HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1995-12-06
\.r
'-'
\...-
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
ARCHAEOWGICAL ADVISORY COMMITfEE MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M.
ll. ROLL CALL
Present:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Johnston,
Price, Unatin and Willey
Absent:
Members Frietze, Hahn and Yearn
Staff
Present:
Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director
Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Members Hahn and Yearn
have previously contacted the City and indicated they
would not be present due to other commitments.
ill. APPROV AL OF AGENDA
Vice-Chairperson 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 Goldberg; SECOND by Johnston to approve the Agenda as
presented.
There being no objection, it was so ordered by Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience.
There were none.
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S .MIN\LW\12-08-9S
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY COUNCIL COMMENT LETTER RE: "FINAL
OPERABLE UNIT-4 SITE INSPECTION REPORT, SEAL BEACH NAVAL
WEAPONS STATION", dated November 14, 1995.
Recommendation: Receive and File Comment Letter.
MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Benjamin to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
7-0-3
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Vice-
Chairperson Fitzpatrick
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
aahn, Yearn and Chairperson Frietze
'-'
VI. SCHEDULED MA TIERS
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
October 18, 1995
Recommendatio..: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate.
Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes
of October 18, 1995.
MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to approve the Archaeological
Advisory Committee minutes of October 18, 1995 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
7-0-3
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey,
and Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Hahn, Yearn and Chairperson Frietze
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LW\12-08-9S
2
'-'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
Chairperson Frietze arrived and apologized for being late. She also requested
that since she has a sore throat, that Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick continue to chair
this meeting.
3. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED HELLMAN PROPERTY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
A. Proposed "Scope of Work"
B. Proposed" Agreement for Archaeological Investigation Services"
Recommendation: Review and consider subject report documents. Instruct
Chairperson to sign proposed response memorandum to City Council, with
modifications if deemed appropriate.
'-'
Mr. Whittenberg indicated the subject draft documents have been prepared by
staff for the Committee's review, indicating staff is seeking any corrections or
additions felt to be necessary from the Committee prior to forwarding to the City
Council for final consideration. Mr. Whittenberg indicated both documents have
been reviewed by the City Attorney and representatives of Hellman Properties.
The purpose of the Committee review is to indicate to staff areas of unclear
statements, work not necessary to have done, or additional work which would
need to be done.
In response to a question from Member Unatin, Mr. Whittenberg indicated there
is no proposal to build on the Hellman property at this time, and that the
Hellman's are wishing to enter into this process to understand potential constraints
on the site prior to beginning any site planning process, including the issue of
archaeological concerns. The other issue also being explored by the Hellman's
is the issue of what portion of the property will be required for wetland
restoration purposes by the California Coastal Commission. In response to
another question by Member Unatin, Mr. Whittenberg indicated the appropriate
site survey process will be determined by the selected archaeologist, and his
program of evaluation will be contained in his response to the proposed scope of
work.
Members of the Committee indicated they felt certain portions of the document
were too specific, such as the number and size of test pits. Mr. Whittenberg
indicated the specified number of test pits relates only to the known
archaeological sites, with any additional site investigations which are determined
necessary after the walk-over survey, as determined by the archaeologist, being
handled as an additional work item which would require an amendment to the
\...
D:IWPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LW\12-08-9S
3
'-'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
budget and scope of work. Member Unatin asked if when a specific project is
proposed, would the same work need to be done again? Mr. Whittenberg
indicated he felt that the same work would probably not need to be done again.
Mr. Whittenberg further clarified that the scope of work, as drafted, requires test
pit investigations at the known archaeological sites, and will require additional
test pit investigations at any areas of the property identified by the archaeologist
as being a potential archaeological site. The investigation by the archaeologist
will result in a site-specific archaeological investigation of the entire Hellman
Ranch property. Member Unatin asked who will then determine if a future
development proposal on the Hellman property would impact any of the identified
archaeological sites? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that would be evaluated through
the environmental review process, with the City archaeologist reviewing the
environmental documentation to insure a clear presentation of any impacts to the
identified archaeological sites, and appropriate mitigation measures. Mr.
Whittenberg further indicated that approximately 75 acres of the Hellman Ranch
is utilized for oil production purposes and will remain in production for an
estimated additional 30-40 years.
~
In response to a question as to which archaeologist would be conducting this
investigation, Mr. Whittenberg indicated it would be Dr. Stickel, as indicated in
the draft agreement. The City has 3 archaeological firms under contract, and the
firms rotate as projects come forward which require archaeological investigation
work. Dr. Stickel was initially assigned to the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course
development, but with that project being withdrawn by the project applicant, he
would now be assigned to this project.
Member Goldberg indicated her concern with the scope of work is that it seems
to restrict the archaeologist, and that the archaeologist should establish the scope
of work to be undertaken, based on his professional expertise. As an example,
the standards for test pits may not allow enough depth to adequately address a
particular site. She felt certain standards are already in place, and that the
Committee should be responsible to define those standards. Mr. Whittenberg
indicated the "Archaeological Element of the General Plan" sets forth certain
standards, primarily related to the process which is to be followed and the type
of documents which are required to be prepared, reviewed and approved by the
City. The element does not go to the level of detail necessary for a scope of
work document. In addition, the document is a draft document and has been
forwarded to Dr. Stickel for his review and comments also. It was hoped those
comments could have been presented to the Committee this evening for
incorporation into the scope of work document, however, current project demands
on Dr. Stickel have not allowed him time to review and forward comments to the
'--'
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LW\12-08-9S
4
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
Committee. Member Goldberg indicated this process may be too hasty, and that
additional time is necessary to do a thorough job, as the professional person
should be able to define the scope of the work.
In response to a question from Member Benjamin, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that
Dr. Stickel prepared the "Baseline Study" for the City in 1989, but has not done
any site specific investigations on the Hellman property to his knowledge. Mr.
Whittenberg further clarified that the archaeologist is selected and paid by the
City, with Hellman Properties being responsible to reimburse the City for the
consultant and staff administration costs to complete the proposed archaeological
investigation.
Member Goldberg indicated that Member Hahn had prepared a memo relating to
the scope of work, and asked her to bring it to the meeting, and was requesting
that Mr. Whittenberg read the memo into the record, and not just attach them to
the minutes. After discussion among the members of the Committee:
'-'
MOTION by Benjamin; SECOND by Unatin to attach Member Hahn's
Memorandum dated December 4, 1995 to the minutes of this meeting, but not to
have Mr. Whittenberg read them into the record, and have this matter scheduled
for additional review at the next meeting of the Archaeological Advisory
Committee.
Member Goldberg stated she thought it was important that the Committee discuss
the memorandum if there is going be another meeting, and perhaps Mr.
Whittenberg could answer some of the concerns raised. Vice-Chairman
Fitzpatrick indicated he has several concerns and would wish to discuss those this
also. Member Goldberg indicated she felt Member Hahn's memo summarizes
several of the major issues, with Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick indicating the
committee could discuss the memo without reading it into the record.
MOTION CARRIED:
8-0-2
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Johnston, Price,
Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Hahn and Yearn
'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LW\12-08-9S
5
\...
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick referred to the Scope of Work, item II. GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS, and inquired how the consultant can respond with a fixed
price lump sum contract when there appear to be several unknowns in the
investigation process for the property. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the
document indicates in a number of spots that if additional work is determined
appropriate, an amendment to the contract and the scope of work would be
required, with the area of test pit evaluations and National Register eligibility
determinations being some of those areas, since it is not known if additional
potential archaeological sites may need to be investigated. Vice-Chairman
Fitzpatrick then inquired as to the availability of the "Baseline Report" map,
indicating he recalled hearing it is available at the City for review, and that the
map indicates the site locations and items found at those sites. Mr. Whittenberg
indicated the map is available, that it shows the general location of the sites, and
does not indicate the types of artifacts found. Artifact information would be
indicated in a set of separate documents which are called "site records". Mr.
Whittenberg indicated he did not recall which sites had human remains found, but
reviewed the general location of the identified sites and of the Hellman Ranch
property on the aerial photograph in the City Council chamber, including the
general area of identified wetlands, which have classified as "severely degraded" .
\..
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick indicated the property is a very logical area for burial
sites, as the area comprises the first of some terraces by the river. In response
to a question from Member Benjamin, Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the history of
archaeological investigations on the Hellman property, referring to "Appendix A -
Scope of Work" . Investigations occurred in approximately 1955, in 1964, 1965,
1969, and 1980, with results being summarized in environmental impact reports
in 1980 and 1981, with a research design being prepared in 1990. Mr.
Whittenberg indicated that although the site has had a lot of investigation in the
past, the techniques utilized today are much more sophisticated and capable of
evaluating sites than the methods used in the late 1960's.
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked how the sites could be carbon-dated if materials
could not be removed, carbon-dating is not a field activity? Mr. Whittenberg
asked Member Willey to respond to that issue, could items be removed for carbon
dating which would not be considered an artifact? Member Willey indicated she
had concern regarding the non-removal of artifacts. Depending on how the
excavation occurs, if artifacts are located, it is better to remove, catalogue, and
include in site records. The language of the carbon dating section is confusing
and should be revised. She further indicated you first have to obtain appropriate
material to carbon date, and that samples have to be taken which would have to
be removed. If a fire pit is encountered, that would be best, as burned materials
'-'
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S .MIN\LW\12-08-9S
6
'-'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
carbon date the best. To not remove an artifact is unreasonable and the size of
the test pits is not appropriate, as the size and depth is not sufficient, as the depth
cannot be specified. You would have to go down to undisturbed soil.
'-'
Member Unatin asked how will the Committee proceed? Member Goldberg
indicated the professional should determine the appropriate scope of work. The
Committee discussed the reality of work at this time in light of the unknown time
frame of Hellman Properties for development of the site. Member Unatin
recommended the Committee have Dr. Stickel review the information and prepare
a scope of work which reflects his professional expertise, review the concerns of
the Committee and staff, and develop one unified document. Member Goldberg
indicated that is the process which the Committee is now undertaking. Mr.
Whittenberg indicated he felt it would be helpful to Dr. Stickel to understand the
issues of concern of the Committee, and thereby allow Dr. Stickel to respond to
those concerns as part of his review of the documents. Member Unatin asked if
Mr. Whittenberg would prepare a memo to Dr. Stickel as to the concerns of the
Committee, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating he would probably work from the
minutes of the meeting and provide that information to Dr. Stickel. He also
suggested that Dr. Stickel should be invited to attend the next Committee meeting
to discuss these issues, and that hopefully that meeting could be in January, and
not wait to the regular meeting in February.
Member Unatin asked who determines how much will be spent on this? Mr.
Whittenberg indicated the ultimate choice will be with Hellman Properties, if they
feel the costs are too high, they could determine not to proceed and the property
will remain as it is. In response to a question from Member Goldberg, Mr.
Whittenberg again indicated that although Hellman Properties have no definite
plans at this time, they are very anxious to understand the various constraints that
will be placed on formulating any development proposal by both archaeological
and wetland issues impacting the property, and that future plans may include just
working around the oil production sites. Vice-Chairman asked why Hellman does
not just hire their own archaeologist? Mr. Whittenberg indicated because the
City's "Archaeological Element" requires a city-selected archaeologist to
investigate vacant properties within the City. Member Benjamin asked how long
the study would take, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating the archaeologist will be
requested to provide an anticipated time schedule, as staff has no idea how long
the work would take.
In response to a question from Member Unatin, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that
Dr. Stickel would be required to propose a cost and time schedule to conduct the
scope of work, as that is ultimately determined by the Committee and approved
'--'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LW\12-08-9S
7
\.r
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
by the City Council. A formal contractual agreement will be entered into
between the archaeologist and the City for the work to be accomplished. Member
Unatin asked at what point will the archaeologist inform the City of what he
intends to do, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating that will be provided as part of
Dr. Stickel's "Response to Scope of Work", which will include his proposed
budget, time schedule, and methodology of accomplishing the tasks in the scope
of work document, and any additional work items not specified in the scope of
work. Member Willey asked if the response would be the form of a "Research
Design"? Mr. Whittenberg indicated no, the initial response would be to the
scope of work document, and that the proposed budget will indicate the cost and
time period necessary to prepare the "Research Design" document. Once a
budget and time schedule proposal has been received by the City, it will be
forwarded to Hellman Properties for them to determine if they are desirous of
proceeding, and through which phases of the scope of work they would wish to
proceed. If Hellman Properties determines not to proceed, the City cannot
require the work to be done, since there is no development application under
consideration.
'-'
Member Johnston asked if there is any time schedule which needs to be followed,
with Mr. Whittenberg indicating there is not, but the process should proceed as
expeditiously as possible. Member Johnston inquired who prepared the draft
scope of work document? Mr. Whittenberg indicated he prepared the document,
using sample scope of works from various other projects, primarily Navy
projects, for assistance in preparing the scope of work. Mr. Whittenberg further
indicated he understands that not allowing for removal of artifacts was not a good
choice. Member Willey indicated that depends on the type of artifact
encountered. If a very large artifact is discovered and not damaged, which would
take a great deal of time and effort to excavate, it may be better to not excavate.
Smaller artifacts should be excavated. Member Willey indicated the specificity
of the scope of work for the field work should be determined by the
archaeologist. Member Goldberg agreed, indicating she would like to see what
Dr. Stickel feels is appropriate. Member Willey reviewed some of her
experience's in conducting archaeological investigations, indicating the
archaeologist should be able to determine the appropriate field procedures to be
used, after thoroughly reviewing the available documents and having a sense of
what would be the best tack to take to find the maximum amount of information.
She further indicated that the sites may not be separate, but may discrete areas
of a much larger site. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee has dealt with
that same issue regarding sites across Seal Beach Boulevard on the Naval
Weapons Station. Member Willey indicated that by restricting the project to test
'-"
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LW\12-08-9S
8
\...-
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
pits, as opposed to trenching between the various identified sites, she as an
archaeologist would be uncomfortable with.
Mr. Whittenberg summarized the major areas of concern seem to be the walkover
survey and the test pit portions of the document. Member Willey indicated
because they were so narrowly defined in the document. Member Unatin
indicated the major concern seems to be that the archaeologist should determine
the scope and conducting of the field work, with Member Goldberg indicating the
listing of source documents may be incomplete. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the
documents listed are those known to exist by the City that relate to the site and
that the scope of work requires the archaeologist to further research the records
at UCLA to verify a complete document review. Member Unatin indicated the
purpose of the Committee to find out everything it can about the archaeological
resources of the Hellman Ranch property.
~
MOTION by Unatin: SECOND by Willey by to allow the archaeologist to
prepare proposed amendments to the scope of work, utilizing the information
provided in the draft prepared by staff, the memorandum from Member Hahn,
and the comments of the Committee this evening, and additional written
comments of the Committee which should be submitted to staff by December 13
for forwarding to Dr. Stickel. The Committee to review all documentation,
receive a presentation by Dr. Stickel, and finalize the draft scope of work for
presentation to the City Council for final approval. Review by Committee to
occur in January or February, depending on the capability of Dr. Stickel to
respond in a timely manner.
Member Goldberg asked if it was usual and customary for a consultant to provide
the type of insurance set forth in the draft agreement? Mr. Whittenberg indicated
that as a contractor to the City, insurance at the amount stipulated is a
requirement.
Member Benjamin indicated the carbon 14 testing provisions should also be
reviewed, with Member Willey indicating the methodology of conducting the
walkover survey should be detailed, giving an overview of the walkover process
and record keeping requirements.
Member Goldberg asked as to the status of the material excavated during the
earlier investigations by LSA in 1990, and if there are any federal law provisions
regarding return of the material to the appropriate Native American tribe.
Chairperson Frietze indicated any material excavated becomes the property
owners property, and if the tribe is federally recognized, there are some
\...
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LWl12-08-9S
9
'-"
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
provisions to allow for tribal retention of the items. Mr. Whittenberg indicated
that LSA has indicated the material was returned to Mola since LSA was not paid
by Mola, and that Mola is unable to locate the material. Chairperson Frietze
indicated if the property owner desires not to proceed, that is their prerogative.
MOTION CARRIED:
8-0-2
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Johnston, Price,
Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Hahn and Yearn
VU. COMMI'ITEE CONCERNS
Member Benjamin inquired as to the status of the Bixby Project. Mr.
Whittenberg indicated the project has been withdrawn and will not be considered
by the City Council.
~
Members of the Committee expressed concern by the lack of attendance of
members of the Committee and requested staff to place an item on the next
agenda of the Committee to review ,and discuss the policies of the Committee
relating to absences.
VID. STAFF CONCERNS
Secretary Whittenberg wished the Committee a Merry Christmas and a Happy
New Year, since the Committee will not be meeting until either January or
February, 1996.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Price; SECOND by Fitzpatrick to adjourn the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
to Wednesday, January 17, 1996,5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers.
Vice-Chairperson,
Archaeological Advis
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S .MIN\LW\12-08-9S
10
'--'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
December 6, 1995
d~~
Whittenberg, Secretary .
{/ Archaeological Advisory Committee
Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee.
The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of December 6, 1995 were approved on
J~Hvt7;;?2Y J "7 , 1996.
NOTE:
ATTACHMENT TO MINUTES: Memorandum from Member Hahn,
dated December 4, 1995, 4 pages
'-'
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\12-06-9S.MIN\LW\12-08-9S
11
. .
..
Memo
'-" To: Members of the Seal Beach Archaeological Committee
fnM'D:Molra Hlho, Member of the Seal Beach Archaeological Committee
cc: Kelh TII, Cly Manager
mId.:Dec~ber4,1995
...: Helman Property ArchaeologicallnvestigaUon
~
I hive r.viewed the Archaeological Advisory Commltee Meeting Agenda packet
for the December 6, 1995 meeting. This docLlllenl conlains the propo.ed .Scope
of Work- and the proposed .Agreement for ArchaeologicallnvestigaUon Services-
for the Helman property. .
" is wise to a..e.. the archaeological inpacts of a potential development project
.arly In the proce.s. A weB conceived lnYe.tigltion can Is.lst i't the p'lnning of
the project to minimize adver.e .ffects to cultural resource.. preserve important
I.es. and thereby .atisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
the City'. Archaeological Element. '
An archaeologicallnvestlgaUon planned to precede the developer's presentation of
i .pecific proposal for I project, however, cannot fully 'ItiSty the requirements of
CEQA or those of the Element. The City's consunant must be apprised of the
specific nature. location, depth and extent of the proposed development in order
to evaluate I', potential Impacts on any cultural resources. Final determinations
regarding those inpacts cannot be Iscertained until the archaeologicll consultant
hi. reviewed the proposed project, therefore, CeQA and the Elem.nt ClMOt be
considered .atisfied untu lhat tine.
The City is hiring In archaeologi.t that the City has ,,'ect.d on the ba.is of his
professiollll expertise. Vet in formulaUng the -S,ope of Work., lhe Director of
Development S,rvices, who II not In archaeologi.t, pre.cribes the IlZe of test
....., nt. thlrunber of .ample. Ind..,.. to b. .xamined, dir.ct. the
.rchaeologi.t D2! to colecl any Irt'lctS, dictal.s lhe diagno.tic laboratory
m.thod to b. us.d for dating. Ind otherwise Irtlculat.s every technical detan of
the proposed .Cienl..1C MItigative .trategy. This IIlnIpproprilte. The Cly
Council ....ct.d Irchaeologlsl .hould be permlted to conduct the iM.tigltion
..ing ,. Ixpertil. to IIIlk. the.e dleillons.
To further .usC;ate this point, i't rlviewing the -Scope of Work- draft.d by .taff. I
have noticed a few deviations from Iccepted .cllnt.." procedures.
~
ehgt1
'-"
· The proposed -Scope of Work- .Iipulates lhat Ihe archaeological consultant
.harr dig 'between five and ten 50 centimeter x 50 centimeter x 50 centimeter"
.~ovel test probes, referred to as 'test units', at each tHe to assess potential
inpacts. Although lhovel telt probes produce valuable Information. they are
not a 'ubstltule for formal lest pits. T.sl probes are used prlma.lly to
determine archaeologlcal.lle bo&nlarles. The mlrWnum prof.sslonally
accepted .Ize for. formal lest pills one meler .quare, dug to a depth of
'wenty centimeters b.low lhe "st level cont.inlng culural deposits. The
raUonale behind this .Iandard II thai an archaeologist may nol be able to
detecl large burled f.alures, .uch as burial pIs, .arthen noors, and slone
hearths, through the npecllon of. .ma. .hovel probe. The layers of a cultural
depos. m.y have b..n dislurb.d'by 'ubsequinllunan or nalur,'acllvlty,
lherefore the consul ant musl a.c.rtaln that no deposls .xlsl b.low the first
.lIyer of .lerUe .oll.ncountered. This Is particularly hportant klthe case of
burials, as Native Americans often burled lenerallons of their dead kllhe
..me .r.... and multiple bwlal. have been dlscover.d on the HeUman
property'. Previously ricorded Itc_eologleal .aes' on the property 1st cunur.'
depo.lts down to a depth of 120 centimeter.. The proposed 50 centimeter
depth would nol,1n .ome ca.el, penelrale ...r.ce nt noted by archleologists
who previously examined lhe property. The .Iated go a' ofthe -Scope of Work-
Is 10 evaluate Ihe sles' eDglbDlty for bUng on Ihe Nallonal Register, yetlhis
can nol be ascert,'ned r the researcher II not e~n permltled to determine the
tile depths. The .ddltion of at least two .tandard .Ize te.t pIs It elch
. .rehleologicalslle would ensure lhat professlonal.landards are met.
e The proposed -Scope of Work- e.ls for 'radio e.rbon 14 dating' to be used on
. maximum of five aamples4 from aD over the 183 acre property., Current
professional practice requtres Ihe r.searcher 10 date ..ch archaeological site.
Therefore, assuming an extent .lte. hive been recorded, the archaeologist
may need to d.te thirteen .ampies, one from lach .lIe. If the artifacts
hliclte that lome ,ile, .hlre .n Identical chronology, III need not be dated.
but the -Scope of Work- .hould IHow for a maximum of thirteen .amples.
'. The -Scope of Work- .tales that 'no .rUf.cls are 10 be conecltd'~. This is an
tnproper euratlon procedure which could expo.e the Cly to lability for 1'5
feMure to protecl the re.ource.. It would Imn our .cleNlflc knowledge about
'-"
· flOe 7 .1ICt1on 3
'''IICOI.1Dr CA.Or~2B4. .. "'1IIs; CHII, Ind CIa'" report. PlOt S. " 1873.......... ....Is .." InClMI'II....Clln
C;A.~ 1......,. ... '.. ,.. G*lIIIno IlUII tom Hlllnllft "IIPIft, ..... II InN; 0.. _, M. Suthe,..
...... IDr 1M CtunI, CMMr's Ilk. en .....KII1* ................. MHInd ..... _....... 11'I ... CA.0rI- 1fW.
" &.SA. .. JunI. tIPJ.
· ....S. tlCl.. 2. . UNIIr 1M .......... t4MiInII........ ..... DelenRlnlliOll'
· .... 7. IIC1Ion 4
~ ....'.lKItOnJ
. Plge 2
,.
.
'-"
Ihe previous occupation of the sites, rather than increase it, thereby violating
CeQA and the Element's purposes. If no artifacts are to be removed, the '
.rchaeologist would certainly not be able to use the radio carbon 14
(liboratory) dating process to date each sUe. He would not be able to
.slablsh a basis to determine the snes' National Register etigibility. To fail to
coDect any artfacts woutd also breach the terms of the Society of
Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) 'Code of Ethics' and 'Stand~rds of
Research Performance', which the City's Element requires the archaeologist
10 adhere 10'. .
In add.lon,lhe folowlng management Issues bear discussion:
. The contuaant is required to aet forth the .ntire cost of his investigation, on an
.em by lem. document by document basis, yet he does not yet know the
details of the proposed project. He therefore cannot reasonably be expected
to provide a definite estimate of the total cost of his work.
. The archaeological committee Is "ottsled as a participant In the review
conferences between the archaeologist and the Director of Development
Services scheduled to foHow the submission of each draft document. The
purpose of the meetings Is to 'discuss the draft documents and any
appropriate amendmentsl revisions prior to Contractor's submittal of 8Flnal
Draft- for review by the Archaeological Committee and City Counci"" The
.rchaeological committee is .Iso left out of the initiation meeting a~d the
lechnical coordination meetings scheduled for the archaeologist. Director of
Development Services, and the property owner. We committee members
were appointed by the City Council on the basis of our expertise and In depth
knowledge of local resources. We can not contribute our coUective expertise to
the process If we are len on the sidelines during the crucial discussions.
. The list of Basetine data maintained by the City is inaccurate3.
. Native American monlor. are not discus.ed i1 either document.
. The consulant is directed to provide a one million dollar insurance policy to
cover any lability cr.at.d by accidents incurred by his p.rsoMlI on the
....lIman prop.rty. TIQ .xpense ahouJd be covered by the developer. p.rhaps
.. a temporary addition to the muranc.lhat cover. field workers, oil
extraction technicianl, .nd ~ther persomelemployed on the property,
.
In summary, the goal of Improving the quality of cultura' resource management on
. the HeRman property by '!Irting thl proce.s .arly It commendable. Pre.eMUon
~
'-"
'AtttllColOQ'ClI and ttlf.IOllC.al Element Dr It.. Seal Blath Gel'llral Pia.... Apptl)dtl E. 'IO'! Z Ihll')uO" 2B
.~..oe 1l,Ittllon VIII
........ CItla "ntlninO 10 'hi II" .......lOn of IhI HtIImIn Pl_." is omdlad. Gala M""fIG ChtItU, on at.. Hillman
"""', is liSttG IS ..n~ It MlJIt"" 1M0pe."
.P8gf3
.
.trategies are most likely 10 succeed when initiated early in the development
process, This is particularly inportant due 10 the known archaeological sensitivity
of Ihe Hellman property, and it't high potential to provide us with. greater
'-" undirstanding of the cly't ,.rliest Inhabitants. The farsJ drafts of the .Scope .of
Work. and the -Agreement for Archaeologleallnvesligalion Services. contract
need revision i1 order to comply wlh the State law (CECA) end with the
Archaeologieallncl Hislorical Element of the City's General Plan. The City should
"ave lhe developm.nt of a sFitnUfie 'Ira..gy for ,valuating National Register
.Uglbllfty to the prof.sslonal.rehaeologist thai. has .elecled for this purpose.
. .0 .
. .
'-'
\...-
. pegt 4