Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1996-05-22 ~ ~ ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITIEE MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Frietze called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M. ll. ROLL CALL Present: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston (5:03 PM), Price, Unatin (5:04 PM), Willey and Chairperson Frietze Absent: Member Yearn Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Mr. Whittenberg said he had not heard from Members Johnston or Unatin, and suggested they are delayed. Member Yearn called and indicated he would be on vacation and could not attend. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Price to excuse the absence of Member Yearn. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Johnston, Unatin, and Yearn Member Johnston arrived at 5:03 PM and Member Unatin arrived at 5:04 PM. ID. APPROV AL OF AGENDA Chairperson Frietze said this was the time for any member of the Committee, staff or public to rearrange the order of the Agenda, or to request items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff has prepared D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 a Supplemental Staff Report regarding Agenda Item VI-7, indicating this matter will need to be continued until June 5 to allow Dr. Stickel to complete the revisions requested by the sub-committee. MOTION by Unatin; SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Frietze asked for oral communications from the audience. No one wished to speak. '--' V. CONSENT CALENDAR - No items on Consent Calendar VI. SCHEDULED MA TIERS 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 8, 1996 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Chairperson Frietze asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 8, 1996? Member Hahn said her recollection was that motion stated on page 10 was incorrect and should indicate the subject documents would appear as receive and file items under the Consent Calendar, rather than as Scheduled Matters, as indicated in the minutes. Mr. Whittenberg indicated Member Hahn had discussed this matter with him. It was his recollection there was discussion to that effect, but if that was done, then the matter would need to be removed from the Consent Calendar for an instruction to staff to schedule for additional consideration at a future meeting. He indicated it may be appropriate to continue approval of the Minutes to the June 5 meeting to allow the tape to be reviewed, unless the recollection of the Committee is certain. Member Hahn indicated the language of the motion on page 10, paragraph 2, line 3, should delete "Scheduled Matter" and replace it with "receive and file item on the Consent Calendar". That was the consensus of the Committee. \... D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 2 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 Chairperson Frietze asked for clarification of comments of Member Hahn as indicated on page 7, regarding potential liability to the Committee for commenting on documents received by the Committee from the Naval Weapons Station, since she was absent from that meeting. Member Hahn indicated her concern was that if the City of Seal Beach, via the Committee, sent a letter to the Navy indicating they have reviewed a proposal and we think it is acceptable, and then the Navy were to use that as justification to the Office of State Historic Preservation, her feeling is that we had not investigated it ourselves and we are creating liability for the City, because another group could contest it, because the Committee would have condoned it with no personal knowledge of the situation. Chairperson Frietze indicated the City has an implementation already intact through the consultants which the City use on a rotation basis. Mr. Whittenberg indicated two different issues are being discussed. The item of discussion pertains just to the Naval Weapons Station, and those consultants are selected by the Navy and the City has no input or jurisdiction regarding that process. He further stated he feels the issue is unclear, that no one can say if there is a liability issue or not. If the Committee would wish to further explore the issue, it would require a review and preparation of an opinion by the City Attorney. Member Goldberg asked if a review of this issue could be undertaken by the City Attorney? '--' Member Unatin stated he thought the consensus of the Committee was stated in the last two paragraphs of page 8. The Committee reviewed the language, with Member Unatin restating the position that the Committee would indicate they have no knowledge to SHPO. Chairperson Frietze stated Native Americans who would be involved would address the Navy Weapons Station directly, and it would not have anything to do with the City of Seal Beach. Member Hahn indicated she agreed that the matter should be handled by the Native Americans, but that the City shouldn't automatically write a letter one way or the other on every Navy project. The Committee should simply read the material and then, at the Committee's discretion, determine if it would like to respond at a meeting. By receiving and filing a matter, the Committee can handle these matters on a case-by-case basis if it determines it is worth the time ofthe Committee to respond, and the Committee feels it knows something about the project which it would wish to contribute. Member Unatin reviewed the discussion on page 8, indicating it would be easier for Mr. Whittenberg to prepare a letter, upon direction by the Committee. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the correction proposed by Member Hahn would direct staff to the actions being discussed by the Committee. There were no further comments relative to this matter. Member Goldberg asked for clarification of the action. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the action will instruct staff to place the types of items under discussion on the Consent Calendar, if the Committee wishes to discuss the matter they would remove it from the '-" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\L W\05-28-96 3 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 Consent Calendar and discuss the matter. If the Committee then determined to respond in writing, they would instruct staff to schedule the matter for consideration and possible action at a following regular or special meeting of the Committee. MOTION by Unatin; SECOND by Hahn to approve the Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of May 8, 1996 as revised by correcting page 10 second paragraph, line 3 as follows: ~(.Iiiii;:~h:~:!!'~~!~!i::::lt.::::lplii:~:i~bi MOTION CARRIED: 8 - 0 - 1 - 1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin and Willey NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn ~ ABSTAIN: Chairperson Frietze 2. REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE REVIEW PROCESS FOR PRELIMINARY DRAFT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE HELLMAN RANCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION Recommendation: Determine to eliminate, retain, or revise sub-committee review process. Receive and file staff report. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this matter came up at the last meeting, and the Committee requested staff to place the item on this Agenda. He stated the Committee can retain the existing process or institute a new process for the review of draft reports from City- selected archaeologists. The sub-committee met on Monday evening and Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Committee may want to hear from them regarding the process. Chairperson Frietze asked for comments from any of the sub-committee members. Member Goldberg indicated the meeting was very good, but it would have been very difficult to meet as a full Committee, as it took almost four and half hours to review the document. The sub-committee reviewed each page, with staff having prepared 5 pages of recommendations, and with Member Hahn going through the document with a fine- '-" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 4 ,. ..... Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 toothed comb. Member Hahn was the most beneficial member of the sub-Committee, from the point that the grammar and context was cleaned up. Member Fitzpatrick indicated he was surprised at the sub-quality of the English language used in the report. Member Goldberg stated she felt the sub-committee did speed up the process, and that the document wasn't changed that much, just made clearer. The revised document will be easier to read and make better sense. In response to a comment from Member Benjamin, Mr. Whittenberg said the majority of the changes were of an editorial nature, made to improve the flow and clarity of the document. In response to a question from Member Unatin, the revised document will hopefully be included in the June 5 agenda packet, and Dr. Stickel will be present at that meeting to review the document with the Committee. Member Fitzpatrick indicated he was impressed with the quality of the hard science in the document. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the basic tenor of the revised document will not be much different from the initial draft. The majority of the revisions were cleaning up sentence structure and punctuation errors. The presentation of the document will be much clearer. ~ Mr. Whittenberg said that at the June 5 meeting, the full Committee will be reviewing the final draft report, and will have the opportunity to request further revisions, as felt appropriate. In response to a question from Chairperson Frietze, Mr. Whittenberg indicated the action of the Committee will probably be in the form of a resolution to the City Council, recommending approval of the document, with any additional revisions determined appropriate. In response to a question from Member Unatin, Member Goldberg and Mr. Whittenberg indicated the major comments from Hellman Ranch were to improve document clarity, clean up sentence structure, and to not include Mr. Bartlett as the reference source by noting what was said to him by Mola representatives. Those comments should come directly from Mola, not second-hand through Mr. Bartlett. In response to a question from Member Benjamin as to where the proposed homes will be located, Mr. Whittenberg indicated it is his understanding they will primarily along Seal Beach Boulevard, but he has not seen the final design. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the issue before the Committee is to determine if the current sub-Committee review process is still appropriate, or if the process should be revised. In response to a question regarding sub-committee members and alternates, Mr. Whittenberg indicated it is his intent to invite sub-committee members and alternates, so that there is a quorum of the sub-committee. There was no desire indicated to revise the current sub-committee review process. MOTION by Unatin; SECOND by Hahn to receive and file the Staff Report. ......,..,. D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\L W\OS-28-96 5 Archaeological Advisoty COliuniffl't' Minutes May 2.? 1996 " ..... MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 A YES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn 3. CONSIDERATION OF FIELD TRIP TO HELLMAN RANCH Recommendation: Determine to attend field trip as scheduled. Instruct Staff to notify representatives of Hellman Properties and Dr. Stickel. Receive and file staff report. .,.-.-.. Chairperson Frietze asked for an update on this matter. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he has checked both with Dr. Stickel and Dave Bartlett, and they are both more than pleased to have the Committee observe the walk-over survey and have a tour of the entire property. He further indicated the Committee probably has to the end of next week to observe Dr. Stickel. After that any member of the Committee could have a tour of the property, if their schedule would not allow the member to attend the joint walk-over/site tour. Mr. Whittenberg suggested trying to schedule no more than 5 members as a group, with perhaps morning and afternoon times, assuming approximately 2 hours for the total tour. After discussion among the Committee, the following members indicated a desire to have a tour scheduled on Tuesday, May 28, from 3:00 to 5:00 PM to observe Dr. Stickel and have tour from Dave Bartlett; Members Goldberg, Johnston, Price, Willey, and possibly Fitzpatrick. MOTION by Unatin; SECOND by Price to request staff to arrange for a tour of no more than five members of the Archaeological Advisory Sub-Committee of the Hellman Ranch on Tuesday, May 28, from 3:00 to 5:00 PM for an orientation tour by Dave Bartlett and an observation tour of Dr. Stickel's walk-over survey work. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ......, D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\OS-28-96 6 "',.,., Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 ABSENT: Yearn 4. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED LETTER TO NAVAL WEAPONS STATION re: UTILIZATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECT SITES PRIOR TO FORMULATING REQUEST TO STATE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Recommendation: Review and consider subject report. Instruct Chairman to sign proposed letter with any amendments determined appropriate, or instruct staff to finalize a revised draft response letter for consideration on June 5, 1996. .........., Chairperson Frietze stated she had some questions on this matter. First, who are the resource committee members? Mr. Whittenberg indicated he has no idea. What was represented at the last meeting was that both the Gabrielino's and Juaneno's have a resource committee. The Archaeological Committee's concern was that before the Navy requests concurrence with a determination of no impact, that a member of the resource committee has reviewed the site, prior to formulation of the letter to SHPO. Chairperson Frietze asked Member Johnston how members of the resource committee are selected? Member Johnston indicated the Juaneno band has a resolution stating the Tribal Council is responsible for cultural resources, and Roger Johnston, in attendance this evening, is a member of that committee. In response to a question from Chairperson Frietze as to the training of these individuals, Mr. Johnston stated that they would not serve as monitors of an archaeological investigation. Member Johnston stated the cultural resource committee works with the Tribal Elders, to find out what the cultural resources are. Chairperson Frietze stated a concern that issues are being forced regarding Native American concerns, as the Navy has been real cooperative, and would not want those relationships destroyed. Mr. Whittenberg said the letter was structured to indicate it is a request from the Committee, and the decision is up to the Navy. The matter is before the Committee to determine if the language of the letter could be improved, or if it should even be sent. Lisa Bosalet, Naval Weapons Station, addressed the Committee regarding this issue, stating appreciation in being able to discuss this issue. She asked the Committee consider requesting the appropriate Native Americans to participate in the Committee, rather than asking the Navy to ask the Native Americans to participate in the review of projects prior to the Navy making a d~termination and sending that to SHPO. The Navy feels this would be a better process than having Native Americans participate in projects prior to the formulation of the letter to SHPO. The proposed letter from the Committee does not specify which projects are of concern, the scope of those projects, and the Navy has an extensive number of projects. She did not believe the Navy or the Native American ...... D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 7 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 groups are capable, at this time, of adding an additional requirement as requested by the Committee. The Committee should approach the Native Americans to participate in the Committee as this would give everyone a better understanding of the overall concerns of the Native Americans. Further, the Navy would need a full-time person to address the review by ''lative Americans, as requested by the Committee. In her opinion, the Committee has an obligation to set an example to other cities in their endeavors to establish similar committees. Requests of this type have not been thoroughly reviewed by the Navy and by those familiar with the National Historic Preservation Act process, in order to understand the ramifications of the request. The Committee has a responsibility to look at the requests they are making on the Navy and to see if those are reasonable. She felt it could be a very negative impact upon the Committee, as the scope of the request is very broad. \w Member Hahn asked what is faulty in the request? Mrs. Bosalet replied it is an additional requirement on a Federal agency that the National Historic Preservation Act does not require. What it requires is contact and request for comments, which the Navy has been doing, allowing Native Americans to provide comments whenever necessary. This additional burden will be looked at by other agencies in California as unreasonable, and it will be a detriment to other cities forming groups of this nature, because it will be viewed as an unreasonable request. There are very good reasons for the Navy to refuse to include a Native American review prior to sending a determination request to SHPO. Member Johnston asked if the Navy brings projects to the Archaeological Committee and then proceeds? Mrs. Bosalet said the City and the Native Americans receive a copy of the same package sent to SHPO. The Navy must wait until a response is received from SHPO if there is an archaeological concern at a specific project site. If there is no archaeological information regarding a particular site, it is illegal for the Navy to proceed with the project until the archaeological issues have been resolved. Mrs. Bosalet reviewed the various levels of determination: if there is no historic property determination based on a previous surveyor if the site is so disturbed. In response to a question from Mr. Whittenberg, the Navy will utilize the HARP Plan to assist in making those determinations. Mrs. Bosalet indicated if a project is proposed in an area which has not been surveyed before, an archaeological and historical survey would be required prior to formulating a determination for submission to SHPO. Member Johnston stated her understanding of the request is to allow the Native Americans input into that determination process. Chairperson Frietze asked Member Johnston to clarify if that request is as a Native American or as a member of the Archaeological Advisory Committee, as this is being proposed as a request of the Committee. Chairperson Frietze further stated that she and Member Johnston, as Native Americans, must remember they may have a conflict of interest. ~ D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 8 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 ~ Member Goldberg said the Committee has two Native Americans serving, and that is a plus to the Committee. Chairperson Frietze stated she felt the various Native American groups should deal with the Navy, and the Committee should deal with concerns of the Committee. Member Goldberg felt other factions of Native Americans should be getting the same information as more established Native American groups. Chairperson Frietze stated that should up to the other groups to establish those relationships with the Navy, it should not be an issue before the Committee. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed his understanding of the Committee's concern, using the Building 33 example. The Committee is uncomfortable in concurring with a determination of no impact, since the site is in a previously identified archaeological site, and it has a concern that a Native American should also review the area so there is an additional level of scrutiny by a Native American group before the Committee makes a decision to support a letter. Member Hahn said she disagreed with that, indicating the concerns of the Committee were twofold: first, that a Native American had examined the property, and second, without examining it ourselves or having an opinion from a neutral professional the Committee didn't feel comfortable sending a letter, since it didn't have personal knowledge of what the situation was. At the time the original pipes were laid, the current laws probably didn't apply and no one was probably looking for archaeological material. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the second concern is addressing the issue of liability, which the Committee previously discussed. Member Hahn indicated that is correct, but the other concern is that a Native American should have the opportunity to review the project site. ' Member Willey indicated the scope of the original project was broadened, and because of that, new territory was now being considered which was beyond the original confines of the staff-prepared letter. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the Navy has indicated they would need to prepare a new determination to SHPO, since the project scope had changed. Member Willey further indicated she saw the issue as more of a convenience, asking the Navy if they considered this, and maybe they need to stop and consider this beforehand, so the issue does not come up again. Mrs. Bosalet indicated the question will come up again, because the Navy is not planning on changing its notification procedures to Native American tribes, to the Archaeological Advisory Committee, or to SHPO. Mrs. Bosalet, using Building 33 as an example, indicated she is unsure what would be seen at the site, the determination was of no impact due to the limited scope; the replacement of a sewer line. There is nothing to look at, there is grass which covers the' pipe. The discussion at the previous Committee meeting became a general discussion and a statement that any site should be reviewed by a Native American representative, without definition of when they should be pulled in or the size of a project. A new letter regarding Building 33 will be coming out soon, but to ask Native Americans to come in to look at a project that is in an area where they have an ability to comment seems inappropriate. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the proposed request of the Committee only pertains to projects which might '-" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 9 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 impact an archaeological site, not a historic site, and this reduces the scope of the request. He asked if a letter is sent to a Native American group and they respond that they are not sure about the request and would like to view the site, would that occur? Mrs. Bosalet said of course, but what is wrong with the letter is it is asking the Navy to go and get the Native Americans response prior to sending out the letter to SHPO. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the request of the Committee is to invite the Native Americans, if they decide not to come, that is their choice. Mrs. Bosalet indicated the process would involve sending a letter prior to making a determination to SHPO, asking for a review of the site, and she still thinks the letter should specifically state not to all Native American groups. Member Price reviewed previous discussions and determinations of the Committee regarding a desire to not specify a particular Native American tribal affiliation and the Committee would not specify which is the appropriate Native American group. ...... Member Hahn suggested changing the wording to not only apply to a determination of no effect on an archaeological site, but to also apply to an adverse impact to a site, as that is when supervision is needed. Secondly, she thought the Committee was asking for something very general, and asked if the Native American resource committee is a particular group, and if so, who is it composed of, and would it be open to other Native Americans who want to join them? Chairperson Frietze stated the issue is who is the legal entity, and that should not be an issue of this Committee. Member Johnston indicted our concern is for ancestral protection. Chairperson Frietze stated again she cannot emphasize enough the Navy doesn't have to do anything pertaining to them, since they are not Federally recognized. Further, the Committee should be careful on matters like this. Member Price suggested including in the letter a rotation among the various Native American groups. The Committee discussed not sending a letter at all, and not becoming involved in the tribal faction issues. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee still has a HARP plan to review, and the Planning Commission meets at 7:30 PM, so the Committee will need to adjourn no later than 7: 15. Member Unatin indicated the Committee had been led to believe at the last meeting that each band had a particular group which is responsible for this type of activity. Member Johnston indicated that is correct. MOTION by Price; SECOND by Willey to continue this matter to the regular August meeting for further consideration. Member Goldberg asked if the Native American groups could each prepare a draft letter for review by the Committee. Chairperson Frietze felt that was trying to get the groups ~ D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 10 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 to deal with their political differences. Member Goldberg indicated she wants to make sure that Member Johnston's group gets the same information as Chairperson Frietze's group. Chairperson Frietze stated both groups are on the Committee and receives the same information. MOTION CARRIED: 8 - 0 - 1 - 1 A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Yeam ABSTAIN: Fitzpatrick 5. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OPERABLE UNITS 1,2, AND 3 (SITE 1), SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION (Continued from February 7, April 3 and May 8, 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 the regular Committee Meeting of June 5, 1996. Chairperson Frietze introduced the item, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating the matter had been brought up by Member Hahn, and staff had been remiss in not responding timely, and the matter is now before the Committee for consideration. Member Hahn indicated she thought attachment 5 could be scrapped, as the last meeting minute excerpt is not necessary to be sent to the Navy. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it was not intended to be sent to the Navy, that the letter from the Committee and the letter from the Advisory Council would be the packet sent to the Navy. Member Hahn suggested a copy of letter from the Navy in response to the letter from the Advisory Council, dated December 5, 1994, also be included. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the City does not have a copy of the letter, and Member Hahn indicated she would provide a copy to the City. Member Hahn indicated this way the new base commander would be fully aware of the issue. In addition, she suggested additional language be added to the letter inquiring if the restoration work at Site 1 has begun. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it has not, and believes it is not budgeted to begin until 1998, and suggested additional language be added between paragraphs two and three to read "In addition, the Committee would request an ~ D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 11 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 updated status report as to the anticipated date of remediation activities beginning on this site." MOTION by Benjamin; SECOND by Price to authorize the Chairperson to sign the letter as revised by adding a paragraph between paragraphs two and three to read "In addition, the Committee would request an updated status report as to the anticipated date of remediation activities beginning on this site.", with the additional attachment to be provided. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn 6. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF" PRELIMINARY DRAFT FINAL HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION (HARP) PLAN FOR THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", dated November 1995 (Continued from April 3 and May 8, 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 the regular Committee Meeting of June 5, 1996. Member Hahn asked if this matter could be continued, as she has been busy and has not time to read it. Chairperson Frietze indicated the matter has been continued from April 3 and May 8, and inquired if the consultants could come to a future meeting, since they are here this evening. Lisa Bosalet stated the Committee has already indicated the June 5 meeting is full, and the next meeting after that is in August, and that is too long a time period, and suggested a special meeting to review the document. The Navy wants the comments of the Committee and wants to work with the Committee on this issue. Mr. Whittenberg suggested some initial discussion occur this evening, and that the matter then be continued to a adjourned meeting to finish the review of the document. Member Goldberg asked if the Committee could begin its review this evening, and if other members have additional comments, those could be sent in. This matter has been postponed so long, and that is unfair. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee took ~ D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 12 \...- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 a similar action regarding the review of the "Research Design for CA-Ora-322/1119" on the Naval Weapons Station, indicating in a letter to SHPO that due to the short review period, additional letters may be forthcoming from members of the Committee. To his knowledge that did not occur, as no copies of letters from Committee members have been received by the City. Member Hahn indicated it has been tough, since she spent a great amount of time reviewing the Hellman Research Design document. Mrs. Bosalet indicated a late-June date is acceptable. After discussion among the Committee, it was determined to review the document tonight, have the Committee read document and be fully prepared to discuss the document only on June 24, and complete the review at that time. Member Goldberg indicated this review process is unfair and unprofessional on the part of the Committee. Member Hahn indicated she does not have an objection to starting this evening, but wishes to be able to contribute as a Committee before the process ends, and just comment as an individual. \.r Chairperson Frietze indicated the Committee will start the review this evening, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating staff had prepared a draft letter response, which is very general in nature, and the attachment to the letter indicates those matters which staff felt required clarification, revision, or further explanation. It was the consensus of the Committee to review the items set forth in the attachment to the draft response letter. The items of concern are listed below with the discussion regarding the item immediately following the item. 1) Section 1-8, Projected Future Land Uses for NWS, Seal Beach, page 1-11, second paragraph, indicates a number of construction projects are ". . planned for implementation in the period of 1993 through 1995." Since this time period is past, it would seem appropriate to modify the time period to match the time period of the document, from 1995 to 2000. It would also be helpful to provide a table of anticipated MILCON and contractor issued projects during this time period. A presentation of anticipated projects would inform the reviewing public of future project implementation and allow for a fuller understanding of potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources on the Naval Weapons Station. Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg indicated it would be helpful to not only have a listing of projects for the 1995-2000 time period, but also a map indicating the location of those projects in relation to identified archaeological sites. Mrs. Bosalet indicated there will be no MILCON projects during the time period, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating the comment also applies to contractor issued projects. Mrs. Bosalet indicated she would anticipate five (5) contractor issued projects in the next five years which would involve archaeological sites. Member '-" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 13 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 Hahn inquired as to the status of the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) project. Mrs. Bosalet indicated this project has been delayed until the Ora-322/1119 site investigations have been completed and evaluated, in accordance with SHPO's request. Member Hahn clarified the BEQ project is no longer a MILCON project, but a different named type of project. Mrs. Bosalet indicated the BEQ project is the only known project at this time that impacts an archaeological site. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the comment is meant to address any type of project which would impact an archaeological site, and the language of the comment may need revision. 2) Section 1-8, Projected Future Land Uses for NWS, Seal Beach, page 1-11, fourth paragraph, indicates a number of steps to be undertaken in identifying if a National Register listed or eligible site is present in the proposed location of an undertaking. It would clarify the decision process to provide a "decision tree" which would graphically display the various actions and decisions involved in this process. Discussion: There were no comments regarding this matter. 3) Section 3.1, Discussion of Previous Inventories and Studies, page 3-1, first paragraph, indicates at least four archaeological investigations have been conducted for portions of the Naval Weapons Station, and lists those investigations. Figure 3-1, page 3-3 and 3-4, indicates additional investigations. These additional investigations should also be referenced in the discussion on page 3-1. Further, it would seem appropriate to indicate the nature and extent of the recent investigation work conducted by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services in 1995 as part of the Phase I and Phase II Overview Survey and Eligibility Study for CA-Ora-298 and CA-Ora-322/1,118. '-' Discussion: Joyce Clevenger, consulting archaeologist, indicated the table is incorrect and will be revised, and will also include the Phase I and Phase II investigations conducted by her firm. Member Hahn asked how many phases there are, with Mrs. Clevenger indicating phase 1 is inventory and survey, phase 2 is testing and evaluation, and phase 3 is a mitigation or data recovery effort. Phase 2 work is currently ongoing. 4) Section 3.3.1, Prehistoric Resources, page 3-2, first paragraph, has transpositions for CA-ORA-298. On line one it is identified as "289" and on line two as "2908". Please correct. Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated the correction will be made. '-' D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 14 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes ~ ~n~ 5) Section 4.1, Introduction, page 4-1, first paragraph, second sentence, seems incomplete. Please review sentence and revise as appropriate. Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated the appropriate revision will be made. 6) Section 5.6, Procedures for Conducting a Phase I Architectural and Historical Survey, page 5-4, first paragraph, first sentence, seems incomplete. Please review sentence and revise as appropriate. Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated the appropriate revision will be made. 7) Section 5.8, Procedures for Construction Monitoring, page 5-5, second paragraph, first sentence, indicates the consulting archaeologist should be present at the pre-grade meeting. It is recommended that the consulting archaeologist must be at the pre-grade meeting and that a Native American representative be invited to attend the pre-grade meeting. It would seem vitally important to have the consulting archaeologist available to discuss potential impacts and methods of dealing with unexpected cultural resource finds on a construction project. It is probably not necessary for a Native American representative to be present, but the opportunity should be afforded for their attendance. ...... Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated agreement with having the consulting archaeologist at the pre-grade meeting. She further indicated that, in her opinion, a Native American representative would not need to be a the pre-grade meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to talk with the construction people about the use of hand signals, procedures to be followed, etc. She has never included a Native American representative at these meetings. Member Hahn verified that a Native American would be present if monitoring is necessary, and asked shouldn't they understand the various hand signals? Chairperson Frietze indicated the monitors are already familiar with the hand signals, and that the monitors need to be involved in the pre-grading process, not the construction meeting. In response to a question from Member Hahn, Mrs. Clevenger indicated it is an option at this time, if a Native American wished to attend a pre-grade meeting they could. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the concern, as coming from the Committee, is if the proposed comment is appropriate for the Committee to be making. This issue could be discussed further at the next meeting this matter is considered. Member Johnston indicated it may be left up to the Native American monitor to determine if he/she would wish to attend the pre-grade meeting. Mrs. Clevenger said that once she has the pre-grade meeting with the construction people, she will then meet with her field crew, including Native American ~ D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 15 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 monitors, and explain the procedures to be followed at the construction site. Otherwise people will be attending twice. In response to a question from Member Johnston, Mrs. Clevenger indicated she utilizes Samuel Dunlap as a Native American monitor. Member Hahn indicated the proposed wording is just to invite a Native American as a courtesy. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this can be thought about and discussed at the next meeting this matter is considered. 8) Section 5.8, Procedures for Construction Monitoring, page 5-6, sub-paragraph 4, indicates a brief data recovery program may be developed by the consulting archaeologist for a resource unexpectedly found which ". . is eligible for nomination to the National Register. II This seems inappropriate for a find of such determined importance. It would seem more appropriate to cease all activity within the APE until a research design can be prepared and additional testing and determinations made by the consulting archaeologist. ~ Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger said an archaeologist is already into a monitoring situation and if something significant is found the archaeologist then has to develop a plan to recover it. Mr. Whittenberg questioned if something significant is found that could potentially be nominated to the National Register, is there a potential to determine to not recover and leave the find in place? Mrs. Clevenger indicated not if it is significant, if it is then something needs to be done with it, which could result in leaving it in place through avoidance. A burial is a different issue. By all rights it should remain in place. If it must be disturbed, then a decision must be made with the Native Americans as to a proper internment process. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his concern that if that type of situation occurs, and maybe he is not understanding the terminology, do those issues get properly addressed before an action is taken? Mrs. Clevenger indicated the HARP covers the entire Naval Weapons Station. Member Hahn asked if the previously reviewed research design was meant for the entire Naval Weapons Station? Mrs. Clevenger said no, it is only for Site 322/1119. She will not be doing a research design for each site. In response to a concern from Member Hahn, Mrs. Clevenger she will prepare a research design for an action that would impact an archaeological site, do research and testing, and if found significant, then a mitigation and/or data recovery action. A research design would be prepared after testing and before mitigation. She further stated a research design is a work plan that tells what will be done, what will be looked for, and what will be examined at the site. She would not write a research design for a future project in an undetermined location. ~ D:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 16 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 Member Hahn indicated she is still confused, believing the research design would proceed whatever ground-disturbing activity needs to take place. Mrs. Clevenger said that normally a research design is not prepared for a testing plan, which was done for Site 322/1119. A research design is done for data recovery. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his concern was that a research design has been done in anticipation of certain activities, and during the project, something totally out of line from the anticipated is found, at that point does the initial research design need to be looked at again. Mrs. Clevenger indicated you always look at the research design, but it should be flexible enough to address those finds, but you don't go back to the research design. She indicated the scenario being discussed would be an unexpected thing, it would be expanded in the testing program, and fully explained and analyzed in the final reports. In response to a question from Member Hahn regarding having to reassess on that basis what the expectations were and how the research and excavation would be carried out. Mrs. Clevenger indicated no, you would reassess as the work is ongoing, you would not go back and change the research design. \. In response to a question from Member Benjamin, Mrs. Clevenger indicated the research design is only a tool and a guide, work can be done without one. It is a guide to ensure that most things are thought of, but if something unexpected comes up, you don't change the research design. In response to a question from Mrs. Bosalet, Mrs. Clevenger indicated that if you are in a testing phase, then the research design could be updated, but not in a data recovery phase that already has a research design prepared. After discussing a scenario of shovel test probes over a huge area and some village site or unexpected artifacts are located, and the change of recovery methods, such as trenching, Mrs. Clevenger indicated she would not change the research design but would change the work plan. It was the determination of the Committee to proceed to the other items. 9) Section 5.8, Procedures for Construction Monitoring, page 5-6, last sentence, seems incomplete. Please review sentence and revise as appropriate. Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated the appropriate revision will be made. 10) Section 5.8.1, Procedures for Handling the Discovery of Human Remains, page 5-6, first paragraph, first sentence, indicates that upon discovery of human remains, any archaeological or construction work "should" be halted. It is recommended this language be changed to "shall" be halted. It seems inappropriate to allow other activities to occur until such time as the magnitude and importance of the discovery of a human remain can be fully evaluated and resolved. '-" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.MIN\L W\05-28-96 17 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated the appropriate revision will be made. 11) Section 5.9, Procedures for Conducting Ethnographic Studies, page 5-7, first paragraph, first sentence, indicates that "Ethnographic studies, if required, shall be conducted as a routine measure within the broader framework of historic properties inventories. ", and indicates it is particularly important to have Native American consultation. Are there any definite plans to conduct this type of study in the foreseeable future? If not, the Archaeological Advisory Committee would propose to offer its services to attempt to establish a co-operative effort between the Navy and the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council to institute such a program. Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated ethnographic studies are not planned nor are they required. That will be a determination of the Navy in the future. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his comment was that the Committee may wish to work with Native Americans groups to help this effort, if that becomes a reality. '--' 12) Section 5.9, Procedures for Conducting Ethnographic Studies, page 5-7, first paragraph, second sentence, indicates that an ethnographic overview ". . is a mandated requirement." A reading of the entire sentence indicates the word "not" has been left out. Please review the language of the sentence and correct if appropriate. Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated the appropriate revision will be made. 13) Section 5.12, Navy Treatment Categories, page 5-11, last paragraph, discusses the treatment categories for the buildings on the Naval Weapons Station, but not the identified archaeological sites. It would seem appropriate to discuss the treatment categories of the archaeological sites in this paragraph and to also refer the reader to Table 5-1. Discussion: Mrs. Clevenger indicated the treatment categories apply only to buildings, not archaeological sites. 14) Section 5.13, Coardination of HARP Plan with Master Plan, page 5-17, first paragraph, indicates that "If potential National Register resources were present . . . several general steps should be taken if an undenaking were scheduled to take place." Since National Register resources are identified as existing, the text should be revised to indicate that identified resources do exist and that the identified steps shall be taken. '-" D:\ WPSl \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 IS \.r Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg indicated that since several areas of the Naval Weapons Station have already been determined to be potentially eligible, the language needs to be cleaned up. Mrs. Clevenger indicated the HARP is meant to apply to the overall Station. Mr. Whittenberg indicated when the document does discuss Sites 322 and 1119, it should indicate those sites are potentially eligible to the National Register. Member Hahn stated it was her understanding that Site 298 had been added to the National Register. Mrs. Clevenger indicated the nomination forms have been prepared. Mrs. Bosalet indicated it is a very lengthy process to get on the National Register and it is her understanding the Navy makes a determination, it then goes to SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and to the National Parks Service, who makes the final eligibility determination. Then there is a separate process to list the site on the National Register. Mrs. Bosalet indicated the nomination forms have been prepared and the HARP plan would indicate the priority of having a site listed. Chairperson Frietze indicated two members have to leave and inquired of the Committee if they wished to remain and finish the review of the other six concerns in the attachment to the draft response letter. ....... MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Price to continue this matter to an adjourned meeting on June 24, 1996 at 4:30 P.M.. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Yearn 7. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF "DRAFT - A PROPOSED RESEARCH DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION PROGRAM OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED ON THE HELLMAN RANCH, CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA", dated May 1996 Recommendation: Review and consider subject report. Provide any amendments to Archaeological Consultant for incorporation into final document for presentation to City Council. Receive and file staff report. '-' D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 19 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes May 22, 1996 It was SO ordered, without objection, by Chairman Frietze to continue this matter to June 5, 1996 at 5:00 P.M. VU. COMMITTEE CONCERNS - None VID. STAFF CONCERNS - None IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Price to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 p.m. to Wednesday, June 5, 1996, 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. t~ ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee '-' ~k~' _ Whittliiberg, sec~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of May 22, 1996 were approved on JU/V.6...s- , 1996. ....... D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\05-22-96.M1N\LW\05-28-96 20