Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1996-05-08 CITY OF SEAL BEACH '-'" ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER , i I Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M. n. ROLL CALL Present: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, and Willey (5: 15 PM) Absent: Staff Present: Member Yearn and Chairperson Frietze Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director '-'" Mr. Whittenberg indicated that he had not heard from Members Willey or Yearn, and perhaps they are delayed. Chairperson Frietze has called and indicated she had a meeting conflict and could not attend. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Price to excuse the absence of Chairperson Frietze. There being no objections, it was so ordered by Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick m. 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. Member Hahn requested Item V-3, Receive and File: Memorandum re: Archaeological Investigation - Hellman Property, Seal Beach, dated March 5, 1996, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Benjamin to remove Item V-3 from the Consent Calendar for discussion and approve the remainder of the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, and Unatin \.,.- D:\ WPSI \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MIN\LW\05-lo.96 '-"' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 NOES: None ABSENT: Willey , Yearn and Chairperson Frietze IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience. Lisa Bosalet, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, indicated the members of the Committee will be receiving an invitation from the Weapons Station to meet with archaeologists and observe archaeological test investigations being conducted on June 1, 1996. A formal invitation will follow and hopes the members of the Committee can attend. The Committee thanked her for the invitation. V. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. RECEIVE AND FILE: City Council Staff Report re: Proposed Federal Funding - Environmental Restoration by Department of Defense, dated March 25, 1996 (Continued from April 3, 1996) 2. RECEIVE AND FILE: Archaeological Advisory Committee Roster (Continued from April 3, 1996) '--' 4. RECEIVE AND FILE: City Council Staff Report re: Fact Sheet - Site 9 Sandblast Grit Disposal Area, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, dated January 22, 1996 MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Price to approve the Consent Calendar, Items 1, 2, and 4. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 A YES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, and U natin NOES: None ABSENT: iWilley, Y ~ and Chairperson Frietze Member Willey arrived at 5: 15 p.m. ......... D:\WPSI \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MIN\LW\05-lo.96 2 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 3. RECEIVE AND FILE: Memorandum re: Archaeological Investigation - Hellman Property, Seal Beach, dated March 5, 1996 '-' Member Hahn provided an update to the Committee, indicating she had talked to Dr. Stickel and he should be fmished with the research design document by Friday. She asked for concurrence through the chair to schedule a sub-committee meeting to review the documents. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he had also talked to Dr, Stickel, and that he was needing to contact a couple of individuals prior to completing the draft document, and it may not be completed until the early part of next week. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that when the document is received, the sub-committee would be contacted and a meeting scheduled at their convenience. Member Goldberg asked why can't the entire committee attend these meetings? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that due to the provisions of the Brown Act, the review of the draft document would then need to occur at an adjourned or regular meeting of the Committee? Member Goldberg asked why the full committee could not attend a site walkover? Mr. Whittenberg indicated what is being discussed is not a walkover of the site, but a subcommittee review of a draft document which the full committee would also review and make recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the Committee could observe a walkover of the site by Dr. Stickel if that was their desire, it would need to occur at an adjourned meeting, or scheduled so a quorum of the members are not together at one time. Member Goldberg inquired if members of the Committee could attend the sub-committee meetings with the archaeologist and City Staff] Mr. Whittenberg indicated the issue would be if a quorum of the committee were in attendance, it would be a violation of the Brown Act, unless the Committee were to decide to review the preliminary draft document as an entire committee. Member Price inquired if a tour of the property could be arranged through Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he would think Mr. Bartlett would be very responsive to that type of request, and he could try to arrange a tour and walkover archaeological observation concurrently. Member Goldberg asked if a motion would be appropriate? Mr. Whittenberg indicated he will discuss with Dr. Stickel and Mr. Bartlett and report back to the Committee. Member Unatin asked if this meeting could be adjourned to the meeting of the sub- committee, then all members could attend. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that is possible, but of what purpose is the sub-committee then? After further discussion, Mr. Whittenberg indicated he has no objection to the full committee reviewing the preliminary draft document, but the committee previously determined to utilize a sub-committee and now that appears to be nQt desired. He just is looking for direction from the Committee as to how to proceed. In addition, if the decision is to adjourn as the full committee to review the preliminary draft document and there is not a quorum, the review of the document could not occur. \.,..- D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MlN\LW\05-1o.96 3 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 Member Hahn asked if the Committee should vote as to whether they would prefer to review the preliminary draft documents at a normal meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that could not.be done this evening, as the item is not on the agenda for consideration, but it could be scheduled as an agenda item at the next meeting. He further indicated the provisions of the Brown Act require matters to be placed on the agenda prior to consideration and reviewed the history of the Brown Act. Member Goldberg asked if the matter could be placed on the next agenda for consideration, and if the sub-committee meets in the meantime and that review seems adequate, then no action would need to be taken. It will provide the option to consider the full committee process. Member Unatin asked what opportunity will the Committee have to review the document? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee is required to review the draft document and forward a recommendation to the City Council, and Dr. Stickel will be present at the Committee meeting when the matter is under consideration, and minutes of the sub-committee meeting will be provided to the full Committee. Member Goldberg asked if the matter could still be placed on the next agenda for consideration? '-" Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Committee may wish to receive and file the staff report, instruct staff to place on the next committee agenda re-consideration of the sub-committee review process for draft documents relating to the Hellman Ranch archaeological investigation, and to report back relative to a site tour in conjunction with a site survey observation tour with Dr. Stickel and Mr. Bartlett concurrently. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Goldberg to receive and file the staff report, instruct staff to place on the next committee agenda re-consideration of the sub-committee review process for draft documents relating to the Hellman Ranch archaeological investigation, and to report back relative to a site tour in conjunction with a site survey observation tour with Dr. Stickel anq Mr. Bartlett concurrently. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 A YES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze '-' D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MlN\LW\05-1o.96 4 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes ~ May 8, 1996 VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 7, 1996 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 7, 1996. There were none. Mr. Whittenberg indicated member Unatin should abstain since he was absent at this meeting. MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Benjamin to approve the Archaeological Advisory Committee minutes of February 7, 1996 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-2-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, and Willey NOES: None "-' ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze II ABSTAIN: Unatin 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 3, 1996 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Johnston to approve the Archaeological Advisory Committee minutes of April 3, 1996 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze \... D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MlN\LW\05-1o.96 5 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 7. REVIEW OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 4254 re: ABSENCE OF COMMISSION MEMBERS (Continued from January 17, February 7 and April 3, 1996) Recommendation: Review and consider provisions relating to absences of Committee members. Instruct Staff to prepare any further amendments regarding absences for consideration of Committee at a future meeting, or receive and file staff report. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this matter has been continued several times due to other items requiring action. The issue was brought up by the Committee in relation to the absences of certain members of the Committee. The Committee discussed the purpose of the original amendment and concern that the revision may not effectively deal with absences which are not excused. After discussion regarding the policies of the Committee in excusing an absence and a review of the procedures of the Committee, it was determined most appropriate to not take additional action at this time, but to possibly reconsider the matter after new appointments are made to the Committee in July. MOTION by Price; SECOND by Hahn to receive and file the staff report. '-' MOTION CARRIED: 7-1-2 A YES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey NOES: Goldberg ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze 8. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED BUILDING 33 REPAIRS, SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION (Continued from February 7 and April 3, 1996) Recommendation: Review and consider subject report. Instruct Chairman to sign proposed response letter with any amendments determined appropriate, or instruct staff to finalize a revised draft response letter for consideration on May 22, 1996, or continue to May 22, 1996, for further review and consideration. '-' D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MIN\LW\05-1o.96 6 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 Mr. Whittenberg indicated this matter has been held over from earlier meetings and that the request involves the replacement of 84' feet of sewer line in the same location, and that due to the length of time which has passed, SHPO may have already responded. He further indicated a draft response letter has been prepared concurring, based on the representations set forth in the Navy documentation. The matter is now before the Committee for consideration. Lisa Bosalet, Naval Weapons Station indicated that the engineers on the project have determined that additional work will be required which could involve ground disturbance activities, and that a new determination of SHPO will be sought on the expanded project. SHPO did respond and requested additional information. The Navy will be submitting a new request to SHPO for concurrence when appropriate, and the Committee will also receive the new request. '-' Member Hahn indicated she would object to sending the letter, realizing a new request will be received from the Navy, because the Committee did not inspect the proposed project site. She felt it would create a liability to the City if the Committee rubber stamps a request of the Navy. Since it was not personally investigated, another group like the Gabrielino could contest the action, and if the City is on record as condoning the activity, we may be creating liability for the City. Member Johnston agreed, indicating additional information should be provided, and native americans should have the opportunity to review the project site. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the desire is for the Committee not to respond to this type of request unless the site has been investigated by the Committee. Member Hahn agreed with the statement, and that our opinion should not be based on what is provided by the Navy, unless the Committee is permitted to tour the area. Her main concern is the creation of a liability exposure to the City, as it would be part1 your fault since we would have written a rubber-stamp letter to SHPO. Member Goldberg asked if the Committee should be writing any letters in response to information provided by the Navy, since the Committee is not involved in the actual work to be undertaken. Member Willey further indicated the Committee has no influence over activities to be undertaken by the Committee. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the past procedure has been for staff to review and prepare comment letters on documents received from the Naval Weapons Station, and up to this point, the Committee had determined it was appropriate to respond in writing in some manner to those informational documents. If the Committee wishes to change that policy, that is fine, staff needs direction in this matter. Mr. Whittenberg indicated if the Committee determines to not respond staff would place these matters on the Consent Calendar for the inform~tion of the Committee, or as a Scheduled Matter, where the '-" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MIN\L W\05-lo.96 7 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 Committee could discuss the particular action under consideration and request staff to prepare a response for consideration at a future meeting, if determined appropriate by the Committee. Member Unatin suggested the letter be revised to indicate the Committee has no firsthand knowledge of the site and cannot comment as to the impacts of the project. Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick indicated he would feel comfortable if a native american representative could review the site prior to the submission of documentation to SHPO, so those concerns could be included by the Navy. Lisa Bosalet, Naval Weapons Station, indicated no work has been done, and the design is now being changed. A new determination will need to be submitted to SHPO. She further indicated the Navy views the comments of the Committee very highly, and this process allows the Committee to fulfill its responsibilities for public outreach and review. The referral of documents to the Committee is an important part of the outreach program. She would urge the Committee continue to respond in both a positive and a negative manner to actio~s proposed by the Navy, in order to obtain a balanced set of comments from the City., She would hate to think the only time the Committee responds is in a negative manner. '-' Member Unatin suggested the Committee review matters on a case-by-case basis, and state that to the best of our knowledge the project is acceptable. Member Hahn indicated her opposition to sending letters of that nature, thereby condoning what they are doing. Member Unatin indicated that is not what is being said, indicating the letter would be re- phrased to indicate the Committee has no first hand knowledge, has not observed the site, and that to our knowledge a native american monitor has not viewed the site. Member Hahn agreed with those types of qualifiers. Member Johnston indicated she feels the Committee would need additional information before taking an action such as writing a letter, and took a moment to introduce to the Committee representatives of the Gabrielino's in attendance this evening. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it would appear to be most appropriate to receive and file the report, and instruct staff when future letters are prepared to reflect the comments proposed by Member Unatin. Member Hahn asked it would more appropriate to not have staff prepare a letter until the Committee has a chance to discuss the matter, and provide direction to staff as to what to include in a response letter. Members of Committee indicated they would prefer to have a draft letter to review. Member Willey indicated that perhaps a concern of the Committee needs to be communicated to the Navy regarding the expansion of the activities and the lack of an on-site review by a native american representative. Otherwise the Committee may be talking about these same ~ D:\WPSI \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MlN\LW\05-1 0.96 8 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 concerns when the next request of the Navy is received. The Navy should be made aware of those concerns prior to another activity request letter being prepared. Member Goldberg indicated that if Lisa was not here, the Committee would not know of the change in project scope. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is why the Navy is provided a copy of agenda and staff reports of the Committee when a Navy matter is on the agenda. Lisa Bosalet indicated the Navy also provides a copy of its requests to SHPO to the representative native american group, if there are other groups which be provided this documentation, please let her know and they will be included on the mailing list. Also, the Committee is seen as a major public outreach mechanism of the Navy. '-' Mr. Whittenberg indicated a major issue he has heard is that the Committee would have been more comfortable if a native american representative had' been able to review the proposed site and the proposed scope of project prior to the Navy submitting its documentation to SHPO, so that any concerns of the native americans could be considered by the Navy, prior to finalizing its request to SHPO. He suggested the Committee may wish to forward that concern to the Navy for consideration in its review and analysis function. Member Goldberg indicated the Committee is also saying it agrees, with everything the Navy has sent it. She doesn't have a problem with the Navy giving the Committee the information, but is concerned about the inability of the Committee to review the actual work being done. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it then appears there are two choices: one, qualify all response letters to the effect that the Committee has not reviewed the site and cannot respond to any acceptance of the requested action; and two, not respond at all. Member Benjamin asked if the Committee should request of the Navy that a native american representative approve of the requested action prior to coming before the Committee? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee could make that request, but that is a separate matter from responding to a particular request. Further, he indicated he is not sure there is a liability exposure to the City by responding, since any activity on the Weapons Station would be in compliance with the Navy's "HARP" plan, which requires certain archaeological personnel to be present, and those individuals would have the liability, not a reviewing committee of a document. Member Hahn indicated NEP A and NHP A require public outreach, and the Committee responding to items is furthering that requirement, and therefore the city would be liable if another group feels a certain activity was not done properly. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Navy could fulfill its public outreach responsibilities by providing the documents to the City, and that responsibility is fulfilled whether or not the City '-" D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-Ol1-96.MlN\LW\05-1o.96 9 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 responds. He further indicated the committee needs to determine how to proceed, as a staff to the Committee, his responsibility is to follow and implement the recommendations and direction of the Committee. Mr. Whittenberg further indicated that if the Committee desires matters of this nature to placed as a scheduled matter with no draft response letter that is perfectly fine, understanding that if the Committee determines to prepare a response letter, it could not be acted on until the next regular or an adjourned meeting of the Committee. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Johnston to instruct staff to place future matters regarding the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station requests for concurrence to SHPO will appear as a scheduled matter on the Committee Agenda, with no draft response letter prepared, understanding that if the Committee determines to prepare a response letter, staff will be instructed to prepare a draft response letter for consideration until the next regular or an adjourned meeting of the Committee, depending on time schedules. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey NOES: None '-' ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze Mr. Whittenberg further addressed the issue of a native american representative viewing a proposed site prior to the Navy preparing the necessary documentation to SHPO. MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Benjamin to instruct staff prepare a letter for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee to the Naval Weapons Station urging the implementation of a site observation program by a native american representative prior to formulating a request for concurrence to SHPO. Member Unatin indicated the Navy has changed the scope of the project, and the committee is now instructing staff to draft a letter not knowing what the changes are, and are making suggestions to improve something which is still undergoing revision. This seems to be illogical. What are we asking staff to do, why don't we wait until the new information is received and then determine what to do? Mr. Whittenberg indicated his understanding of the motions is that the Committee is instructing staff to send a letter to the Navy indicating the Committee feels that prior to sending documentation to SHPO, a native american representative should view the area and provide their input to the Navy ~ D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MlN\LW\05-1o.96 10 '-'" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 prior to the Navy formulating a request to SHPO. It is addressing a concern of the Committee as part of a step prior to preparing a document for submission to SHPO. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if the native american council would desire to be involved in this process. A representative in the audience indicated they would. Member Price asked if in the past the Committee determined to not specify a particular tribal afftliation for native american representation? Mr. Whittenberg that was a concern relative to previous projects. Member Johnston indicated there are both Gabrielino and Juaneno councils, with Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick indicating the Navy packet was mailed to the Gabrielino council. Member Hahn indicated this is in regards to a Navy facility, and the Navy can pick whatever monitor they choose. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his understanding of the discussion was that the letter to the Navy would address use of a native american representative, and not specify a particular tribal affiliation. Member Hahn indicated it should be a native american monitor as defined in the Seal Beach Archaeological Element, because that requires a certain level of training. Member Johnston stated it was her understanding that a viewing of the site was being discussed, not monitoring an archaeological investigation, was being discussed, and those a two different things. Both tribes have a cultural resource committee and those individuals would be appropriate to serve in this site viewing function. In addition, an archaeologist familiar with the area should also be consulted. ...... Mr. Whittenberg indicated his understanding of the motion is to instruct staff to prepare for Commi~ consideration at the next meeting a draft letter to the Navy requesting inclusion of native american resource committees member to view the project area prior to formulating any letters to SHPO. The maker and second of the motion concurred with the motion as re-stated. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze 9. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OPERABLE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 (SITE 1), SEAL BEACH NA VAL WEAPONS STATION \.,..- D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\OS-08-96.MlN\LW\05-lo.96 11 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 (Continued from February 7 and April 3, 1996) Recommendation: Review and consider subject report. Instruct Chairman to sign proposed response letter with any amendments determined appropriate, or instruct staff to finalize a revised draft response letter for consideration at an adjourned Committee Meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this matter has also been on the Committee's agenda for some time, and apologized to the Committee because he indicted in February he would have a response, and as of yet has not been able to prepare the response. He would hope to have this at the next agenda. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it would be appropriate to receive and rue the staff report and instruct staff to prepare a draft letter for consideration at the next Committee meeting. '-' Member Hahn indicated this has been held over from the January meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he had hoped to have the item on the February meeting, but was unable to, and the April meeting was not held due to the lack of a quorum. Member Hahn asked if a response letter on the IR Sites had been prepared. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he did not remember, he would have to research the rues. Member Hahn indicated in November 1994 the Advisory Council wrote to the Navy and indicated the archaeological investigation of Site 1 was inadequate. The Advisory Council required the Navy to thoroughly re-evaluate IR Site 1 by a professional archaeologist, which the Navy agreed to do on December 5, 1994. To the best of her knowledge, this has not been done, therefore, an action by the Committee is inappropriate until the concerns of the federal Advisory Council have ben met. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is why the matter has taken so long; there is a long, involved, and not clear history of this site. Member Hahn asked if this could be brought back on the next meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that was his recommendation to the Committee. MOTION by Johnston; SECOND by Hahn to receive and file the staff report and instruct staff to prepare a draft response letter for Committee consideration at the next meeting of the Committee. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze '-' D:\WPSI \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MlN\LW\05-1o.96 12 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes ~ ~~~ 10. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF" PRELIMINARYDRAFr FINALHISTORlC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION (HARP) PLAN FOR THE NA VAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", dated November 1995 (Continued from April 3, 1996) Recommendation: Review and consider subject report. Instruct staff to schedule for further consideration at an adjourned Committee Meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee has received a copy previously of the entire document. The intent is for the Navy to provide an overview of how it intends to deal with future projects on the Station that would impact archaeological and historical sites, and set forth a framework as to how they deal internally with those issues. He further indicated the Committee will probably wish to provide comments on the document as it not aware of any deadline to provide those comments. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he will be preparing a draft response letter for the consideration of the Committee, and if any members have comments at this time, those could be incorporated into the draft response letter. '-'" Member Goldberg asked if the document was provided to other groups. Lisa Bosalet indicated it has been sent to those groups noted on the transmittal letter. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff could forward a letter to those other groups indicating if they would wish to forward their comments to the City, their comments could be incorporated into the comments of the Committee. The Committee concurred with this suggestion. Lisa Bosalet indicated Ms. Clevenger has anticipated in attending the next meeting to respond to questions and concerns at that time. Mr. Whittenberg suggested this matter be continued for two weeks for further consideration, that the Navy and the consultant be available to respond to the Committee, and that staff will prepare a draft response letter and request of the other parties to forward their comments to the City in sufficient time to allow for incorporation of their comments with the Committee comments. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to continue this matter to May 22 for further consideration, that the Navy and the consultant be available to respond to the Committee, and that staff will prepare a draft response letter and request of the other parties to forward their comments to the City in sufficient time to allow for incorporation of their comments with the Committee comments. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 A YES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey "" D:\WPSI \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MlN\LW\05-1o.96 13 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 8, 1996 NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn and Chairperson Frietze Vll. COMMI'ITEE CONCERNS Member Hahn indicated she had asked staff to prepare a letter in response regarding Item 9, and due to other staff responsibilities it has not been done. In the future, could staff inform the Committee that staff will address the matter as soon as possible, so that it is not forgotten? vm. STAFF CONCERNS 11. Status of request from Member Hahn re: Status of Site I Archaeological Issues - Oral Report by Staff (Continued from April 3, 1996) Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is the same matter as discussed previously under agenda item VI-9 above. IX. ADJOURNMENT "" MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Price to adjourn the meeting at 6: 14 p.m. to Wednesday, May 22, 1996, 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Ch rson, Arc aeological Advisory Committee ~A(~ Whittlnberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory Commi Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of May 8, 1996 were approved on /J'JA?' ~2 , 1996. - ~ D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-08-96.MIN\LW\OS-lo.96 14 ;. \..,- NO'UCE OF A...D...JOUR-KLD MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Archaeological Advisory Committee meeting of May 8, 1996 was adjourned by Motion of the Archaeological Advisory Committee to an adjourned Archaeological Advisory Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 22, 1996 at 5:00 P. M. at the City Council Chamber, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California. The Archaeological Advisory Committee will consider matters as indicated on the May 22, 1996 Agenda, which will be posted at City Hall on Thursday, May 16, 1996 as required by law. DATED THIS 13th day of May, 1996. ~ ~ftJ · {/Ie 11 Whittenberg Archaeological Advisory ommittee Secretary City of Seal Beach Posted at Seal Bead1 City coun7.Jt/and Seal Beach City Hall, 4:00 PM, May 13, 1996 \...- D:\ WPSl \FORMS\ADJOURN4.NOT\L W\OS-13-96