Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1995-02-08 '-' ~ \.r CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Whittenberg advised the Committee a quorum was present but the Committee Chairman had not arrived yet. He advised the Committee they could convene the meeting if so desired with the Chairman probably arriving shortly. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 5:05 P.M. Mr. Whittenberg explained the Committee was seated in new locations at this meeting in an attempt to achieve a better sound recording of the meeting. He explained how the microphones work. ll. ROLL CALL Present: Members Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes (5:25 PM) Absent: Member A viani Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick 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. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Benjamin to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED 8-0-2 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, and Unatin C: I WP51IARCHCOMMI02-08-95 .MINIL W\03-03-95 ~ Archaeological Advisory Commiuee Minutes February 8, 1995 NOES: None ABSENT: A viani and Belardes IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. v. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Benjamin, SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, and Unatin '-' NOES: None ABSENT: A viani and Belardes 1. RECEIVE AND FILE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITIEE MEMORANDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUAliTY CONTROL BOARD re: BIXBY OLD RANCH GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DRAFT EIR, dated December 9, 1994 Recommendation: Receive and File Memorandum. 2. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMENTS re: "CULTURAL RESOURCES" CHAPTER (4.12) OF REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - THE BOLSA CHIC A PROJECT Recommendation: Receive and File Comments re: "Cultural Resources" Chapter (4.12) of Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report - The Bolsa Chica Project. ~ C:\ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95 .MIN\L W\03-03-95 2 \....- VI. \....- '-' Archaeological Advisory Commiuee Minutes February 8, 1995 SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 18, 1995 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Member Hahn said she had typed some minor corrections to the minutes in order to save the Committee's time. She handed them out and requested they be attached to the minutes as part of the official record. Member Goldberg asked Member Hahn if there was any item in her corrections that she felt the Committee should review and discuss? Member Hahn said no, they are minor corrections but indicated there were some mis-statements and areas where the audio tape was not clear and the minutes reflect the tape was inaudible. She clarified those areas off the audio tape. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Unatin to approve the Archaeological Advisory Committee minutes of January 18, 1995 meeting with Member Hahn's typed corrections to be included as part of the minutes. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, and Unatin NOES: None ABSENT: A viani and Belardes 4. CONSIDERATION 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 and January 18, 1995) Recommendation: Review Addendum Report and letter and review draft 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, or instruct Chairman Belardes to sign draft response letter, with amendments determined appropriate. Mr. Whittenberg explained the Committee had received a proposed response letter based on the receipt of the Addendum report from the Naval Weapons Station and C: \ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 3 \....- Archaeological Advisory Commiuee Minutes February 8, 1995 a clarifying letter from their offices which the City received Thursday, February 2, 1995. Based on the Committee's discussion at their last meeting, staff prepared a draft response letter for the Committee's consideration. The Committee was advised they could approve the response letter as drafted, approve the letter with modifications, or send the response letter back to staff for further revisions and review at a later meeting. Ms. Hahn said she had invited Dr. Chester King to speak about this issue, noting Lisa Barnett had referred to Dr. King as the regional specialist on aboriginal shell usage. Dr. King volunteered to attend this evening and Ms. Hahn requested Committee approval for him to address the Committee. The Committee assented. ~ Dr. King said he was concerned about the potential loss of resources that might occur at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. Referencing page 14 of the Archaeological Resource Protection Plan, he said that in particular two sites are of concern --- one is on the perimeter road, and it's referred to as tentative site CGSB-l. One of the reports feels testing should be done to determine if this is an archaeological site. The archaeologists didn't have a clear opinion if this were a site or not. He said the testing program to determine if there are toxics out there isn't going to have a major impact. Augers may not be put into the site but if they do, they will most probably use a small 2%" diameter auger. However, if the tests reveal PCBs, or other toxic materials, they will probably remove soil. If soil is removed and ruin an archaeological site this could have a major effect. His main concern was for studies to be done to determine if an archaeological site is present before they go ahead with the project. The other site of concern is at site 9, called CGSB-2, had additional information on it. The Navy's consultants concluded the deposit isn't a site. He went and looked over the area and it did appear that the area there is higher than the adjacent wetlands. He noted that when auger tests are performed to look for contaminants they can record the types of soils that are encountered and whether those soils have shell or dark color or anything else that could indicate an archaeological site. They could also see if there were hunks of cement, glass, fill soils and determine if these locations are fill or not. He recommended that when the auguring is performed that an archaeological monitor be present at the two sites, at a minimum, but that at other locations it would be good to collect that information. To clear up other issues, Dr. King said he would volunteer to go out and independently confirm the observations of the Navy's consultants. '-' Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Dr. King about the auguring process. Specifically, he wanted to know when auguring to a depth of seven feet, how could it be determined that resulting sediment was from a depth of seven feet and not from a depth of five feet? He asked if it wouldn't be more effective to core than to auger? Dr. King replied coring would be more specific than auguring but it would destroy a larger area because soil must be cut out around the core to get C:I WP51 IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MINIL W\03-03-95 4 '- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 a pure core. Dr. King said that when he augers he realizes he's catching some other soils but he knows he has already seen those soils as he has gone down and has some idea of what that is. There is going to be some contamination but the auguring process would tell when some of the areas are fill or not. For archaeological purposes, it isn't perfect but it's accepted practice. Member Davies indicated she understood Dr. King to say he felt the Navy's consultants were correct in their observations. Dr. King said that in looking at the situation, it does look like fill at site #9. It's a big flat area, there's a railroad track, and the marsh below. That line is not a natural line, it's very angular and would not naturally be formed that way. That should be very apparent when the area is augured or cored. It won't be a great deal of expense to gather this information over what they are already doing. Member Goldberg asked Dr. King if it would be appropriate or usual practice for him to be an observer at work the Navy or Navy consultants are performing? Dr. King said there are cases where things like this happen. For example, under CEQA they are supposed to monitor independently mitigation programs to assure all promises will be fulfilled. '-" Member Benjamin asked Dr. King if the Navy would have to give their approval for Dr. King to monitor? Dr. King said yes. Member Hahn asked Dr. King if he was volunteering to do this work free of charge to the Navy? Dr. King said yes. She mentioned to Member Goldberg that she was informed by the California EP A that CEQA does apply to the IR project. Therefore, peer review would apply. Dr. King said he was not sure about agencies reviewing their own work as there is the same potential for conflict of interest as you would with a private developer. '-' Member Hahn, referring to Member Goldberg's question on the minutes, said she wanted to clarify a point that was not in the minutes but was her understanding of what the Committee had discussed from her review of the audio tape. Referencing page 14 of the minutes, at number 17 regarding IR site #4, Ms. Hahn said she was asking that if remedial action is later determined to be necessary on a portion of IR site #4 due to toxic contamination that could impact the potential archaeological site noted there by the Chamber's Group, a professional archaeologist must be present at that site during any field work. In addition, if remedial work there is required, and if archaeological testing indicates that an archaeological site exists, it is her understanding that the Navy had promised the City that the archaeologist would be required to design and implement a preservation strategy to protect the site. C: \ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 5 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 '-" Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Lisa Barnett if the Navy would want to make a statement on whether they would be willing to have Dr. King participate or be an observer? Ms. Barnett said one of her major concerns in having Dr. King attend is that the people who have done the work at the different contaminated sites are required to have the proper environmental training and safety training that is associated with working on contaminated sites. She would be concerned with anything that Dr. King might pick up or be dealing with at the site. She would want to confer with the Navy's environmental engineers and safety personnel to make sure there would be a way to safely have Dr. King view the area. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Ms. Barnett to elaborate on what she meant by "pick up". Ms. Barnett said that when you go out to an archaeological site, if they are doing a surface survey, the archaeologists pick up shells and items on the ground that may be significant to making a determination at an archaeological site. The Navy would need to be sure there is no contamination on the surface because this is a surface site. The archaeologists who did go out were required by the Chambers Group to have forty hours of training which she thought was called Hazwop Training. She said she was not allowed on the site. While the area is walked all the time, when they started doing work at the IR site there was a different standard that was set for working on IR sites. She was not talking about radioactive contaminants. At site #9 the concern is about sand blast grit which has heavy metals and contaminants of that sort in it. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if her concern was the archaeologist removing something from the site? Commander Steadley said the concern is that this has been confirmed as a site where there are contaminants present. The general public, which includes Dr. King, are not allowed in that area because of the potential danger to them. Even though the contamination is something that you would not probably consider contaminants because it's the results of sand blasting, there are lead based paints, chromium in very high concentrations and lead present in the sand blast grit. The Navy is not allowed to let the general public into the area because they could possibly be injured by the contaminants. Now that it has been identified as an area having contaminants it is now an area the Navy has to control. In order to be present at that site there is a requirement from OSHA to take a forty-hour training course. While the Navy would welcome to have people come and observe what they are doing, those people would have to be properly cleared and certified because of the possible legal problems that might ensue. The Navy archaeologists have received that type of training. The Committee discussed whether Dr. King had that type of training. Dr. King indicated he did not, but would be willing to take such training. Ms. Barnett said she wanted to make it clear that is not an archaeological site, it's an installation restoration site. '-' c: \ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 6 '--' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 Member Goldberg asked if Ms. Barnett if she could fmd out if it would be appropriate for Dr. King to go out to site #9 and let the Committee know. Additionally, the notice for the RAB meeting tomorrow night refers to site #9, and she asked how a discussion of site #9 at the RAB meeting would overlap with the Archaeological Committee's discussion of site #9? Commander Steadley said they would have an archaeologist present so if something is uncovered during the remediation process they will stop work and re-examine the site. The Navy has decided to go ahead with the remediation efforts to clean the site and dispose of the contaminated soils with the understanding that should there be anything of an archaeological nature uncovered/discovered in the cleanup process then the Navy would stop and consider it. That is why there is a Native American representative present. That is also why the Navy will have its own archaeologist on site. ~ Member Benjamin thanked Dr. King for volunteering but said she felt the Committee should choose a monitor as there may be other archaeologists who would want to participate. Member Hahn pointed out that Dr. King was volunteering, would not be paid, has his Ph.d, and "... is about the best in the State if not the West Coast. I think we're lucky to have him volunteering...". Member Hahn asked if the area of potential effect extends far beyond the boundaries of the actual contaminant site and Dr. King is volunteering to go to the part that's not contaminated, she did not understand why that's a problem and asked to have that explained to her. Commander Steadley indicated a remediation site is being discussed. It was his understanding that Dr. King wanted to be present during the remediation process. Member Hahn said no, just present at the walkover survey, just of the shell scatter. Commander Steadley asked the Committee if everything the archaeologists have done on the Naval Weapons Station going to be questioned and going to have to have other people come back and review? If that's the case, he felt the City and the Navy would be at this project a long time because it's 5200 acres. The Navy feels their archaeologists have done a very thorough job. If Dr. King would like to "come aboard" and if the Navy can fmd time they are willing to do that. But whenever the public is requesting this type of information, not this Committee, that becomes something that must be reimbursed at the Station. The Navy is required to seek reimbursement for any type of support they perform for the general public. The costs are relatively significant due to the costs of running the station. He volunteered to give the exact dollar amount. "We are here to support you. There is nothing we are hiding at the Station...". ~ Member Frietze asked if Dr. King did a walk over in a non-tested area not impacted by the contaminants and through his walk over he comes across a significant change in what the report states, would that make a difference as far as what has already been done? Ms. Barnett indicated the archaeologists on c:\ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 7 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 location have stated that it's a natural site. She felt that if there were something of significance, then the Navy would have to re-evaluate it before work would be done. She did not want to leave the Navy open for a continual review of professional archaeologists hired by the Navy --- she did not think that would be appropriate. Ms. Barnett further indicated the Navy would have to re-evaluate it's position on this issue since the Navy is providing what is serving the Native American community and what is required by Federal law and there is no shadow cast on any of the professional consultants. Commander Steadley said he felt it was important to perform the site remediation due to contamination and the potential ground leaching into the wildlife refuge. In this process, there is a need to balance both the archaeological requirements and the remediation requirements. Ms. Barnett said Agenda item #6-4 of February 2, 1995 clarifies what the Navy will do at each of the sites and what personnel will be provided by the Navy. The Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) will review the Action Memorandum for Site #9 and that has a thirty day comment period. '-" Member Frietze asked Ms. Barnett if the Navy has a list of archaeologists they normally call upon? Ms. Barnett said no, the Navy is trying to form an I.Q. contract which would have a certain amount of money in it which could be used for services any time they are needed. It's not on a rotation basis such as the City uses. Depending on how large a job it is, the Navy puts a contract out and they may ask for proposals from which they can choose. Member Frietze asked if the Navy seeks Native American input for the list of qualified archaeologists? Ms. Barnett asked if there were archaeologists the Native Americans objected to using? Chairman Belardes said there are a few but would not mention their names. She was just wondering what format the Navy used. Ms. Barnett said the Navy is doing some inventory work and get the administration area defmed to get a boundary set. They will probably be coming to the Committee and have them review their scope of work to be sure they include everything that needs to be included. ~ Member Hahn, addressing Ms. Barnett, said that when she spoke to Nicholas DelCiopo, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), his understanding in granting the Navy the concurrence with the fmding of no adverse effect to historic properties, was based on his understanding that the Navy performed additional review, either with a geomorphologist or an archaeologist. Member Hahn indicated she told Mr. DelCiopo she had been told by Ms. Barnett that was not true and that he had probably misunderstood. Member Hahn indicated she had explained to him that the additional review did not happen, the Navy simply wrote an addendum of corrections without sending another archaeologist out or the fIrst archaeologist out for a second review. Member Hahn indicated Mr. DelCiopo said he probably would not have approved it if he had known that was all the Navy did. Member Hahn asked why the Navy has a problem with Dr. King's performing a free, quick review? Ms. Barnett said "I think the problem C:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 8 \....- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 '-' is that the incidents that you're stating that Mr. DelCiopo stated to you is inaccurate. The actual progression of events was on December 27th the SHPO issued us a letter which is included in your packet and that was prior to any information that you had provided to the SHPO and prior to him discussing any issues that he made". Member Hahn said that was incorrect. She said the memo from the meeting of December 19th stated the fact that she had a conversation with Dr. King and she believed that Ms. Barnett talked to Mr. DelCiopo between the 19th and the 27th. That's the conversation he remembers the mention of a geomorphologist in. Ms. Barnett said she could go back to her records and get the notes she made on the discussion with the SHPO. She believed it was January 12th that she fIrst discussed this with SHPO. She had discussed other projects with him but they never discussed this project until the 12th of January. Member Hahn asked if Ms. Barnett had discussed this with him prior to his concurrence? Ms. Barnett said no. He reviewed the documents that were sent to him and there was no problem with the work that was done. The statement by Nick DelCiopo that he only concurred with the Navy's survey work was because the Navy said they were going to perform more work at that site is inaccurate. Member Hahn said that is what he told her. Member Hahn said he had also brought up her concerns prior to writing his letter of concurrence. Member Hahn said she called and spoke to the SHPO after the December 19th meeting. Ms. Barnett said "Well then he was aware of it at the time that he issued these statements". Member Hahn said yes, he said he discussed it with Ms. Barnett. '-' Member Hahn said her question is "Because there's a question and the State had a question about it through SHPO I'm just surprised there's a problem with it". Ms. Barnett said there is no question. Member Hahn said SHPO concurred on the basis that they thought the Navy had gone back an re-evaluated but in fact you had not. Commander Steadley said then SHPO should have responded in writing which they have not. If there was a concern he would be surprised because SHPO always covers itself in paper and they should have responded to the base saying they had concerns. Ms. Barnett asked Member Hahn what her concern is because she felt the Navy has addressed all the issues raised at the December 19th and no new issues were raised at the January meeting. She said the Navy has provided above and beyond what is required in areas having no evidence of archaeological sites. Member Hahn said she appreciated the archaeologist being provided at the site and asked if the Navy is not going perform a test phase at that location and is going directly to the remedial action? Commander Steadley and Ms. Barnett said yes. Member Hahn said there is still some question although she believed their statements that a walk over was done by Carbonne and he concluded it probably was a natural shell deposit. Member Hahn said Carbonne has a Masters Degree but King has twenty-five years Ph.d experience. Ms. Barnett said the principal investigator who signs the report was Dr. Mason. Member Hahn said Ms. Barnett told her Carbonne conducted the field work and Mason simply wrote the report. Ms. Barnett said that was correct and typical but c:\ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 9 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 she could not confirm that fact right now. Member Hahn asked what's wrong with having Dr. King inspect, noting it's free and he's great. Commander Steadley said there is nothing that is free. Every minute of Ms. Barnett's time has to be accounted for at about $100 per hour. There is a significant cost involved. Accumulating the survey data will take several hours and that would be several hundred dollars. If the Committee wants to do this, the Station will consider it. But it will have to come from the Committee. He stated for the Record that this should not turn into the equivalent of the O.J. Simpson trial where we are all bringing in our resident experts in order to take a look at everything time and time again --- then nothing will be accomplished. Ms. Barnett said she would expect the Committee to document that in any of the correspondence they would generate on this issue. \...- Mr. Whittenberg brought the Committee back to the agenda item by saying the consideration of a draft response letter regarding this resources protection for certain IR sites. There has been a discussion as to whether it would be advisable to have an independent archaeologist present to observe the additional testing work ongoing in addition to the Navy's consultants. The Committee has the authority to request the Navy consider that type of an additional review but does not have the right to require it. Regardless of whether SHPO has agreed to the document or not, the Committee needs to look at it in view of its concerns. The Committee needs to let staff and the Navy know if that level of review is appropriate and let SHPO do what they want to do. SHPO should address its comments to the Navy directly. Chairman Belardes arrived at 5:25 p.m. He apologized for being late but traffic problems delayed his arrival. Member Hahn said the main issued with this package is Site #4. If remedial action is called for, nothing in the Archaeological Resource Protection Plan states either that a professional archaeologist will be required to do the on-site project monitoring or what mitigation measures will be taken by the Navy to protect the archaeology. The letter to the City from the Navy does not state that a professional archaeologist will be the monitor. She further stated that Ms. Barnett has told the Committee there will be no further public document to address these issues so it seems they need to be dealt with now before the Committee approves anything. '-' Ms. Barnett said she did not state there will be no further public documents on the issues of any actions on other locations in this document on IR sites #4, #8 and SHMO #56. If there is action taken on these sites then the same kind of action memorandum that was produced for site #9 will need to be produced for these other locations. That could include another ARP if the Navy would impact another area identified in this particular survey as having potential archaeological C: \ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 10 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 site. She said she would not commit the Navy to having an archaeologist at a location the Navy has not determined is an archaeological site. Member Hahn said it was her understanding that (1) if it is determined through testing that the Navy needs to clean an area and (2) if the Navy's archaeologist determines that the site is an archaeological site then there would be no further paper or opportunity for the Archaeological Advisory Committee to have input. If there are problems they should be straightened out now. Ms. Barnett said the issue would be different if there was going to be a removal. The action which is being looked at is a testing phase of site #4. If the Navy is going to put other Federal dollars into a project, the requirement is that project is a new project and would have to go through the same review as the testing phases as the one removal action. ~ Member Hahn asked if there would be a second ARP review at that time? Ms. Barnett said she was not sure the Navy would continue with the word ARP but there would be a review of those areas if there was going to be further action at those locations. Member Hahn asked if the review would be done by a professional archaeological fIrm? Ms. Barnett said it would depend on what the action is, the Navy would have another archaeological fIrm or it could be the same archaeological fIrm to look at that particular site if the action would impact the area defmed in the survey. If there were going to be other actions at safe site #8 or SWMU #56 where there is absolutely no indication of any cultural material or any shell of any kind, then the Navy may not have another archaeologist review those areas. The Navy may take the existing survey data and send it off to SHPO with its determination that these areas have been looked at and there was nothing done at those sites. Ms. Hahn said she was a little confused by Ms. Barnett's answer and asked if the Navy needs to perform remediation on IR Site #4 and they fmd it will impact an archaeological site, and it's proven that it is a site, then the Navy will have a second assessment done by a professional archaeological fIrm? Ms. Barnett said the Navy would be required to look at what that area is -- that site that was along Site #4. If any removal action would impact that area, yes, the Navy would be required to have additional archaeological investigation done. That information would come back to the Archaeological Advisory Committee. "'" Mr. Whittenberg asked the Committee to look at the draft letter in front of them. Staff felt this draft letter addressed the concerns expressed by the Committee at their last meeting. The letter does not indicate any discussion of an independent reviewer being present at this time. If the Committee felt this needed to be added by the Committee, that's a choice the Committee can make. If not, it would be appropriate to approve the letter in its presented format. c: I WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L WI03-03-95 11 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 Member Hahn said she would like to see the letter changed to say that if the Committee has a professional to evaluate the area at no cost to the Navy that he be permitted to do so. She didn't think that Chester King is volunteering to be present through the whole process. He was volunteering to perform a half hour, one-time walkover of the uncontaminated part of Site #4 and #9. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Goldberg to amend the language of the Committee's draft letter to Commander Steadley to permit Dr. Chester King to perform a one-time walk over evaluation of sites #4 and #9. MOTION FAILED: 3 - 5 - 1 - 1 AYES: Hahn, Goldberg, Unatin NOES: Benjamin, Davies, Frietze, Fitzpatrick, and Price ABSTAIN: Belardes ABSENT: A viani ~ MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Goldberg that the Committee's draft letter to Commander Steadley be approved as amended with the change from "cooperative" on page 2, line 2 to "courteous". MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: A viani 5. RESPONSE to NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SUBMISSION PACKAGE re: RELEASABIliTY OF RECORDS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION TO "INTERESTED PARTIES" '-' Recommendation: Discuss submission package and review draft 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 c: I WP51 IARCHCOMM\02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 12 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 Committee, or instruct Chairman Belardes to sign draft response letter, with amendments determined appropriate. Mr. Whittenberg said that at this Committee's last meeting they had an extensive discussion regarding a Navy letter which dealt with releasing certain information to the public. After discussion the Committee instructed staff to prepare a letter to the Navy indicating they should deal with those requests at their level and that the City would not take an action by becoming involved in that process. Staff has prepared a draft response letter and this is an appropriate time to make any corrections. Member Goldberg said this letter is an improvement over the letter presented at the last meeting. However, after thinking about this issue she would prefer not to send a letter. The minutes reflect individual thoughts. She preferred not to answer the letter at all rather than to send a letter which would become a legal document from this Committee. Member Davies said she didn't know how the Committee could not answer the letter. Before the vote, Member Goldberg said she felt the Committee should answer the letter but stated she did not like this particular letter. \..... MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Hahn that the Committee not respond to this letter. MOTION FAILED: 4-5-1 AYES: Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Unatin NOES: Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Price, and Chairman Belardes ABSENT: A viani MOTION by Davies; SECOND Frietze that the Archaeological Advisory Committee will send a letter to the Department of the Navy, as drafted by staff, which indicates the Committee is expressing no opinion as to how the Navy would deal with requests from interested parties to the Navy for documents. The decision on how to respond is solely at the discretion of the Navy. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 3 - 1 - 1 AYES: Davies, Frietze, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes '-' c:\ WP51IARCHCOMM\02-08-95 .MIN\L W\03-03-95 13 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 NOES: Benjamin, Goldberg, and Hahn ABSTAIN: Fitzpatrick ABSENT: A viani 6. REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO STAFF RE: "HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK - MAY 14-20, 1995" INFORMATION PACKET. (Continued from December 7, 1994 and January 18, 1995) Recommendation: Receive and me 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. '-" NOTE: Application filing date has passed, it would be appropriate to Receive and File this matter. Staff report not included due to passing of filing date. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee is to Receive and File this matter as the date has passed for applications to be submitted. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Davies to Receive and File "Historic Preservation Week" Information Packet. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: A viani 7. REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE ISSUE OF CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AT THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION. (Continued from December 7, 1994 and January 18, 1995) '--' Recommendation: Receive and me Staff Report. Provide direction to staff as determined appropriate. C:\ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 14 \...- ~ ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 Member Hahn said she asked to have this item agendized at the November 9, 1994 meeting because the Navy is beginning to address some of her concerns. She would like to table this item to the Committee's April meeting in order to assess the Navy's cultural resource management record at that time. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Unatin to continue this item to the April 5th meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Davies, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin and Chairman Belardes NOES: None ABSENT: A viani VIT. CONmnTTEECONCERNS Member Fitzpatrick expressed his desire to reconfigure the seating arrangement for the Committee to the way it was prior to this meeting. Mr. Whittenberg said staff will try to set up table microphones in order to record the meeting better than what was previously recorded. VID. STAFF CONCERNS None. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Committee, Chairman Belardes adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. to Wednesday, April 5, 1995,5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Ia~~ Chairman, Archaeological Advisory Committee c: \ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 15 \...- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes February 8, 1995 t1!:; ~)&~ / Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory CommIttee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of February 8, 1995 were approved on ,4P/8-,I L. c....::;- , 1995. ~ '-" C:\ WP51IARCHCOMMl02-08-95.MIN\L W\03-03-95 16 MEMO ~ Date: To: From: February 8, 1995 Sea: Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee Moira E, Hahn Subject: Corrections to Minutes from January 18th, 1995 Meeting '--' '-" 1. On page 2, second paragraph, last sentence, delete the words "least time sensitive". Replace with the words "lowest priority". 2. On page 4, third paragraph, first sentence. Delete the rest of the sentence following the word "page" in the first line. Replace with "4-12-20, the first paragraph contains a false statement. The bunkers have been declared eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. On pages 4-12-8,4-12-9, and 4-12-10, there is no mention ofCA-Ora-87, a Bolsa Chica archaeological site. 3. On page 5, first paragraph, third line from the bottom, where it says '(tape not legible)', insert: "The significance table provided by the developers archaeologist is offensive, because it is subjective. It does not take into account the point of view of the greater Native American Community." 4. On page 8, third paragraph, lines 1 and 8, replace the name "Ogden" with "Chambers", In line 6, replace the word "rose" with the word "road". 5. On page 8, last paragraph, add the sentence "Ms. Barnett indicated that there is a Federal standard for 'professional archaeologists'; but not for 'archaeological monitors'. 6. On page 12, first paragraph, strike the fourth sentence, beginning with the words "Ms, Barnett further indicated. ,,". What Ms. Barnett asked was for the committee to 'generate some kind of correspondence indicating satisfaction with the Navy's plan to go ahead (with actions on sites 4,8,9, and SWMU 56)', Secretary Whittenberg asked if it should be put on the February 8th agenda, thereby giving the committee time to review the Navy's (theretofor unseen) addendum. Ms. Barnett stated "I really hesitate to do that. I don't see that there are any remaining issues of concern". She further stated that, in her opinion, none of the issues raiesd at the December 19th subcommittee meeting were substantive, and that the miner issues raised by the committee at that meeting would be addressed in the upcoming addendum. She again stated "I really hesitate to defer this until February". 7. On page 12, paragraph 2, strike line 5 and the first word of line 6. Replace with the words "that she had just discussed". Barnett then stated that the FOIA request referred to had been for the geomorphologists resume or credentials, and the report that he (or she) produced, about I-R site # 9. Hahn asked if the consultant used by the Navy had been a geomorphologist. Barnett responded HI don't believe so". 8. On page 12, paragraph 3, third and fourth lines, strike the words from 'and although' to 'discussed', Replace with 'Chambers report only provided the incomplete Latin names for the 8 species of shell that Carbone observed at I-R 5ite # 9'. In the same paragraph, lines 8 and 9, strike the words 'based on FEBRUARY 8,1995 MEMO '-' the discussions between the Navy and SHPO'. Replace with the words 'based on the couse of action that Mr. Del Cioppo had described to her'. 9. On page 13,before the first paragraph, add Ms. Barnett's statement "Unless there are other discussions, we are planning on proceeding with the project". 10. On page 13,following line 8, add Ms. Barnett's statements referring to Dr. King, "He is the pinnacle of shell, he is the authority, he really is". 11. On page 13, first paragraph, line 14, add Hahn's response that the extent of her request to Dr. King had been for the translations from Latin to English of the shell names that appear on page 14 of Chambers report. 12. On page 13, first paragraph, line 15, following the word 'that', insert the words "it was unclear if'. On line 16, following the words 'a fresh water species,' insert the words "because Chambers had not provided an adequate description, meaning the full names of the latin species. If it was a fresh water species, it". In line 16, delete the word 'which'. 13. On page 13, first paragraph, line 17, correct Ms. Barnett's reference that 'the archaeologist on site is a PhD'. This is what she said, but it is not true. Mr. Carbone did the fieldwork. He has not earned a PhD. 14. On page 13, correct the references to 'Mr.'King to 'Dr.'King. Dr. King has earned a PhD. 15. On page 13, in the third paragraph, delete the last sentence. What Barnett said was that she could not guarantee that Carbone would be at the site. Her exact words were: "perhaps it will be Carbone, but I'm not sure about that, so I'm going to back off on that point". 16. On page 14, second paragraph,6th line from the bottom, between the words 'will' and 'an' ,add the word 'provide'. 17. On page 14, second paragraph, last line, delete the words 'review and study that area'. What Hahn asked for was that, in the event that remedial action is later determined to be neccessary on a portion of I-R site # 4 that could impact the potential archaeological site noted there by Chambers, a professional archaeologist must be present at that site during any field work. In addition, if remedial work there is required, and if archaeological testing indicates that an archaeological site exists, the Navy promised that the archaeologist would be required to design and implement a preservation strategy to protect the site . 18. On page 15, paragraph one, first sentence, replace the words 'requested discussion' with the words 'explained her rationale'. On the fourth line, after the word 'mixup', add the words 'or misunderstanding'. 19. On page 21, second paragraph, last sentence, add the words 'Member Hahn had been sending copies of her correspondence with the Navy to other committee members, at her own expense, as a courtesy to the other members, but because some members of the committee did not wish to receive them, she would no longer provide this service.' '-"' ~ 2