upon someone that is. Member Coles asked Member Dixon if something of significance were found, would grading continue uninterrupted. Member Dixon responded that grading would probably continue around the find and it would have to be excavated. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this is covered in Paragraph 5.7-lf on Page 5.7-12. 5 . . . CIty of Seal Beach Archaeological AdvIsory CommIttee Meeting Mmutes of Aprz123,2003 Member Dixon commented that he has always been bothered by the ambiguous relationship between the Native Americans and archaeologists in terms of who has authority in analysis. Member Vesely asked if this was in terms of burials or artifacts. Member Dixon responded that in terms of both. Mr. Whittenberg stated with the burial situation, the MLD has a different level of interaction than an archaeologist with the Native American tribal group. He noted that with projects that have involved just a NAM as opposed to a MLD, Staff has observed that generally there is very close cooperation between the two parties. MOTION by Hoy; SECOND by Dixon recommending to the Planning Commission and City Council the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report, including mitigation measures, relating to cultural resource issues (Section 5.7) for the Boeing Specific Plan Project Final EIR through the adoption of Resolution No. 03-1 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Coles, Dixon, Boy, and Vesely None Fitzpatrick 6. RECEIPT OF RESPONSE LETTER From EDA W Re: Request For Clarification Of "Archaeological Investigations Within The Hellman Ranch SpecIfic Plan Area, Seal Beach, California", dated January 14, 2003 (Continued from February 6,2003) Recommendation: Instruct Staff as to any further actions the Committee may wish to pursue regarding this response letter. Receive and File EDA W Response Letter dated January 14, 2003. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this is the item that Member Dixon indicated Member Fitzpatrick had asked could be continued to a meeting where he could be present as he has comments to present. MOTION by Hoy; SECOND by Vesely continue Item 6 to the next scheduled meeting in May 2003. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Coles, Dixon, Hoy, and Vesely None Fitzpatrick VII. Committee Concerns None. 6 . . . Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvISory CommIttee Meetzng Mmutes of Aprzl 23, 2003 VIII. Staff Concerns Mr. Whittenberg provided a status report on the John Laing Homes mitigation program for compliance with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. He stated that after numerous meetings John Laing Homes (JLH), the MLD, the archaeologist, CCC, the Native American Heritage Commission, and City Staff, formulated a plan, which was agreed to by the MLD and JLH. He said the plan is now out for peer reVIew with a number of interested Native American partIes and the archaeology firms that looked at the peer review of the imtial research design. He noted that comments are due next week, and revisions may be made to the document once the comments are received, and the package will then be submitted to the CCC. He stated that the document would also be provided to the AAC for review. Member Vesely asked if it would be possIble to have at least one week to review the document. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be possible. Member Dixon asked if burials had been located in Gum Grove Nature Park (GGNP). Mr. Whittenberg reported that to his knowledge none have been found. Member Dixon noted that one of the objections to reburYing the remains in GGNP was the possibility of the excavation disturbmg remains. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the proposal has no burials in the undisturbed portion of GGNP. Member Vesely asked if burials were found on the Boeing Project, where would they be interred? Mr. WhIttenberg noted that there are some water retention areas on the Boeing Property, but he is not certain that this would be acceptable to the Native Americans. He said that as part of the JLH project as is proposed at this point they have a re-interment area large enough to accommodate burials from other locations that could not be interred on the same property. IX. Adjournment MOTION by Coles; SECOND by Hoy to adjourn to the next scheduled meeting in May 2003. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Coles, Dixon, Boy, and Vesely None Fitzpatrick The meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m. 7 . . . City of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Meetmg Mznutes of Aprz123, 2003 Respectfully Submitted, \.' rk\.. I\.,.....O~~ Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary Planning Department APPROVAL The Archaeological Advisory Committee on March 17, 2004 approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Wednesday, April 23, 2003. ~ 8