Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 2003-05-21 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH Archaeological Advisory Committee Special Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2003 I. Call to Order The Special Meeting of the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) was called to order at 6:12 p.m. on Wednesday, May 21, 2003. The meeting was held in the CIty Hall Council Chambers. I II. Roll Call Present: Absent: Chairperson Vesely, Members Coles, and Dixon Fitzpatrick and Hoy Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Mr. Whittenberg stated that Members Hoy and Fitzpatrick asked to be excused, as they are not able to attend tonight. III. Approval of Agenda Chairperson Vesely requested that Item No.1 be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. So ordered by Chairperson Vesely. IV. Oral Communications None. V. Consent Calendar Member Dixon requested that Item No.3 be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 . . . Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Special Meeting Mznutes of May 2 J, 2003 2. RECEIVE AND FILE Memorandum dated January 27, 2003 re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Installation Restoration Program - Status Report re: RAB Project Update. 4. RECEIVE AND FILE Memorandum dated April 24, 2003 re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Installation Restoration Program - Status Report re: RAB Project Update. MOTION by Coles; SECOND by Vesely to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-2 Vesely, Coles, Dixon None Fitzpatrick and Hoy 1. AUTHORIZE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN PROPOSED RESPONSE LETTER and RECEIVE AND FILE "APE Determination for Patio, Concrete, and Fence Replacement Project within a Portion of Archaeological Site CA-ORA-322/1,118", U. S. Naval Weapons Station Dated April 24, 2003. Chairperson Vesely read his revised version of the letter addressed to the Naval Weapons Station (NWS). Mr. Whittenberg noted the corrections. MOTION by Vesely; SECOND by Coles to Authorize Chairperson To Sign Proposed Response Letter And Receive And File "APE Determination for Patio, Concrete, and Fence Replacement Project Within a Portion of Archaeological Site CA-ORA-322/1,118", U. S. Naval Weapons Station, Dated April 24, 2003 as edited. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-2 Vesely, Coles, Dixon None Fitzpatrick and Boy 3. RECEIVE AND FILE Memorandum dated February 20,2003 re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Installation Restoration Program - Status Report re: RAB Project Update. Member Dixon questioned the minutes of the RAB meeting. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the Navy created these minutes and Staff does not have the authority to change them. MOTION by Vesely; SECOND by Dixon to Receive And File Memorandum dated February 20, 2003 re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Installation Restoration Program - Status Report re: RAB Project Update as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Vesely, Coles, Dixon 2 . . . Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Speczal Meetzng Mznutes of May 21,2003 NOES: ABSENT: None Fitzpatrick and Boy VI. Scheduled Matters 5. RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REVIEW OF "MITIGATION PLAN FOR SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCE DISCOVERIES, HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA" Recommendation: Upon conclusion of receiving all appropriate public comments, staff recommends the Archaeological Advisory Committee review the discussion and the proposed Mitigation Plan. The Archaeological Advisory Committee should forward any comments to the Coastal Commission regarding the Mitigation Plan. Comments should be made through the approval of a comment letter. Note: This document contains sensitive cultural resource information that is not to be made available to the general public. To comply with Federal and State law provisions, portions of the document have been redacted in the publicly available copIes. Ms. Lorraine Willey, Archaeologist with EDA W, introduced herself. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Ms. Willey is present tonight to respond to any questions from the Committee. He noted that she has been involved with this site from the time that grading began and has worked on the Mitigation Plan. He indicated that this Mitigation Plan was negotiated between the Most Likely Descendent (MLD), John Laing Homes (JLH), California Coastal Commission (CCC), City Staff, and the Native American Heritage Commission to address the concerns the CCC had regarding compliance with the Coastal Development Permit conditions. He said that there has been a lot of discussion on this plan and what is before the Committee tonight was agreed to and accepted by the MLD and his tribal representatives. He described the Mitigation Plan noting that JLH is setting aside approximately 1.2 acres near the north end of the property for future re-interments. He noted that JLH would lose approximately 4-5 building sites as part of this set aside. He indicated that JLH has agreed to assist in the re-interment process and provide funding for education and interpretive facilities to be provided in the extension of Gum Grove Nature Park on the south side of the property. He stated that the re-interment area is large enough to accommodate all of the burials that were discovered on this property and WIll also be large enough to accept other human remains found on other properties in Orange County that have been in storage awaiting re-interment. He said that both the MLD and JLH are in agreement on this and the plan has been submitted to CCC who has asked that the AAC look at this proposal before they make a final determination as to whether or not this plan is acceptable. The Director of Development Services indicated that Staff is in agreement with the proposed plan and has included comments with the draft response letter to CCC. He noted that professional archaeologists Roger Mason and Nancy DeSautels also reviewed the plan, and their comments letters are included in the agenda packet. He explained that there are two versions of the 3 . . . CIty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory Committee Speczal Meetzng Mznutes of May 21, 2003 document, and cautioned that the confidential copy be closely guarded. He noted that the copy available for public viewing has been redacted to eliminate confidential information. Committee Ouestions Member Dixon stated that he thinks this is one of the best such documents that he has seen. He says that it shows a lot of work and negotiation. He said he was impressed with the technique of reburial in maintaining the matrix of the burial itself, which would be very important in possible future analysis. Member Coles asked if anyone addressed the issue of fluids associated with the bones themselves because of the clay nature of the soil. He noted that with clay surfaces you do get a lot of particles, whose analysis may show something in the future. He said that this is a very competent document and noted that it was interesting that one of the solutions would be to have an on-site location, as there was some reticence due to the Gum Grove Nature Park issue. He indicated that he believes this is the best way to manage the burials. Member Dixon stated that the basic problem is what might be disturbed in the reburial process, but when the advantages are balanced against the disadvantages, this becomes a minor consideration. Member Coles noted that if as much of the surrounding soil as possible is captured, this can be reinterred for future analysis should someone wish to do this. Ms. Willey interjected that when the burials were being excavated and pedestaled, all of the dirt that would have been on top and defined by the boundaries of the pedestal was put into appropriately marked bags and will be reinterred with the respective burials. Member Dixon asked if this was a concession on the part of the Native Americans. Ms. Willey stated that very early on they had actually requested that this be done, as they were not comfortable with the intent to remove the first layer of bones then expose the rest underneath. She noted that Charlanne Gross, an osteologist with EDA W, was aware of this technique and proposed the pedestaling process to the Native Americans who immediately agreed to this. Chairperson Vesely referred to a possible typographical error on Page 65. Ms. Willey noted that the word "spoil" was the correct term. Chairperson Vesely stated that he has difficulty with this whole project because of what it is and where it is. He said that although a lot of time and work have gone into this in an effort to keep everyone satisfied, and as an advisory committee the AAC is not in a position to create policy, in his opinion because of what the project is, it should be abandoned. He noted that he realizes that this would be inconceivable to most people, and possibly this perspective comes more from the heart than from his logical mind, but it is not often that he is able to express an opinion publicly. He said that he is certain the project will proceed, but if the AAC is in a position as a committee to advise the City, his advice is to abandon the project. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the scope of what the AAC can deal with at this point is this mitigation plan, and whether it is an adequate plan to respond to issues that have come about now that 85 percent of the grading is already done. He noted that 15 percent of the property has 4 . . . Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee SpecIal Meetzng Mznutes of May 21,2003 not been graded and this is really all that is in question, so realistically the project will not be abandoned. Member Dixon stated that in terms of the context of the discussion on the alternative possibilities of mitigation, having no project is one kind of mitigation, but in terms of possible mitigation plans, the proposed plan would be the second best. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he understands, but the building pads and roads are graded and should the project be abandoned, no re-interments would take place, and the property would be left in worse condition than before the work began. Member Coles stated that although he concurs with the comments, in looking at the CEQA process and the advisory function of the AAC and back to the MOLA project, the real question is how will you mitigate a development to make it more sustainable, so that Native American artifacts and archaeological features are protected and preserved, and traffic is not as mitigated. He said that he believes the plan has been put forth with respect solely to the archaeological aspects and is competent to accomplish what needs to be done in protecting these remains and associated artifacts. He commented that this is separate from the emotionalism of some of the previous activities at the site. He noted that had he sat on the California Coastal Commission (CCC), he would have taken a more stringent position with respect to their permit. He said that as he perceives them, the early activities that went on at the site on the part of JLH certainly left something to be desired. Member Dixon noted that he read a lot of reports and has done a lot of editing of reports and whoever is responsible for editing of this report did an excellent job. He also complimented Roger Mason's comments. Chairperson Vesely asked if it were feasible for the AAC members to be present when the grading process recommences. Mr. Whittenberg stated that no more than 2 members could be present, as if the whole group were present it would have to be noticed as a meeting of the committee with the public invited, and because of the need for confidentiality the public could not be present. He noted that the MLD would have to be consulted to see ifhe is in agreement to this, as the Native Americans have been very sensitive to people coming onto the site that really have no need to see it. He indicated that he believes the MLD would be receptive to member of the AAC being present, but Staff would first have to consult with the MLD. MOTION by Coles; SECOND by Dixon to approve comment letter and authorize chairperson to sign proposed letter regarding the Mitigation Plan and forward to the Coastal Commission. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-2 Vesely, Coles, Dixon None Fitzpatrick and Boy 5 Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee Speczal Meetmg Mznutes of May 21. 2003 . 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 Fitzpatrick requested be continued until he is able to be present to comment. He recommended that the item be placed on a subsequent agenda when Member Fitzpatrick will be available to attend and comment. The CommIttee was in agreement. VII. Committee Concerns None. VIII. Staff Concerns None. . IX. Adjournment MOTION by Dixon; SECOND by Vesely to adjourn to the next scheduled meeting in June. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-2 Vesely, Coles, Dixon None Fitzpatrick and Hoy The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, . (\ .tv.- A' -" ~ J\~tt.. ^~ Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret y Planning Department 6 . '. . Czty of Seal Beach ArchaeologIcal AdvIsory CommIttee SpecIal Meetzng Mmutes of May 2 J, 2003 APPROVAL The Archaeological Advisory Committee on March 17, 2004 approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Wednesday, May 21,2003. (\.h-... 7