Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1995-01-18 -" r_, '. r.. J \wi CITY OF SEAL BEACH '-" -..... ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 18, 1995 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 Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes Absent: Members Aviani, Fitzpatrick, and Frietze Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Mr. Whittenberg indicated he had received telephone calls from Members Fitzpatrick and Frietze, indicating they would not be able to attend, but that he had not heard from Member A viani. There being no objections, Chairman Belardes excused the absences of Members Fitzpatrick and Frietze. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Belardes said this was the time for any member of the Committee, staff or public to rearrange the order of the agenda, or request items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Lisa Barnett, Naval Weapons Station, requested Agenda Item 9, Receipt of Naval Weapons Station Submission Package to SHPO re: "Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration sites 4, 8, 9 and SWMU 56 (Continued from December 7, 1994)", be moved to the beginning of Scheduled Matters, indicating that the Navy was hopeful of achieving a determination from the Committee this evening on this critical matter. Member Hahn asked if a member of the public could make a change to the agenda. Mr. Whittenberg indicated a request could be considered by the Committee, but it is up to the Committee to determine to amend the agenda. Ms. Barnett further C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\Ol-18-95. M1N\L W\02-02-95 ..... .. '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 indicated consideration of Item 9 is critical due to the timing of the project, in addition to Item 4A, Receive and File Letter to Office of Historic Preservation from Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, no date. Mr. Whittenberg indicated Item 4A is a Consent Calendar item, not a discussion item, and if the Committee wishes to discuss Item 4A, it should be removed from the Consent Calendar. Member Hahn requested Agenda Item 7, Review and Direction to Staff re: "Historic Preservation Week - May 14-20, 1995" Information Packet, be placed as the last item under Scheduled Matters, as it appears to be the least time sensitive matter on the agenda. MOTION by Hahn, SECOND by Goldberg to approve the agenda with the following modifications: (1) remove Item 4A from the Consent Calendar; (2) move Item 9 to the first item under Scheduled Matters; and (3) move Item 7 to the last item under Scheduled Matters. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes '-' NOES: None ABSENT: A viani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Belardes asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Member Hahn requested that Item 2, Receive and File "Cultural Resources" Chapter (4.12) of Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report - The Bolsa Chica Project (Continued from December 7, 1994) and Item 3, Receive and File Memorandum re: "Archaeological Site Survey Records" and "Archaeological Reports II on File at the Department of Development Services, Revised December 20, 1994, be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION by Hahn, SECOND by Goldberg to remove Items 2 and 3 from the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 ~ C:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\Ol-18-95 .M1N\L W\02-02-95 2 ~ . . . A1chaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze MOTION by Price, SECOND by Davies to approve the Consent Calendar, Items 1 and 4. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze 1. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 4351, REGARDING REGULAR MEETING DATES FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Continue9 from December 7, 1994) Recommendation: Receive and File Staff Report. 4. RECEIVE AND FILE STAFF REPORT RE: LISTING OF DOCUMENTS from NAVAL WEAPONS STATION re: INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM - REVISED DECEMBER 22,1994 Recommendation: Receive and File Staff Report, revised December 20, 1994. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 2. RECEIVE AND FILE "CULTURAL RESOURCES" CHAPTER (4.12) OF REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT (Continued from December 7, 1994) Recommendation: Receive and File Staff Report and attached "Cultural Resources" Chapter (4.12) of Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report - The Bolsa Chica Project. C \WP51\ARCHCOMM\0l-18-95 MIN\LW\02-02-95 3 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 Member Hahn indicated the Committee did not receive the Comments and Response to Comments portion of this EIR document and she went to the Huntington Beach library and reviewed the comment document which is about twelve inches thick. In order to look at the overall picture, staff should present both sides, the EIR from the consultant and the comments from the public regarding that. She wondered if a copy of the comments could be available at City Hall so that interested members of the Committee could review it there. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that at the time of the preparation of this item in December 1994, the comments were not available from the County of Orange. The City now has the "Response to Comments" document, indicating the City of Seal Beach has filed an action against the County of Orange challenging the adequacy of the EIR document and the responses to issues raised by the City. The "Response to Comment" document is now at the City Attorney's office, which is being utilized to prepare legal pleadings related to the court matter. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it is unknown how long the City Attorney will retain those documents for his purposes. '-" Member Hahn requested, if possible, that Mr. Whittenberg provide the Comments and Response to Comments for the Archaeological portion of the document as an agenda item for the February 8, 1995 agenda. Member Hahn indicated there was so much information and it was not organized by subject matter, that she had made copies of some of the Comments and requested they be provided at the February 8 or the following meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff will provide the requested material if the documents are received from the City Attorney in a timely manner. Member Hahn indicated she had comments relative to information on page 4.12- 3, 4.12-8, 4. 12-9 and 4.12-10 regarding bunker eligibility and archaeological sites, and wanted those omissions to be noted. Mr. Whittenberg indicated, for clarification, that the County of Orange has already approved the document, and that it cannot be changed. Member Hahn indicated she was aware of that, and she wanted this information on the official record since the City is suing the County. Mr. Whittenberg said he appreciated the concern, but indicated the lawsuit is based on the record of what the County had before them at the time of their decision, it cannot include comments that come in after they have approved the application. Member Hahn indicated she had checked with the head of the Sierra Club, and he said it was still worth it to make a note of her comments because of the lawsuit coming up, the City might be able to use it later, and that's why she would like to make the comments. Member Hahn continued by indicating that on page 4.12-15, the EIR does not clearly make the point that CA- Ora-83 has been determined eligible for nomination to the National Register, \w- C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\0l-18-95 . MIN\L W\02-02-95 4 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 throughout the EIR the exact shell species are not identified, there is an abbreviated artifact list for each site - she would like to see the entire list of cultural materials for each site, and a description which includes age, origin, and usage, and finally, (tape not legible), she would like her comments provided verbatim in the minutes. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that if they can be picked up off the tape they will be included. MOTION by Belardes, SECOND by Unatin to Receive and File "Cultural Resources" Chapter (4.12) of Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report - The Bolsa Chica Project (Continued from December 7, 1994) MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze '-' Member Goldberg asked if when an EIR is received, ifit would be out of line for the Committee to receive the full document? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that would be outside the duties of the Committee and as an example, the Bolsa Chica Draft EIR was in excess of 2,600 pages in length. Mr. Whittenberg concurred with Member Goldberg that staff will continue to notify the Committee when an EIR is received and that the complete document is available for review by the Committee and any interested citizen at the Department of Development Services. Chairman Belardes indicated the analysis and write up of the Bolsa Chica area is a process, and it will probably take another year to year-and-a-half to evaluate everything that has been done there. The analysis will become part of a future public record, and some portions will be kept confidential because of the re-burial that was done on site. Member Goldberg asked Chairman Belardes if, from a Native American viewpoint, they have been satisfied with the way the archaeological studies have been done? Chairman Belardes indicated he was one of the "most likely descendants" on that site, and made recommendations to keep the ancestral remains on the mesa, noting they were scheduled to be moved. He has worked on the site since 1982, and re-burial agreements were in place for many years. A lot more information is being made public than he would prefer, since challenges to the archaeologist and the methodology have been made. He '-" C: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 5 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 saw no problems with the methodology. The archaeologist has worked with him since 1982 and he felt they got a bad rap. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE MEMORANDUM RE: "ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY RECORDS" AND "ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS" ON FILE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REVISED DECEMBER 20, 1994 Recommendation: Receive and File Memorandum, revised December 20, 1994. ~ Member Hahn asked which particular date the City received the Cottrell-Cooley report and the Van Horn reports relative to the Naval Weapons Station? Mr. Whittenberg indicated he could not give an exact date, but upon reviewing City records, there is an attachment to documents dated October 20, 1993, which included the subject reports. He could not say when exactly the City received that October 20, 1993 document. In addition, he indicated an additional copy of each report was provided as part of letter from the Naval Weapons Station dated December 8, 1994. Member Hahn asked if Mr. Whittenberg was aware of having received the documents prior to December 8, 1994? Mr. Whittenberg indicated he was, but could not give a specific date, sometime after October 20, 1993. Member Hahn asked if Mr. Whittenberg could provide a vague date when the documents were received? Mr. Whittenberg indicated sometime in October 1993. There was no further discussion on this matter. MOTION by Benjamin, SECOND by Goldberg to Receive and File Memorandum re: "Archaeological Site Survey Records" and "Archaeological Reports" on File at the Department of Development Services, revised December 20, 1994" MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze '-' C: \WP5 1 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 6 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes '-" January 18, 1995 4A. RECEIVE AND FILE LETTER to OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION from SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, NO DATE Recommendation: Receive and File subject letter. Provide direction to staff as determined appropriate. Member Hahn asked Lisa Barnett what specific document the letter refers to and what was the date of the letter? Ms. Barnett, Naval Weapons Station, indicated the letter unfortunately is not dated, and is in reference to the Ogden report which the Committee has reviewed in the past. Member Hahn clarified that the letter is in reference to the "Rough Draft "ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL and ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION of CULTURAL RESOURCES on the NA VAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc., June, 1993, and does not include any other documents. Ms. Barnett indicated that was correct. In response from a question from Member Hahn as to the date of the letter, Ms. Barnett indicated she would have to research that matter. There was no further discussion on this matter. MOTION by Benjamin, SECOND by Davies to Receive and File Receive and File Letter to Office of Historic Preservation from Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, no date. ........ MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 9. RECEIPT of NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SUBMISSION PACKAGE to SHPO re: "ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION PLAN FOR INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES 4, 8, 9 and SWMU 56" (Continued from December 7, 1994) '-' C: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\0I-18-95 .MIN\L W\02-02-95 7 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 Recommendation: Discuss document and provide comments regarding the adequacy of the document for preparation of a comment letter to the Naval Weapons Station. 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. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is a consideration of an "Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration Sites 4, 8, 9 and SWMU 56" at the Naval Weapons Station. He further indicated the Committee discussed this matter at their last meeting, formed a sub-committee to meet with the Navy and review and discuss the document. The sub-committee met with the Navy on December 19, 1994. Staff has provided, as Attachments 4 and 5, meeting notes prepared by Mr. Whittenberg and by the Navy, so that the full Committee would have a better understanding of the discussion which took place. \..,.. Member Hahn indicated that on page 30 of the Ogden report she had a question of Lisa Barnett as to what happens if a different method of remediation, i.e., steam cleaning, hydro-blasting is utilized. In her discussions with the State Office of Historic Preservation it was stated that in a similar situation on an IR project at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, they used steam cleaning, since it was less expensive than digging up the whole rose bed. Member Hahn questioned if a different type of remediation is used, what would happen? The only method discussed in the Ogden document is "soil removal". Ms. Barnett indicated the discussion is relative to Site 4, the perimeter road, and that the area of a potential archaeological site is proposed to be avoided as part of the IR soil testing. If further analysis and testing indicates the potential archaeological site will need to be disturbed, archaeological testing will occur. In addition, the Restoration Advisory Board will be reviewing and providing input into the future IR documents, including future remediation activities. A future removal action would require additional archaeological analysis. Member Hahn clarified a revised removal action may require additional archaeological testing, with Ms. Barnett concurring, depending on the appropriate mitigation activity for that specific site. Member Hahn also inquired as to the minimum professional qualifications the Navy requires for archaeological field monitors? Ms. Barnett indicated she does recall specifically, but that the training indicated as part of the Chambers report would be appropriate. Ms. Barnett and Lieutenant Commander Whitfield indicated they would research this further. '-" c:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\0l-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 8 \.... Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 In response to a question from Chairman Belardes regarding any guidance from the Section 106 process, Ms. Barnett indicated she did not believe the Section 106 guidelines specifically addresses "archaeological monitors II . Member Goldberg asked if the Navy was able to confirm what RECON study was done? Ms. Barnett indicated the Navy has no official "archaeological report" from RECON. They have a copy of notes regarding a potential site as an attachment to a report from Brock. RECON prepared a "Natural Resources Management Plan II for the Navy. Member Hahn asked if RECON sent a copy of their map to the Navy? Ms. Barnett indicated they have a copy of the sketch map and will be following up with additional communication with RECON. Member Benjamin inquired who is responsible for studies on the Weapons Station? Ms. Barnett indicated the Navy is responsible for consultant selection and determination of scope of work for a particular contract. Member Benjamin clarified it is appropriate for the Committee to be reviewing these matters. Ms. Barnett indicated it is. \...- Member Hahn indicated the minutes from the sub-committee meeting are inaccurate and she does not appreciate being mis-quoted. She further indicated Mr. Whittenberg did borrow her tape of the meeting and does not understand how he could quote her incorrectly. Member Davies asked Member Hahn if she is implying it was intentional on Mr. Whittenberg's part? Member Hahn stated she did not see how it could have happened, because he had the tape. Member Davies took exception to Member Hahn's comments and Member Hahn indicated that was fine with her, that was what happened and she doesn't know how it happened and she doesn't want to go on the official record misquoted. Member Hahn submitted a written document of corrections to the December 19, 1994 sub- committee meeting minutes. Member Davies again stated her exception. In response to a question from Member Hahn as to how this could have happened, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the minutes are a summary, not verbatim, of what discussed. In some cases the tape is not clear, and the minutes are prepared from notes and recollection. The minutes are not meant to be a totally accurate record of what was discussed, but a summary of the major issues and concerns. The intent is not to intentionally mis-state an issue or comment. In addition, the meeting notes are in a draft form for the sub-committee to review and correct as appropriate, as the Committee does on a regular basis when approving your Committee minutes. Member Hahn requested that staff do an audio tape of all Committee meetings and use a high quality tape so these problems don't keep coming up. Mr. '-" C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. M1N\L W\02-02-95 9 \.... Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 Whittenberg indicated he appreciates the concern, but noted there are several problems. First, the preparation of minutes for this Committee is becoming very time consuming at a staff level, and that the only microphones which really pick up well are on the City Council podium and it difficult to obtain a clear recording using an alternate system. Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Committee may wish to try sitting at the podium and using the regular system on a trial basis. The time impositions on staff to prepare the minutes for Planning Commission, Environmental Quality Control Board, this Committee, and related staff reports, in addition to City Council staff reports is very extensive. Member Hahn indicated she did not desire to go through her corrections point-by-point, but to have the corrections entered into the record. MOTION by Unatin, SECOND by Goldberg to incorporate into the record of the December 19, 1994 sub-committee meeting the minute corrections prepared by Member Hahn. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes '-' NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze Member Unatin asked Mr. Whittenberg if there was any reason not to take the action just taken, the best possible job was done by staff, corrections are requested, and there is no reason not to act? Mr. Whittenberg indicated to the Committee that what staff prepares is not "cast in stone", everything presented is staff's best effort to be as accurate as possible. When people are taking notes, everyone will focus on what their perception of the main issues are. When staff is presenting minutes, staff reports, etc., that is our best effort at providing accurate information, and that may not always the case. That is not taken as a personal attack on staff. Member Goldberg asked if it was necessary to have two sets of minutes, one from the Navy and one from staff? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Navy is focusing on certain issues of importance for their internal operations, and staff felt the full Committee should be provided a more complete review of the discussion of issues and concerns that occurred. Member Hahn asked if the Committee could correct what they felt was incorrect information in the Navy '-" C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\Ol-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 10 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 minutes? purposes. Mr. Whittenberg indicated no, they are presented for information \w- Member Benjamin asked if the Navy should be involved with the work of the Committee, as it is a Federal agency. The Committee discussed the appropriateness of reviewing activities on the Weapons Station. Member Davies asked if the Committee felt the Navy is doing something improper that the Committee needs to get into this deeply? Member Goldberg indicated it is not improper, but if the property becomes public in the future, it would be nice to have a glowing record of what has been done. She further indicated she does not feel the Navy is being attacked and that they are a good neighbor. She felt it is much better to discuss these issues in a public forum and not wonder what is being done. Member Davies indicated some of the correspondence going back and forth doesn't seem to be extremely friendly, and she is sensing there is more to this than people are being up front about. Are we suspecting something? Member Hahn indicated she does not know how Member Davies feels about some issues, that is why Member Hahn is presenting her views as a member of the public. She feels most members of the Committee are not as interested as she is, and that is why she does not want to involve the Committee. Member Benjamin asked if these concerns should be coming from a higher authority than the Committee? Member Hahn indicated no, adding they coming not from the Committee, but from her as an individual. Member Benjamin acknowledged that, but said member Hahn is still a member of the Committee. Member Hahn indicated that doesn't matter, she can still be a member of the public, there is no law which says she can't be both. Member Davies indicated that in correspondence from Member Hahn coming to her house she is sensing animosity. Member Hahn said most of the material is being sent by the City. Member Davies indicated the last packet was sent by Member Hahn, and it seems that there is some animosity going on. Member Hahn indicated she is being as courteous as she can, but she is also asking questions she cares about. In response to the comment from Member Benjamin, Member Hahn indicated Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act cites "interested persons II , meaning individuals as well as organizations. The Archaeological Committee may be involved, in fact it is our federal tax dollars, so in a sense it is our property. Member Benjamin referred to development occurring in the City as the responsibility of the Committee. Member Hahn indicated the Weapons Station is in the City and there is not much else going on, since Bixby hasn't gotten underway yet. Member Benjamin indicated she felt Member Hahn was doing a marvelous job, and more than the other members of the Committee put in together. Member Benjamin inquired where do the obligations of the Committee '-" C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95 . MIN\L W\02-02-95 11 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 begin and stop? Member Unatin and Chairman Belardes indicated that subject may appropriate for a future Committee meeting. Chairman Belardes asked the Committee to discuss the recommendation by staff. Ms. Barnett indicated the Navy is in the process of having the subject report revised to incorporate comments of the sub-committee and of the Committee, and noted an addendum report will be prepared for that purpose. In addition the Navy has received a request from the public regarding the qualifications of the consultant, and those are summarized in the resumes of the personnel from Chambers Group. Ms. Barnett further indicated that correspondence from the Committee is requested by the Navy by February 8, 1995. Mr. Whittenberg inquired when the addendum report would be available for Committee review? Ms. Barnett indicated it will be presented to the Committee when it is finalized. '-" Member Hahn indicated she has put in a Freedom of Information Act request for information, and as a member of the public would prefer to wait to get that information. The other members of the Committee may feel differently. Ms. Barnett indicated the Freedom of Information Act request is for information generally available to the public, with the exception of two archaeological reports requested. Member Hahn requested clarification as to who did the field work, Mason or Carbonne? Ms. Barnett believed Carbonne did the field work and Mason prepared the report. Member Hahn asked if Ms. Barnett had a resume for Carbonne that she could look at? Ms. Barnett stated the resume is in the report. In response to a question from Member Hahn, Ms. Barnett indicated Carbonne did not go back and take a second look at the sites. Ms. Barnett indicated the addendum report will expand and provide more detailed information regarding some of the issues of concern to the sub-committee. Member Hahn stated in the Chambers report, page 14, it says the archaeologist felt the shell deposit was natural. She has checked with Chester King, an archaeologist who is a regional specialist on shells, and although she couldn't understand some of the species discussed, when she read off the list of species, Mr. King said you have perfectly described a shell midden, and it would support the conclusion it is an archaeological site, not a natural deposit. Member Hahn indicated she then talked to Mr. Del Cioppio, from SHPO who had talked to Ms. Barnett, and that it was Member Hahn's understanding based on the discussions between the Navy and SHPO that the Navy had sent a geo-morphologist to the site, who concluded it was a natural deposit. Ms. Barnett indicated that was incorrect, no further field work was conducted, and the Chambers Group will be providing additional discussion regarding the conclusion of a natural deposit at this site in the addendum report. Member Goldberg asked if the addendum report '-" C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\0I-18-95 .MIN\L W\02-02-95 12 , , \...- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 would be available at the February meeting? Ms. Barnett indicated that is her hope and intent. ~ Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the request of the Navy is to proceed with a concurrence letter this evening, with the understanding that the issues discussed at the December 19, 1994 sub-committee meeting will be fully addressed in the addendum report, and that the Committee not wait to review the addendum report prior to preparing the concurrence letter. In response to a question from Member Davies, Member Hahn indicated she would prefer to review the resume of Carbonne and see if he is as well versed in shell as King is. Ms. Barnett indicated that no one in southern California is as well versed in shell as King is, with Member Hahn indicating she knows that, and that is why she would wish to review this matter further. Ms. Barnett asked if the Navy is to hire King to prepare the analysis, with Member Hahn indicating of course not. Ms. Barnett indicated she questioned how Mr. King could make the statements attributed to him based on a phone conversation, without visiting the site itself. Member Hahn indicated that his statement was just based on the shells identified as being present at the site. Member Hahn indicated that one of the shell species identified was a fresh-water species, which would lead Mr. King to a determination of a cultural context. Ms. Barnett indicated the archaeologist on site is a PhD., and his determination was a natural site, and the Navy is going further, based on concerns expressed by the sub-committee, that an archaeologist will be present during IR testing activities at the site. Member Hahn indicated that made her feel better, and that she hadn't heard that before. Ms. Barnett indicated that was discussed at the December 19, 1994 meeting. Member Hahn indicated that was a little unclear. Member Benjamin inquired as to the process the Navy utilizes to select archaeologists. Ms. Barnett and Lieutenant Commander Whitfield reviewed the contracting/consultant selection process used by the Navy, noting a minimum of three bids must be received. Member Unatin verified with Ms. Barnett that the Navy will have an archaeologist and a Native American Monitor present at each site and that addresses his concerns, if a letter so stating is provided to the Committee. Member Hahn indicated she would want to wait until she reads the addendum. Further discussion occurred regarding the provision of archaeologists, archaeological monitors and Native American monitors at the subject IR sites. Member Goldberg asked if additional analysis regarding salt water/fresh water shell species will be undertaken? Ms. Barnett indicated that is not contemplated, since the site is felt at this time to be natural in origin. The end of the project \..,.. C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\Ol-18-95 . MIN\L W\02-02-95 13 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 report could address this concern. Further discussion occurred between the Committee and the Navy regarding the differences in an archaeologist and archaeological monitor. Mr. Carbonne will in fact be at the site as a monitor. In response to a question from Member Unatin, Ms. Barnett referred the Committee to the Archaeological Monitors description in the original report. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the issue of an archaeologist as a monitor is not discussed in the original report, but apparently will be addressed in the addendum report. Member Unatin indicated he trusts the Navy to have the proper personnel present as monitors, given the scrutiny given to this issue by the Committee, and those concerns of the Committee could be assuaged by a confirmation letter from the Navy specifying what type of monitor will be provided at what site. Member Hahn indicated she would agree to that. \... Chairman Belardes requested the Committee provide direction to staff as to how to proceed. Member Goldberg indicated she could accept the assurance of the Navy. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his impression of the Committee discussion is that the Committee is happy with the subject document with the understanding that the Navy will prepare a confirming letter indicating that at Site 9 the Navy will have a professional archaeologist monitor and a Native American monitor, and at the other sites the Navy will have an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor. Member Hahn indicated she wants an archaeologist at both sites IR Site 4 and 9. After discussion among the Committee and the Navy, it was clarified that if Site 4 is impacted by the IR process and a determination made that Site 4 is an archaeological site, an archaeologist will conduct further studies as part of any remediation process which may occur at Site 4. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the question before the Committee is if an archaeologist is necessary at Site 4 during the IR testing activities, which is designed to avoid the area of potential archaeological significance. Member Hahn indicated that is not necessary, only if a clear determination is made if remedial action is necessary. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his understanding of the discussion is that the Committee is leaning towards instructing staff to prepare a letter to the Navy indicating the Committee is agreement with the document, subject to confirmation from the Navy that they will an archaeologist and Native American monitor present at Site 9, and an archaeological monitor and Native American monitor present the other remaining sites subject to this report, and that if the future actions require additional survey/testing work at Site 4 that would impact the area of potential archaeological site, that would require a professional archaeologist to review and study that area. \...- C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. M1N\L W\02-02-95 14 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 MOTION by Unatin, SECOND by Benjamin to instruct staff to prepare a letter for consideration at the February 8, 1995 Committee meeting as outlined by Mr. Whittenberg immediately above. Member Hahn requested discussion, indicating she feels she will be the minority in dissent. She indicated the State's understanding, according to Mr. Del Cioppio, is that a geo-morphologist reassessed the site, and that has not occurred, due to a mix-up. In addition, a professional archaeologist will be present as covered in this motion, and that is great. Also, the determination the area is definitely all fill and not eligible for the National Register, that point has not been proven, and because of that she is not fully satisfied and will not agree. Chairman Belardes indicated a midden is present, that he has worked with Mr. Carbonne on other sites, and is sure he knows of Mr. King's work, and does not have a problem with his work. He stated if we are going to challenge everybody's qualifications, we will never accomplish anything. '-' Member Hahn requested that motion be modified to wait until the confirming letter is received to approve the concurring letter. In response to Member Benjamin, Ms. Barnett reviewed the time schedule for the additional testing activities, indicating work could occur at other sites. Mr. Whittenberg indicated if the Navy can provide the confirming letter soon enough, staff could package that letter with a draft response letter for Committee consideration on February 8. Member Goldberg indicated that is fine unless Member Hahn finds out something additional from her Freedom of Information Act request, and could bring it up at the meeting. Ms. Barnett indicated the outstanding Freedom of Information Act request, to her understanding, is the professional qualifications of the consultants, with Member Hahn indicating the receipt of the addendum report also. Ms. Barnett indicated the addendum report is being prepared by Chambers Group, not a geo-morphologist. Discussion occurred between Member Hahn and Ms. Barnett regarding the issue of a geo-morphologist. MODIFICATION OF MOTION by Hahn, SECOND by Goldberg to instruct staff to prepare a letter for consideration at the February 8, 1995 Committee meeting as outlined by Mr. Whittenberg immediately above, based on receipt of a confirming letter from the Naval Weapons Station confirming the discussion set forth by Mr. Whittenberg relative to the original motion. Chairman Belardes asked if the maker and second of the original motion are agreeable to the modification. It was agreeable to the maker and second. \....- C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 15 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Chairman Belardes asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of November 9, 1994. Member Hahn indicated on page 3, the following statement was unclear: ........ "Member Hahn asked Mr. Whittenberg when this document was received by the City. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it was provided at the October 19, 1994 Archaeological Advisory Committee Meeting. " Member Hahn stated the passage is unclear, the document provided on October 19 was provided to who, from who. She checked the agenda, she didn't get this until November 9, she wondered when did it come in, and was it something that was provided to Mr. Whittenberg and then received in the agenda packet of November 9? Mr. Whittenberg indicated it was provided to him at the conclusion of the October 19 meeting by the Navy and placed on the November 9 agenda by staff. Member Hahn verified the report did not go to the Committee on October 19, but to the Committee in the agenda packet of November 9. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that was correct. On page 13, Member Hahn, indicated that in the second from the bottom paragraph, it starts out "Member Hahn", the last two sentences read "Commander Steadley indicated the "HARP" plan is designed with the potential of this type of situation and would be reviewed prior to restoration activity occurring at I/R Site 1. II Member Hahn asked what the sentence was trying to say, she could not understand it. Mr. Whittenberg said the point the sentence is attempting to get across is that the review document prepared by Ogden does not cover the entire Weapons Station, it only covers certain portions of the Weapons Station. The \....- c: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95 .M1N\L W\02-02-95 16 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 discussion is regarding a site not covered by Ogden, but would be discussed as part of the overall base HARP plan. Member Hahn indicated that where it says "restoration activity II , in the subject sentence and the sentence just above the subject sentence, she felt it should say "remedial action II as that is the more specific term used by the Navy for this particular phase of the restoration, and would like to strike "restoration activity II and replace it with "remedial action" at those two places. Member Hahn also wanted to add that "Commander Steadley said he would look into this mater." at the end of the subject paragraph. There were no further comments on the minutes. MOTION by Price, SECOND by Goldberg to approve the November 9, 1994 Archaeological Advisory Committee minutes with the corrections noted by Member Hahn above. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None '-' ABSENT: A viani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze 6. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 7, 1994 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Chairman Belardes asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 7, 1994. Member Goldberg asked if the Committee memo to the EQCB regarding the Bixby Draft EIR should be attached to the Minutes, or did it go out after the meeting? Will it be provided in the packet next time? Mr. Whittenberg indicated normally a communication from the Committee is not attached as part of the minutes, but it can be placed on the next Committee agenda as an information item. Member Goldberg asked if there is any place in these minutes where they can find out what happened at the EQCB meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he could provide a copy of the EQCB minutes for information of the Committee, with Member Goldberg indicating that was not necessary. Member Hahn indicated on page 10, fifth paragraph, the term "site survey" should be "walkover survey", and she would like that changed. On page 11, '-' C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\0l-18-95. M1N\L W\02-02-95 17 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 second paragraph, second line, the same correction. Member Hahn also indicated on page 11, last paragraph, fourth line, the reference to "monitor" should be changed to read "representative". On page 12, top paragraph, line 3, where it states "Member Hahn indicated her concern ... ", she does not remember saying that and thought Member Goldberg said that. Member Goldberg concurred. Member Unatin indicated on page 10, second full paragraph, that statement was not made by him, Member Davies indicated she made the statement. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Benjamin to approve the December 7, 1994 Archaeological Advisory Committee minutes with the corrections noted by Members Hahn and Unatin above. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None '-' ABSENT: A viani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze 10. RECEIPT of NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SUBMISSION PACKAGE re: RELEASABILITY OF RECORDS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION TO "INTERESTED PARTIES II Recommendation: Discuss submission package and provide comments regarding the issues of concern for staff preparation of a response letter to the Naval Weapons Station. 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. Mr. Whittenberg indicated a supplemental staff report has been prepared by staff based on a presentation at the Monday night City Council meeting by Mark Hotchkiss regarding some concerns on the content of the draft letter in the original staff report packet. The Council did not take any direct action or instruct staff to do anything at that point in time, since it was a matter that came up under oral communications and the Council is not allowed to take any action. Our office and the City Attorney's office reviewed the concerns attached as Attachment 1 to the Supplemental Staff report, the material presented at the City Council meeting. Based on a further review of that material, and discussion with ~ C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 18 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 the City Attorney's office, staff has revised the letter as shown in Attachment 2 of the supplemental staff report, with the additional language shown in bold and italicized text. Staff tried to clarify a little more clearly the position of the City, and Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Committee take a minute to review the additional language which has been provided, and then if the Committee has questions or comments he would try to respond from a staff level. Member Goldberg asked if was really necessary to send this letter, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating that is up to the Committee, it is at the discretion of the Committee. Member Goldberg explained the reason she asked is that we may disagree as a Committee as to how certain things are handled, and really feels that if Member Hahn had not asked some of these questions we would not be as informed as we are, and also, some of the questions Member Hahn asked really helped the Navy in many ways to find out some of the information they didn't have. Member Goldberg further stated it was a really good exchange of ideas, and didn't think any of us are attacking anybody else, we are just trying to find out what is best for the City and the Navy. She felt the letter could be a smoother letter so that it isn't such a harsh letter to go into the final record of exchange of communication between the Navy and the City. '-' Member Hahn wanted to make it clear that her questions and requests to the Navy were sent under her name, not the Committee's name, she made a deliberate effort to keep it separate. She is not an interested person by virtue of her membership on the Committee, in fact she was an interested person, and has the correspondence to show that, years before there was a committee. She doesn't feel the City should be involved in a dispute between a private individual and the Navy, sees no reason for the City to be involved as there could be liability, so why should the City be a party to it. Member Hahn recalled that about a year ago the Committee indicated it wasn't all that concerned about the Navy, so she didn't want to do anything with the Committee's name on it, since she figured since she was going to investigate further it should be done as an individual, which is what she has done, and will continue to do. Member Davies indicated "sort of ", with Member Hahn disagreeing. Member Benjamin inquired of Member Hahn's interests, with Member Hahn indicating it is not only the Navy, but also the Mola project and other areas of the City, and that she works with other archaeologists. Member Unatin asked for clarification on what is being discussed, asking does the City have the right to write this letter? Member Goldberg indicated that since the letter is coming from the City, Mr. Whittenberg should explain. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the draft letter is an attempt to respond to a letter from the '-" C:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95 .MIN\L W\02-02-95 19 '-" '--' \..,. .' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 Navy for some information. A letter came from the Navy on December 8 requesting clarification as to how activities Member Hahn is undertaking as an interested party outside of the Committee could be related to any activities that the Committee itself is undertaking. The Navy is requesting clarification if the Committee felt the activities Member Hahn is taking outside the Committee as an interested party would have an impact on any activities of the Committee. As part of that Member Hahn was requesting copies of certain survey reports done on archaeological sites on the base. In staff's review with the City Attorneys's office, Staff felt a draft of the response letter was appropriate to bring back to the Committee, since the concern from the Navy was addressed to the Committee through Mr. Whittenberg as the secretary of the Committee. Staff prepared a response letter, which the Committee has in the original packet, based on staff's review of both state and federal regulation which deal particularly with the release of survey documents itself. Mr. Whittenberg said that has been a concern of the City for quite some time, and staff tried to make the draft response letter relate more to the issue of the release of survey documents, as opposed to some of the other items Member Hahn is requesting, because the City felt there was no problem in requesting the other items. A draft response letter was prepared as part of the agenda packet, and obviously Member Hahn and Mr. Hotchkiss disagree with what was sent out in that particular packet of material. They presented a letter to the Council, staff then looked at the issue again, and prepared some modifications to the draft response letter. Staff is not suggesting the Committee must respond to the Navy, you can choose not to as that is perfectly within your purview. If the Committee wishes to respond in some sort, staff wanted to at least have some sort of a draft document for you to look at and see if this is going down the road you want to go down, if you want to go down a different road, give staff some direction and staff will come back to you a revised letter which more reflects what you as the Committee think you would like to see in a response letter. Member Hahn requested Mr. Whittenberg to clarify what the revision means. Is the City's position that if I am doing these things as an individual, we don't care. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that was correct. Member Hahn indicated she was doing this as an individual, and she felt this is a good idea. Her feeling is that has happened here, the Navy has asked the City to decide for the Navy whether it should release documents to her, in other words, it is deferring it's decision making to the City. She thinks the Navy should make its own decision based on the law and leave the City out of it. She does not see the necessity for the City to respond. C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 20 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 Member Davies indicated that when we start to talk about legal rights we are getting a little nervous. Member Hahn has challenged the Navy's rights, which she felt the City needs to protect itself from this kind of language. Member Goldberg indicated that maybe Member Hahn shouldn't be sending the Committee copies of her letters, and let her do this as an interested citizen. Member Hahn concurred that is a good idea. Member Unatin indicated the information is helpful. Member Davies indicated that Member Hahn has already started language that is challenging the Navy, which can effect the City. Member Goldberg indicated that if Member Hahn is communicating with the Navy as an interested citizen, and doesn't send us copies of what she is communicating, then it becomes an issue between Member Hahn and the Navy, then it is up Member Hahn if she wants to share answers with the Committee. Member Davies indicated it is already happening, and now the Navy is asking for something from the Committee. Further discussion occurred among the members of the Committee regarding this issue. '--' Member Hahn indicated the City is in the habit of copying these things ten times and she doesn't understand why that is happening. She asked Mr. Whittenberg why was that necessary? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that when staff puts together a staff report packet, staff tries to include all the documents they think the Committee will need to refer to make a decision on something, and to put together an agenda packet which references other documents as part of previous agenda packets, which you may not have available. Member Hahn indicated there seems to be a distinction drawn, for example, on the Bo1sa Chica information staff indicated that in order to save paper they were not going to send it out again. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that was done because the item did not deal directly with the City of Seal Beach, and was an information item to give the Committee some history of what was going on totally outside the City of Seal Beach. That is different from something which is in the City of Seal Beach, in his mind. Member Hahn indicated she did not see the need of reproducing the same letter hundreds of times. Chairman Belardes asked the Committee to focus on the issue. Member Hahn indicated she will not send her letters to the Committee, she thinks they should be separate, and if th~ City wants to reproduce it, fine, she's not going to. Discussion occurred among the members of the Committee as to the ability of members to stay this evening, given prior commitments. Member Benjamin indicated that she feels everyone is confused and tired, and this should wait. Member Hahn indicated she would like to get it over with. Member Davies stated she is not being hard on Member Hahn, she has put herself in this position now, that maybe the City has to send this letter. Chairman Belardes indicated \w- c: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\Ol-18-95. MIN\L W\02-112-95 21 ~ ~ ~ .- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 maybe the Committee could write a letter simply stating to the Navy that member Hahn is acting as a private citizen, and asked if that would that suffice? Members Goldberg and Price indicated they liked that idea. Member Goldberg indicated she feels the Committee has to answer the letter and she would be satisfied if the letter says that Member Hahn is acting as an interested citizen, and that the Committee is not involved with anything Member Hahn is doing as a private individual. Member Davies indicated because Member Hahn has already said something will not stand up in court, that has already been said. Member Goldberg indicated that is okay, because the City is answering that question by then sending a letter saying the City is not responsible for what Member Hahn does as a private citizen. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee has a couple of choices: 1) not respond at all; 2) can respond saying Member Hahn is acting in this case as a private individual, deal with her as you do with any private individual, the City has no involvement with that. Member Benjamin indicated that is a good idea, the Committee is not involved. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the Committee would like staff to come back at the February 8 meeting with a draft letter. Member Hahn indicated she would like Member Goldberg to write the draft letter, if that acceptable with the Committee. Member Goldberg indicated she felt the letter should come out of the City. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Benjamin, that the Committee instruct Mr. Whittenberg to prepare a draft response letter for the Committee to consider at the next meeting which would indicate that Member Hahn is an interested citizen, acting as an individual, and that correspondence from the Committee will be the City of Seal Beach stationary. There was no other discussion on the motion. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: A viani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze 7. REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO STAFF RE: "HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK - MAY 14-20, 1995" INFORMATION PACKET. C:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\0I-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 22 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 18, 1995 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. 8. 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. MOTION by Benjamin, SECOND by Goldberg, to continue Agenda Items 7 and 8 to the February 8, 1995 Committee meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes ~ NOES: None ABSENT: Aviani, Fitzpatrick and Frietze VII. COMMITTEE CONCERNS None. VIII. STAFF CONCERNS None. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Committee, Chairman Belardes adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m. to Wednesday, February 8, 1995, 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. ~ C: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\OI-18-95. MIN\L W\ll2-02-95 23 1.1 -... Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes \..,., January 18, 1995 G4~ Chairman, Archaeological Advisory Committee /~ Whittenberg, Secretary U Archaeological Advisory COlTI1 Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of January 18, 1995 were approved on re73/evA--7Z'7' F3 , 1995. \..r ~; C: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\0I-18-95. MIN\L W\02-02-95 24 \.....- . Date: To: From: January 8, 1995 Seal Beach City Council Mark Hotchkiss and Moira E. Hahn lh q{ J ll' (,~ q:! Subject: City Involvement in a Dispute between the Navy and a private citizen. ~ A Seal Beach resident, Moira Hahn, has requested archaeological site survey records pertaining to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station from the Navy. She has requested two of these surveys through the Freedom of Information Act. Moira Hahn also serves on the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee, but she has made her request as a private citizen in order to protect the City from any liability resulting from her investigation. The Navy has asked the City of Seal Beach to decide for the Navy whether or not it should release these records to Moira Hahn. The Navy, in it's own words, is "deferring the releaseability determination of non-public records to the City of Seal Beach,,1 . The City staff and the City Attorney's office have drafted an opinion that appears in the Archaeological Advisory Committee's agenda packet for it's January 18th meeting. They state that the City's official position is that Hahn's request should be denied, because as a member of the public, she has no right to review the station's archaeological records. Staff has prepared a letter for the Chairman of the committee to sign, pending committee approval. This response to the Navy's request states that the committee agrees with City staff that Hahn has no right to review the Navy's data as a private citizen, and that the Navy should deny Hahn access to the records that she has requested. If the Navy denies this Freedom of Information Act request, it will be followed by a lawsuit seeking the release of the records. Ms. Catherine Cameron, staff analyst for the Federal Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, the agency responsible for enforcing the National Historic Preservation Act, has stated that the Navy would have a difficult time justifying such a denial in court, because of the heavy security at the station. She added that the implementing regulations for the National Historic Preservation Ace encourage maximum public participation in the Historic Preservation process. If the City chooses to assume a role in this dispute between an individual and the Navy, it may later need to defend it's actions in court. Before spending more City dollars to provide legal aid to the Navy, the City Attorney should respond to the Navy's request as follows: 1. The Navy has no right to defer it's responsibilities to the City, 2. The City is under no obligation to make decisions for the Navy, and 3. The Navy must make it's own determination as to the releaseability of these records pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and other pertinent laws. '-" 1 Letter from G. C. Whitfield, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy to Mr. Lee Wittenberg, dated Dec. 8, 1994. 236 CFR 800.1 (c) (2) (iv) DEPARTMENT OF THE NA VY NAVAL. WEAPONS STATION HAL. BEAC.... CAUFOIIINIA ao74().!5000 IN R["L Y R[F[R TO 5758 Ser OOL/SB2020 December 8, 1994 Mr. Lee Wittenberg, Secretary Seal Beach Archaeological Committee City of Seal Beach, City Hall 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Mr. Wittenberg: ~. The purpose of this letter is to seek the assistance of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee leadership in determining the releaseability of records in the Navy's custody which, if disclosed. would reveal confidential information about the nature and location of archaeological resources located at the Naval Weapons Station (WPNST A). Seal Beach. The requester of these records is Ms. Moira Hahn who is a member of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee. Her request was not made through the committee. but was made in her personal capacity with the disclaimer that the opinions set forth in her correspondence were her own and not those of the committee. In disassociating her correspondence from her membership on the committee, the issue is raised regarding Ms. Hahn's "interested person" standing to have access to information not releasable to the general public. Accordingly, we have advised Ms. Hahn that the requested records were sent to the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee to determine if her need for access is based on a specific need or requirement posed by the work of the committee in furthering a purpose of The National Historic Preservation Act or The Archaeological Resource Protection Act. Enclosures (1) through (4) include the correspondence describing her requests. Enclosure (5) is our response deferring the ~easeability determination of non-public records to the CIty of Seal Beach Archaeological Aavlsory CommiTtee. Enclosures (6) and (7) are the requested documents which require the releaseability determination. ~ While we support the committee's role in reviewing the Navy's planning and implementation of undertakings which might affect archaeological sites, Ms. Hahn's status as an "interested person" outside the committee is not so clear, particularly in connection with her additional request that ~ 5758 Ser OOl/SB2020 the Navy send to her "future correspondence. and data regarding cultural resource management for the IR program and all other undertakings at the station. to me at my home address." We recognize that both the Navy and the City of Seal Beach share a mutual obligation to protect non-public information detailing the nature and location of archaeological resources. This obligation could not be met were we to release archaeological surveys without an adequate factual foundation linking the request and requester to a verifiable project or role in furtherance of a statutory purpose. While the relevance of the requested records to the work of the committee is undisputed, Ms. Hahn's needs and purposes outside the committee are not adequately known or understood. Therefore. I defer to you the determination of whether Ms. Hahn's work as a committee member requires release of the specific records requested by her. \w- The City's interest in protecting the confidentiality of non-public archaeological information is evidenced in its adoption of Negative Declaration 92-1 and the Archaeological and Historical Element of the Seal Beach General Plan {GPA 92-1). The adopting resolution recognized the concerns of the Native American Heritage Commission "regarding the availability of archaeological site record information ... " and the corresponding need to comply with the regulatory limitations on access to baseline survey information exempted from public release under Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Section 7.18. To Ms. Hahn's credit, she has induced dialogue and raised a number of valid issues which are being addressed in our draft instruction. That instruction will update the procedures we follow to ensure committee participation and community involvement at the earliest stage possible to resolve any issues of archaeological impact relative to Navy project proposals in areas of the station having sensitivity as a potential source of historic and archaeological resources. I am confident that publication of our new instruction will institutionalize and improve the process under which such project decisions ore made. Our concern in directing her ~ 2 '-' 5758 Ser OOL/SB2020 records request to the committee are procedural in nature and should not be viewed as any effort to reduce or delimit Ms. Hahn's involvement in the committee or with the station. Her dedication to preserving cultural resources as reflected in her thoroughgoing inquiries have had a positive impact. The issue of releaseability is much more limited in scope and we seek only to ensure that statutorily protected documents are made available to those whose interest in disclosure has been validated as necessary to fulfill a committee purpose. If you wish to discuss this matter. I can be reached at (310) 626-7301. My point of contact in this matter. Ms. Lisa Barnett. can be reached at (310) 626-7637 to assist you with any questions you may have about the content of the enclosed materials. ~ Sincerely, I I' ~. ~J .. G. C. WHITFIELD Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy Acting Commanding Officer Enel: (1) M. Hahn's Ifr of 1 Nov 94 (2) M. Hahn's Itr of 2 Nov 94 (3) M. Hahn's Ifr of 12 Nov 94 (4) M. Hahn's Itr of 1 Dec 94 (5) WPNSTA Seal Beach Itr 5800 Ser OOL/SB2019 of 7 Dee 94 (6) D. Van Horn survey of 1981 (7) Cooley/Cottrell's survey of 1980 Copy w 10 encl: Moira Hahn 1732 Harbor Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 ~ 3 ., '\ '-" WeapotlS Station Submission Package re: Releasability of Records in the Custody of the Seal Beach Naval WeapotlS Stan'on to "Interested Partit's. Archaeological Advisory Comminu Staff Report January 18, 1995 A TT ACHMENT 2 January 18, 1995 G. C. Whitfield Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy Acting Commanding Officer Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA 90740- 5000 "-' SUBJECT: Releasability of Records in the Custody of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station to "Interested ~~~" ~~~ Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Secretary of the Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee, has forwarded your correspondence of'December 8, 1994, to the Archaeological Advisory Committee ("Committee") for review and consideration. The Committee considered this matter at an adjourned meeting on January 18, 1995. The Committee appreciates the concern of the Navy in releasing confidential documents to "interested parties" , and concurs with your concern upon the sensitive archaeological sites within the boundaries if the Naval Weapons Station. Dear Lieutenant Commander Whitfield: City staff and the City Attorney have assisted in the preparation of this response letter, and it reflects the concern of both of those parties that applicable Federal and State law provisions regarding the confidential nature of archaeological reports be enforced. As you have correctly noted in your letter of December 7, 1994, to Ms. Hahn, Title V of the United States Code (USC), under subchapter II of Chapter 5, disallows Federal land managers from making available to the public information concerning the nature and location of any archaeological resource. The exceptions authorized to that duty not to disclose require a showing that the purposes of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 would be furthered by the release of such non-public information. The Committee is not aware of any reason as to how the release of the requested documents to Ms. Hahn as an "interested party" would further the purposes of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and in fact feels that said release would be in opposition to the purposes of said Act. Release of the requested materials, '-" C:\WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\INTPARTY .SR\L W\OI..o3-9S 6 , ., .- '-' '-"" ~ Weapons Station Submission Package re: Releasabilif)' of Records in the Custody of the Seal Beach Na~'al Weapons Station to ./nteresud Parties. Archaeological Advisor)' Committu Staff Repon Januory 18, 1995 or other similar documents, to Ms. Hahn may encourage others to declare themselves "interested parties", and make similar requests Similar provisions also are set forth in Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition to the Federal requirements cited above, which the Navy is responsible to enforce, the State of California has implemented similar legislative prohibitions on the release of confidential archaeological reports at Government Code ~ 6254.10, which exempts "records that relate to archaeological site information" from the California Public Records Act. The City, as possessor of these records for reports/sites within the City of Seal Beach, is responsible to enforce this provision of the Government Code, as has been very diligent in those efforts. The Committee recognizes the significant contributions Ms. Hahn has made to the ongoing efforts of the Archaeological Advisory Committee. Her attention to detail, and the thoroughness of her review of documentation before the Committee has benefitted all parties involved. The position of the Committee is that the release of the requested documents is not appropriate, since Ms. Hahn, as a member of the Archaeological Advisory co.. , may view those confidential documents at the Department of Development Services~ ~ ce with the local guidelines of the City. ~ '\s~ " If have additional questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Secretary to the Archaeological Advisory Committee at your earliest convenience. He may be reached by telephone at (310) 431-2527, ext. 213. Mr. Whittenberg will be most pleased to clarify any remaining outstanding issues which you may have regarding this issue. Sincerely, David Belardes, Chairman Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee cc: Moira Hahn Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney c: \WPSl \ARCHCOMM\1NTPARTY .SR\L W\OI-03-95 7 ~ - SG I STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND P.O. BOX 807, SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94101-0807 ISSUE DATE: 01-01-95 CERTIFICATE, OF WORi<J5RS'COMPENSA.TION INSURA.~C~ . ." . POLlCY N4!VlI!3E8: .O$~t258 - 96 .. cg~T1FICAT~EXPIRes: 01~.()1-96 ~. CITY OF SEAL BEACH ..~l':f~ ;"'A:N~.P 211 EIGHTH STREET SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 J.O$: OPEN END CONTRACT FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL CONSULTING This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' .complJnsation insuranCe policy in a form approved by the California Insurance Commissioner to the employer named. below for thepoIiCyperiodindiG~ted, This policy is not subject to cancellation by the Fund except upon 30 days' advance written notice to the employer. We will also give you 30 days' advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to its normal expiration. This certificate of insurance is not an Insurance policY and does not .amend. extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term, Of condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate of insurance may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the terl11s.e'Xl;;,llS~ions and Col'lditions of~uchpqliyies. ~ EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY LIM11 lNCLUDlNGD. E.>F...............se. CO$T.,:. $: .' ... .. -,' ,.. A~~ ~-'l"lesIDENT $1:,~, QOO .QOPE~!3~~RENCE . ENQORSEMENT #2066 ENTITLED CERTIFICATEflOLDEttSi NOT1:CEEfFECTIVE 01/01/$& IS ATTACHED TO AND FORMS A PART OF THIS POLICY. LE<<;ALNAME EMPLOYER ~ CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. P. O. BOX 57002 IRVINE CA 92719 CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. j 7