Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1994-12-07 '. . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Belardes called the Archaeological Advisory Committee Meeting of December 7, 1994 to order at 5:03 PM, in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Present: Members Aviani, Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes Absent: None Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director . ID. APPRO V AL OF AGENDA Member Goldberg requested that all agenda items except for item VI-4, "Review of Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan Draft EIR - Chapter 4.13 - Cultural Resources", be removed from the Agenda and carried over to the next meeting of the Archaeological Advisory Committee. Member Goldberg explained that the discussion of the Bixby EIR document could take the majority of the time of the Committee, and that the Committee review of the document should not be rushed in order to deal with the other items on the agenda. Member Hahn agreed, indicating she has prepared a written critique of the Cultural Resources Section of the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development EIR, and feels this matter should take precedence over the other agenda items. Discussion was held among the members of the Committee as to the necessity of continuing the other items, and the selection of a date prior to the regular Committee meeting in February to discuss the remaining issues. It was a consensus to table all matters except item VI-4, to an adjourned meeting on January 18, 1995 at 5:00 P.M., contingent upon the Navy not proceeding with any IR work on Sites 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 19, 22, two staging areas, and SWMU 56. Ms. Barnett discussed the timing concerns of the Navy in proceeding with the IR program activities, indicating that there are substantial contractual considerations which would need to be considered. Ms. Barnett proposed a sub-committee to meet with the Navy to further discuss concerns relative to Sites 4, 8, . C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MIN\L W\12-28-94 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 9, and SWMU 56. The Committee discussed this proposal and determined to appoint a sub-committee to meet with the Navy and report back to the full Committee on January 18, 1995. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that a subcommittee which comprises less than a quorum, less than 6 members, could be established to meet with the Navy and conduct a preliminary review of the document. It was suggested by Member Fitzpatrick that this subcommittee could meet and report back to the full Committee at the January 18, 1995 meeting. Further discussion was held regarding how the subcommittee would be selected and an appropriate time to meet with the Navy regarding the subject document. With the consensus of the Committee, Chairman Belardes, determined that volunteers to serve on the subcommittee, not to exceed five members, would be acceptable, and that the subcommittee meeting with the Navy would be held on December 19, 1994 at 2:00 P.M. at the Naval Weapons Station. It was also the consensus of the Committee that Mr. Whittenberg attend, if his schedule allows. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Hahn to continue all items on the agenda, except item VI-4, to an adjourned meeting to be held on January 18, 1995. MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Aviani, Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, U natin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by A viani to form a subcommittee not to exceed five members, in addition to Mr. Whittenberg, to meet with the Navy on December 19, 1994 at 2:00 P.M. to discuss the "Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration Sites 4, 8, 9 and SWMU 56", and to report back to the full Committee at an adjourned meeting of the Archaeological Advisory Committee to be held on January 18, 1995. MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Aviani, Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, U natin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None Members Aviani, Davies, Hahn, Goldberg, and Price volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-CJ7-94.MIN\LW\ 12-28-94 2 . . . . , IV. Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Belardes asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. V. CONSENT CALENDAR VI. 1. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 4351, REGARDING REGULAR MEETING DATES FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITIEE Recommendation: Receive and File Staff Report. 2. RECEIVE AND FILE "CULTURAL RESOURCES" CHAPTER (4.12) OF REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT Recommendation: Receive and File Staff Report and attached "Cultural Resources" Chapter (4.12) of Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report - The Bolsa Chica Project. By previous motion of the Archaeological Advisory Committee, agenda items V.I. and V.2. will be continued for consideration to the adjourned meeting of January 18, 1995. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. NOVEMBER 9, 1994 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. By previous motion of the Archaeological Advisory Committee, this matter will be continued for consideration to the adjourned meeting of January 18, 1995. 4. REVIEW OF BIXBY OLD RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) - CHAPTER 4.13 - CULTURAL RESOURCES Recommendation: Review and approve/modify the proposed conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring measures for the Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan DEIR, and 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 C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-<r7-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 3 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 "Mitigation Measures". Approval should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 94-2 and Resolution 94-3; A. Resolution Number 94-2, A Resolution of the Archaeological Advisory Committee of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the Environmental Quality Control Board the Adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Relating to Cultural Resource Issues (chapter 4.13) for the Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan B. Resolution Number 94-3, A Resolution of the Archaeological Advisory Committee of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the Planning Commission the Imposition of "Mitigation Measures" Relating to Cultural Resource Issues (Chapter 4.13) of the Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan DEIR Chairman Belardes stated the Committee will review and comment on the Cultural Resource Issues (Chapter 4.13) of the Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan DEIR and asked Mr. Whittenberg to provide a staff report. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that an EIR has been determined necessary by the City in order to consider the subject development application. A "Draft EIR" has been prepared by the city-selected environmental consultant and is currently undergoing the required 45-day public comment period. The Archaeological Advisory Committee is being requested to review and approve/modify the proposed conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring measures for the Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan DEIR, and forward a recommendation to the Environmental Quality Board (EQCB) 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. 94-2 and Resolution 94-3. Mr. Whittenberg further indicated that staff has previously provided the Committee with the following sections of the subject DEIR: . Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures . Introduction (Chapter 1) . Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Chapter 2) · Project Description (Chapter 3) . Environmental Impact Analysis - Cultural Resources (Chapter 4.13) . Archaeological Records Searches (Appendix C) Mr. Whittenberg further indicated that the DEIR includes in Appendix C the recommendation of the UCLA Archaeological Regional Information Center regarding the proposed project, and that recommendation is reflected in the proposed Mitigation Measures set forth in Chapter 4.13. The proposed Mitigation Measures have been C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-CJ1-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 4 . . . '. Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 worded to reflect the previous determinations of the Archaeological Advisory Committee related to the review of the UNOCAL On-Shore Processing application (CUP 92-7). Mr. Whittenberg also reviewed the purpose of an ErR and the adequacy standard of an ErR as set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15151. Member Goldberg asked if the Committee could respond to other sections of the DEIR. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that as a committee, the Committee is charged with only reviewing the Cultural/Historical portions of an EIR. As private citizens, the individual members of the Committee may provide comments on any portion of the DEIR to the EQCB by the December 27 comment receipt deadline date, and reviewed to "Response to Comments" process established by CEQA. Chairman Belardes asked if members of the Committee had comments on the documentation presented for consideration this evening. Member Hahn distributed a "Memo", dated December 7, regarding the subject document. (Attachment 1 to these minutes) The Committee determined to review the information in the memo, section by section: 1. The basic premise of the section is speculative and unproven. Member Hahn indicated that the document contradicts itself by indicating that no further archaeological investigation is necessary, that the project area has yielded scant evidence of cultural resources, that the project site has never been examined for archaeological resources, and that the project area is located in an area judged highly sensitive by the State's regional archive. 2. The section contains incorrect statements. Member Hahn indicated that Ca-Ora-1352 is a recorded site located at the Bixby office project, across Seal Beach Boulevard form the project site. (Refer to comment # 3 below) Member Hahn discussed the information in the "Quick Check" form from UCLA questioning why a walk-over survey was not conducted. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it was his understanding that UCLA provided the recommendations based on the information that the site has been heavily disturbed by the development of the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course, as indicated in the "Comments" section of the Quick Check form, and the recommended conditions of UCLA. Members of the Committee indicated it would have been helpful to have had this information available prior to the meeting to review. Hahn indicated that she was just able to finish her memo this afternoon, and apologized to the Committee for the last minute provision of the memo. C:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 5 . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 . In response to a question from Member Goldberg, Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the status of the site surveys on the Bixby Office project, across the street from the subject site. The Committee asked if the "Baseline Archaeological Study" could be reviewed to clarify this issue. While Mr. Whittenberg was out of the meeting obtaining the "Baseline Archaeological Study" the Committee further reviewed the information provided on the Quick Check form. Member Hahn indicated that Ms. Soriano indicated to her that the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course is located in an archaeologically sensitive area. Member Goldberg indicated that her concern is that UCLA did not appear to discuss the issue with other parties which might have had information. Member Frietze indicated that the purpose of the DEIR is to put a preliminary report out for public review and comments, and to revise the document as most appropriate, based on the comments received regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Member Hahn indicated it is up to the City, not UCLA to determine what action should be taken. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that in the past, the Committee followed the recommendation of UCLA relative to the UNOCAL project, and the recommendation in the DEIR is based on the previous actions of the Committee relative to recommendations from UCLA. It is difficult for staff to anticipate when the Committee may determine to follow or not follow a recommendation from UCLA. Upon review of the confidential archaeological survey reports, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the City's "Baseline Archaeological Study" indicates that two separate " Archaeological Survey Reports" are on file for the Bixby Office project on the opposite side of Seal Beach Boulevard from the subject site, and there is no indication of a recorded site provided in the "Baseline Archaeological Study". Mr. Whittenberg further indicated that the test excavation report indicates that "... it can be concluded with good confidence that the site is not prehistoric in nature and almost certainly represents landfilling activity that has taken place within the la.st twenty five years" and further states "As the site is almost certa.inly non-archaeological in nature, no further mitigation is recommended." No record of a Recorded Site is present in the City documents. Upon further discussion, member Hahn indicated that CA-Ora-1352 has been recently recorded as an archaeological site, and is on the Bixby property across the street from the proposed project. Member Hahn felt that a "walk-over survey" should be required, with the results provided to the City prior to consideration of the project by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee should note the discrepancy in its comments on the Draft EIR document, and forward those comments to the EQCB. As part of the "Response to Comments" process, the Committee may recommend modifications to the DEIR for consideration of the EQCB, and those . C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MlN\LW\12-28-94 6 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 comments need to be provided by December 27, 1994. Member Hahn inquired when the comments of the Committee would be forwarded to the City Council for consideration, and if members of the Committee could address the City Council under public comments relative to concerns regarding the project. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the time for the City Council to receive comments on the DEIR will be at the time of the public hearings before the City Council, and that in fact the City Council may never have a public hearing on the proposed project. This would occur if the Planning Commission denies the project and no appeal of that denial is filed. Receiving testimony on the project outside of the required public hearing process may prejudice the City in its review of the project. Under state law, specific procedures are required to be followed to ensure due process requirements are met by the City. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the review process under the provisions of California law relative to the DEIR by the EQCB, and of the DEIR and the proposed project by the Planning Commission and City Council. Member Unatin indicated that the comments from the Commission properly go the EQCB, not the City Council. At the request of Member Hahn, Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the review schedule of the DEIR before the EQCB, and the required preparation of the "Response to Comments" document. Member Frietze and Chairman Belardes indicated that as Native Americans, they may be making separate comments from the Committee on the Draft EIR, and would not interject those concerns into the Committee deliberations. The concerns of the Native Americans are a separate issue from those of the Committee, and they will support the Committee in its review of the document. The issue of a conflict arises when they are reviewing a document, and conditioning the approval of the project to require Native American monitors from their tribe. Member Goldberg indicated the Committee should utilize the format of Member Hahn's memo to prepare the comments of the Archaeological Committee. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the assistance of the Committee in directing staff on to formalize the response of the Committee to the EQCB will be extremely helpful, and the Hahn memo could be revised a desired by the Committee and reformatted as the Comment Document to the EQCB. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Hahn to utilize the memo of Member Hahn dated December 7 in the preparation of a Memorandum Comment from the Archaeological Advisory Committee to the EQCB. C: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\12-ff7-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 7 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Aviani, Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None Member A viani requested clarification regarding the document provided by Member Hahn as to the formally recorded Site CA-Ora-1352 document. Member Hahn indicated the document provided constitutes the formal recorded site record. Member A viani inquired if it was the consensus of the Committee, that the DEIR does not follow City Guidelines. Member Goldberg suggested that an additional sentence be added to indicate that the City guidelines were not followed. Member Unatin indicated that statement is made under concern number 5. After discussion among the Committee, at the suggestion of Member Goldberg, it was the consensus to renumber concern number 5 to concern number 1, and renumber the other concerns accordingly. Member Fitzpatrick indicated, in his opinion, the project site has a high likelihood of being an archaeologically sensitive area. After further discussion of the Committee, it was determined by Chairman Belardes that it is the consensus of the Committee that an additional sentence should be added to the last paragraph of the concern to state, "The provisions of Section 1. C. 2 of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the Seal Beach General Plan should be complied with. " Member Hahn indicated the text of Section 4.13 contradicts the information in Appendix C, relative to the existence of recorded site CA-Ora-1352. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee should note the discrepancy in its comments on the Draft EIR document, and forward those comments to the Environmental Quali~ControlBoard. 3. The formally recorded archaeoloeical site that this DEIR fails to acknowledee is on the same orieinaI Bixby property as. and right across the street from. the proposed project. Member Hahn indicated that she has been informed by Elizabeth Soriano, Assistant Coordinator at UCLA, that CA-Ora-1352 represents a recent recording of an archaeological site at the area previously surveyed and test excavated on the Bixby Office site across Seal Beach Boulevard from the subject property. Again, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the City has no record of the existence of CA- Ora-1352 existing in the City of Seal Beach. It is not referenced in the City's C:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MIN\L W\12-28-94 8 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 "Baseline Archaeological Study", and the only reference is found in the UCLA Quick Check form of October 3, 1994, indicating that "There is one recorded archaeological site (ORA-1352) within a one mile radius of the project area. There are two surveys within a one mile radius of the project area (0-480 & 0- 513)." There is no indication in the information from UCLA that CA-Ora-1352 is one and the same with either of the referenced documents. Member Hahn presented a document which she indicated was the "site record" for CA-Ora- 1352. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the document presented does not indicate a recorded site number, and is the same as attached to Survey 0-480, and it is not given a Site Number either. Member Hahn confirmed her conversation with UCLA, that CA-Ora-1352 relates to Survey Reports 0-480 and 0-513, and that she had received a clearance from Ms. Soriano relative to using her name in the comment document. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee should note the discrepancy in its comments on the Draft EIR document, and forward those comments to the EQCB. The Committee discussed continuing to review each section of Member Hahn's memo, revising as deemed appropriate by the Committee, and then instructing staff to forward to the Environmental Quality Control Board for consideration at the December 13 EQCB meeting. 4. The methodology discussed in the DEIR is incompatible with the methodology prescribed by the city's existine regulations. as set forth in the "Archaeological and Historical Element" of the Seal Beach General Plan (GPA 92-1). Member Hahn indicated that a "site survey" should be completed and a "research design" prepared for the excavation of archaeological materials. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the consultant team and City staff felt that the provisions of the " Archaeological and Historical Element" of the General Plan were being followed, it was not the intent to do otherwise. He further explained that the Archaeological Element stipulates that an "Quick Check" form be completed by UCLA for "All currently undeveloped properties. . .", and that while the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course is not undeveloped, the City has requested the recommendation of UCLA through the "Quick Check" process, and has incorporated those recommendation into the Draft EIR and the proposed mitigation measures. C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 9 . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 Member Hahn indicated that it is the Committee's responsibility to determine if a site is archaeologically sensitive and if a "site survey" is appropriate, not UCLA. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his understanding of the provisions of the Archaeological Element only require a site survey when either the literature search or Quick Check search indicates the presence of a known site on the subject property. In this case, neither of those situations exist. Member Hahn indicated the Archaeological Element also requires "..., on sites shown through the literature search not to have been previously surveyed, a site survey must be conducted to establish whether archaeological/historical sites exist. " Member Unatin inquired if it is Member Hahn's position that prior to new construction on a previously developed site, that a walkover site survey must be conducted? If so, the City will be having all sorts of site surveys being conducted on properties which have been developed for many years, and does not see the benefit of this type of policy. He reminded the Committee that the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course is a developed site, and does not fall within the guidelines of Section 1.A. of the Archaeological Element. . Mr. Whittenberg indicated that a "research design" document is only required when archaeological materials are to be excavated. At this time is not even known if archaeological materials exist on the site, and the preparation of a research design would seem premature. Member Hahn indicated that if archaeological materials are found during a site survey, the research design should be prepared. It was clarified that the research design document is only appropriate if archaeological materials are to be excavated, preserving in place would not require the preparation of a research design. After further discussion among the Committee, it was a consensus to recommend to the EQCB that a "site survey" of the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course be undertaken and a report reviewed by the Committee, prior to the project approvals being considered by the City. 5. Mitigation measures dictated by the DEIR do not conform to the mitigation measures described in the city's existing regulations. Member Hahn indicated that the Draft EIR imposes radically different measures, which would not adequately protect archaeological resources, and would allow construction grading to precede the test phase investigation, contrary to the provisions of the Archaeological Element. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the proposed mitigation measures were prepared by the EIR consultant, with direction from city staff, and are based on the recommendations of UCLA, and the . C:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MlN\LW\12-28-94 10 . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 previous conditions imposed by the Committee on the UNOCAL Oil Separation facility at First Street and Marina A venue. The Archaeological Element does not specify mitigation measures, it specifies certain steps to be undertaken in evaluating if archaeological resources are present at a particular site, and if so, how those resources should be treated. Members Fitzpatrick and Unatin indicated that the mitigation measures would seem appropriate if there were no archaeological resources present on the site. Until it is clarified if archaeological resources are present, it is difficult to comment on the proposed mitigation measures. Mr. Whittenberg indicated, given the recommendation of the Committee that a "site survey" be performed on the site, that it would be appropriate for the Committee to forward its comments to the EQCB on this issue. 6. The DEIR dictates that any Native American monitor emploved by the city be 'deshmated by the .Tuanefio Band of Mission Indians' . . Member Hahn indicated the EIR consultant should not dictate to the City who the Native American monitor will represent, the Archaeological Element of the General Plan does not dictate a specific monitor. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this mitigation measure was prepared by himself, using the condition placed on the UNOCAL Oil Separation facility by the Committee. Member Unatin recalled that the Committee responded to his concern regarding the UNOCAL project and stipulated the particular tribal representation so that a professional Native American monitor from some other area of the State, or even the country, could come in as a monitor for a site in Seal Beach. He particularly recalled the Committee discussing this matter in detail, and requiring the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians to provide the Native American monitor. Several other members indicated agreement with the recollection of Member Unatin. Member Hahn indicated that she did not feel that a particular tribal representative should be stipulated) particularly given the current controversy among the various factions of the Juaneno's. Member Hahn indicated the Archaeological Element states that the monitor should be selected by a"pan-tribal council", and that decision should be made by the City Council. Discussion was held among the Committee as to how to select a Native American monitor) the Navy will be going to the Native American Heritage Commission to determine the "most likely descendent" and will make a selection of a monitor from that "most likely descendent" group. Members Belardes and Frietze provided the Committee some background regarding the current division among the Juaneno's. Member Hahn . C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 11 '. . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 indicated that her concern has nothing to do with the ability to use Juaneno monitors, but that for certain areas of the City, a different tribe might be more appropriate to utilize. Discussion was held as to how the City Council will select a Native American monitor. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the consultant is not dictating a monitor, the purpose of the DEIR is to adequately discuss the various environmental impacts caused by the proposed project, and he personally provided the language of this proposed mitigation measure to the EIR consultant for inclusion in the DEIR, based on previous Committee actions on the UNOCAL negative declaration. Discussion was held among the Committee, with the Committee discussing the capability of the City or the Native American Heritage Commission to reCommend the most appropriate Native American tribal representative's for monitoring purposes. Chairman Belardes reviewed the process of being designated as a Native American monitor, and the extreme help this Committee has provided in regards to archaeological concerns. It was the consensus of the Committee to recommend to the EQCB that Native American monitor's be selected in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the Seal Beach General Plan. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Price, to add a final sentence to the discussion under concern 6 to read as follows, "The Native American Monitor shall be selected in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the Seal Beach General Plan. " MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Aviani, Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None 7. The Cultural Resources Records Search Ouick Check: Revised. dated October 3. 1994. represents the SCCAIC's response onlv to a 'General Plan and Zone Change'. not to a development proposal. Member Hahn indicated that in a telephone conversation on December 7 with Elizabeth Soriano of UCLA, it was indicated that the "Quick Check" form did not indicate that construction was contemplated, only a General Plan amendment and Zone Change, and that the recommendation of UCLA would have been different C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 12 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 had they known construction was to be undertaken. Member Hahn indicated that Elizabeth Soriano would have recommended completely different and much more stringent conditions if she was aware that the project involved construction activities. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he was disturbed to hear that UCLA did not fully read the information on the submitted "Quick Check" form as it indicates under a section titled Brief Project Description "Recorifigure existing golf course, construct 98 SFR and 100-125 MFR, 150-room hotel and 15,000 sq. ft. restaurant." He further indicated that position of UCLA is difficult to understand when their recommendation indicates "No archaeological work is needed prior to approval of project plans. However, a halt-work condition should be in place in the event that cultural resources are discovered during construction." The intent of the City was to very clearly indicate to UCLA that construction would be occurring in order to develop the project as proposed. After extensive discussion by the Committee, Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee should note their comments on the Draft EIR document, and forward those comments to the Environmental Quality Control Board. 8. The consultants who prepared this section of the DEIR are not named. nor or their professional credentials provided. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee should note their comments on the Draft EIR document, and forward those comments to the Environmental Quality Control Board. Mr. Whittenberg asked for consensus of the Committee to instruct staff to proceed to modify Member Hahn's memo as modified above. The Committee felt it would be advisable to rearrange the order of the concerns and it was the consensus of the Committee to place concern number 5 as number 1, and to revise the language slightly. Concern number 1 would be renumbered to number 2 and a concluding sentence added which reads "The provisions of Section I.C.2 of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan should be complied with." Concern numbers 2 through 4 should be renumbered as 3 through 5, respectively, with concerns 6 through 8 retaining the same numbers. A concluding sentence should be added to concern number 6 which reads" The Native American Monitor shall be selected in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the Seal Beach General Plan. " MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Hahn to instruct Mr. Whittenberg to revise the memo of Member Hahn dated December 7 into the format of a Memorandum Comment from the Archaeological Advisory Committee to the EQCB, with the changes noted above, and to forward to the EQCB prior to or at their meeting of December 13, 1994. C:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-07-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 13 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 A YES: Aviani, Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, U natin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None 5. REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO STAFF RE: "HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK - MAY 14-20, 1995" INFORMATION PACKET. Recommendation: Receive and file Staff Report. Provide direction to staff as determined appropriate regarding further actions relating to the above-referenced documentation. The Committee may forward a recommendation to the City Council encouraging a cooperative effort between the City and the Naval Weapons Station to complete an appropriate grant application by the February 1, 1995 deadline date. 6. REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE ISSUE OF CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AT THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION. Recommendation: Receive and file Staff Report. Provide direction to staff as determined appropriate. 7. RECEIPT of NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SUBMISSION PACKAGE to SHPO re: "ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION PLAN FOR INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES 4, 8, 9 and SWMU 56 Recommendation: Receive and File the above referenced document, instruct staff to schedule for further consideration at a future Committee meeting, if determined appropriate by the Committee. By previous motion of the Archaeological Advisory Committee, agenda items VI.5. through VI. 7. above will be continued for consideration to the adjourned meeting of January 18, 1995. VII. COMMITTEE CONCERNS None. C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-CY7-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 14 .. ~ . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes December 7, 1994 VID. STAFF CONCERNS None. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Committee, Chairman Belardes adjourned the meeting at 7: 17 p.m. to Wednesday, January 18, 1995, 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. ~C3U Chairman, Archaeological Advisory Committee . /~i~~ t./ Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of December 7, 1994 were approved on J~",~Y' /;::3 , 1995. . C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\12-a7-94.MIN\LW\12-28-94 15 L ~J: c{ .. "!. , l ~ - ~ ~ i I g E . -til ~, December, 1. '19~4 ~ .... , .- ,-: ;,: i '~ ~ ~ ':, ".':: : ~'. g :t J.. . , ~ al ; . " .,- : < u.l ,::...,.J ~ I ., == FS 1.)11'_ I ~~ I.! , Moi~a Hahn Dee 04.94 .'"'15 :53 P .01 TEL NO.,lO 799-9597 .~,.' . . /; ; q l /,,-~ , . r" J ~ ~~.~ ..;"" ; r .. .' J. ~ ~~ Code (j~5 , ' .H.[~'::"; 1732 Harbor Way . Seal Beach, CA ~0740" ., ~:. .-- Captain Joel F. -Steacllay Commanding Office! SBNWS , 5000 Seal Beach Blvd. .Seal Beach CA 90"40-5000 ~ '.'f .. '.' .. ~ . \ ~ I ~; ~. ':~\T ;, \!:.... .- ~ !~ ~"...'-. Dear Captain Stead ley: -- Thank you very much for the document entitiec.J "Ar(;haeOiogi(;alJ~.e&ources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration Sites '4. 8. e. tlnd SWMtJ'5G at.Naval Weapcms Station, ,Seal Beach, California". I appreciate your prompt delivery ohMS-data 1or' my review. prior to the December 7 meeting Of the Seal Beach ~,r<?l}aeoi"cical ~~Vi~~l"1 COmmittee. In addition. thank you for sending the matfuiai to me ~cparately and, concurrencly with your delivery of same to the City or,Seal Beach, \\' it is positlbls,'j respectfully request that you s9"'ld future correspondenca and data regarding cgltural fes~urce 'management, for the '-R program and all other undertakings Ell ih~statjOl'ii.tome"st'my home address. Due to city budget cutbacks, staff is overworked, and transmission of documents received frol"'1 the Navy is sometime~ delayed.. , At a maeting on November 1, 19t~4< I provided Lisa '6~uMthMth a request for fjve dOC'l.:ments related to historic preservation at the WJapons station. The documents that I requested were as follows: ",; . .- 1, ,Copies of the $peoifl,~/~qU.~~ls;for;prCpo~1 (~FPs) serit' by the Navy ,to Ogden cnvirorlml,(lilt~rS~\~' l.:nel'9Y'S~lCes, lno., and to Chambers GroLip, Inc., to fa~lIit~te the firms' blds'to VJOftcfOA'Navy projects related to the I.R.program. "..;.....,: ~-, ',!. :- .,'''' ,', 2. The Archaeological ~.s$ocif.ltes, It"Ii.V(Or. Dovid Van H~r!,,) survey of 20 acres of the station. ..dated 19.81. This:study WaS cojl&uoted prior to the constuction of the Navy's ,",ol.islng..tract. locatod east of Seal Beach Blvd. at Anchor Way. M~ ~"ljmatt 'iI'l\7ntionod tlil~ !purvoy to ma, and it is cited in II later survey oT site CkOra-322. by Greenwood snd Associa~es, but it IS not on file with. the city. ~ t'- ..s o 'it \ ...t\ ~ ...... .. . . I Mo i r a Hahn po ~ I .. ." TEL NO.310 799-9597 Dee 04.94 , "," 15:54 P.02 3. A survey of a 160 acre portion of the Seal Seaeh National Wildlife Refuge wetlands (loc!ited on the station) by Cooley and Cotrell. for a Long Beaoh Harbor expansion! wetlands ex:::hange project, dated 1961. Ms. Barnett identified this survey for me on October 5, 1994, from a map sent to th9 city by the NetVy, In 1993. The rest of the survey is not on file with the city, 4. A professior.al reSUMe for R:)ber1a Greenwood. the Principal Investigator of Greel1wC'od af'ld Associates. This archaeological co!,sulting firm conducted a field assessment of CA.Ora-322 on the station in 1981. 5. Professional resumes for Cooley and Cotrell, the Principal Investigators for tl"tf:! 160 acre survey cIted abovo. i asked Ms. Barnett to send me this information by Decer'rlber 1st. , hate to bother you with this I would prefer to follow up on my request directly with Ms. Barnett than to take up your valuable time. but at the same November 1st meeting. she and Mr. Davidson directed me t" cor,tact you, rather than her. and to do $0 in writing, rattlar than by telephone. Ihanl< YOll fer. YOlO! gracious assistance ir, pro'J1ding this information for my review. Slnoerely I Moila Hahn Cc: Davlo S Rlch'nond Memba~s of the Seal Baach Archaeological Ad'/iscry Committee Jerry Bankston, City Manager, CIty of Seal Beach