HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1996-06-24
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
\.-
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITfEE
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 24, 1996
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 3:40 P.M.
n. ROLL CALL
Present:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Johnston, Price and
Willey and Chairperson Frietze (3:45 PM)
Absent:
Members Frietze, Johnston, and Unatin
Staff
Present:
Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director
\.- Mr. Whittenberg said he had not heard from Member Johnston,but she had previously
indicated she would be out of town and may not have returned as yet and an agenda
packet was delivered to her home on Saturday, Member Unatin indicated he would not
be present until around 5:00 PM due to patient commitments. Chairperson Frietze
indicated she would be present.
ill. APPROV AL 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 to request items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
Member Hahn requested that Item VI-5., Special Meetings of the Committee (Member
Hahn), precede Item VI-4, REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF "PRELIMINARY
DRAFT FINAL HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
(HARP) PLAN FOR THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", dated
November 1995, as it is a very brief item, won't take five minutes, and specifically
refers to the timetable for Item VI-4. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if there were any
objections, there were none.
~
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
......
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Member Goldberg also requested that a time limit be put on this meeting, that we end
the meeting by 6:45 PM. Member Price indicated she would prefer 6:30 PM.
MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Price to have Agenda Item VI-5 precede Agenda Item
VI-4.
MOTION CARRIED:
6-0-3
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Members Frietze, Johnston, and Unatin
MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Benjamin to adjourn this meeting by 6:30 PM.
MOTION CARRIED:
6-0-3
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey
'-"
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Members Frietze, Johnston, and Unatin
Mr. Whittenberg indicated the notice of calling of the special meeting is required to be
read in full into the minutes, and by motion of the committee the reading in full could
be waived and entered into the minutes.
MOTION by Price; SECOND by Benjamin to enter the notice of calling a special
meeting into the minutes.
MOTION CARRIED:
6-0-3
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Members Frietze, Johnston, and Unatin
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
2
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
"N 0 TIC E 0 F S P E C I A L M E E TIN G
Jean Frietze, 706 S. Susan St., Santa Ana
Dr. Bruce Fitzpatrick, 4401 Candleberry Ave., Seal Beach
Shirley Benjamin, 13650 Del Monte Dr., # 32C, Seal Beach
Joan Goldberg, 285 Clipper Way, Seal Beach
Moira Hahn, 1732 Harbor Way, Seal Beach
Sonia Johnston, 8142 Major Circle, #B, Huntington Beach
Genevieve Price, 13720 St. Andrews Dr., # 451, Seal Beach
Dr. Gilbert Unatin, 1910 St. Andrews Dr., Seal Beach
Dr. Lorraine Willey, 13621 St. Andrews Dr., 151L, Seal Beach
Ace Yearn, 4556 Fir Circle, Seal Beach
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Lee Whittenberg as Secretary of the Archaeological
Advisory Committee of the City of Seal Beach hereby calls and gives notice of a special
meeting of the Archaeological Advisory Committee to be held on Monday, June 24, 1996
at 3:30 PM in the City Council Chambers, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California, for
the purpose of considering the following matters:
1.
RECEIVE AND FILE - Letter from Dr. E. Gary Stickel, Ph.D. to
Archaeological Advisory Committee, dated June 7, 1996.
\....
Recommendation: Receive and File Letter.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
JUNE 5, 1996
Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate.
3. 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
(Continued from June 5 and June 19, 1996)
Recommendation: Review and consider subject report. Provide any
amendments to Archaeological Consultant for incorporation into final document
for presentation to City Council. Adopt Resolution recommending approval of
final document to the City Council.
a. Resolution Number 96-1, A Resolution of the Archaeological Advisory
Committee of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council
~
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
3
\.-
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
of the City of Seal Beach the Approval of "A Proposed Research Design
and Investigation Program of Archaeological Sites Located on the Hellman
Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California"
4. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF" PRELIMINARY DRAFT FINAL HISTORIC
AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION (HARP) PLAN FOR THE
NA VAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", dated November 1995
(Continued from April 3, May 8, and May 22, 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 a
continued Committee Meeting.
5. Special Meetings of the Committee (Member Hahn)
Recommendation: Discuss concern and instruct staff to proceed as deemed
appropriate.
6.
"Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Parcel Proposed for an Experimental
Anaerobic Bioremediation Program - Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach",
prepared by Ogden Environmental & Energy Services, Inc., dated March 1996
'-'
Recommendation: Receive report and instruct staff to continue to future
meeting date.
The Committee may take all actions appropriate relative to the above indicated items.
NOTE: The City Council will be meeting at 5:30 PM, and the Archaeological
Advisory Committee will be adjourning at that time to the City Manager's Conference
Room or the Room 28 Conference Room to continue its meeting, if necessary.
DATED THIS 21st day of June, 1996.
Lee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
and Secretary of the Archaeological Advisory Committee"
\.-
D;\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
4
\.-
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
IV.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience. There
were none.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. RECEIVE AND FILE - Letter from Dr. E. Gary Stickel, Ph.D. to
Archaeological Advisory Committee, dated June 7, 1996.
Recommendation: Receive and File Letter.
MOTION by Price; SECOND by Benjamin to approve the consent calendar.
MOTION CARRIED:
6-0-3
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Members Frietze, Johnston, and Unatin
~
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick and several Committeemembers indicated appreciation in the
letter being sent to their homes also.
VI. SCHEDULED MA TIERS
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
June 5, 1996
Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate.
Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 5,
19961 Chairperson Frietze arrived at 3:45 PM. Member Goldberg indicated the word
"not" needs to be inserted between "and did" and "get to the meat", on page 3,
paragraph 3, line 3.
MOTION by Price; SECOND by Willey to approve the Archaeological Advisory
Committee Minutes of June 5, 1996 as revised as indicated above.
MOTION CARRIED:
6-0-2-1
'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\L W\06-26-96
5
--
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Price, Willey, and
Chairperson Frietze
NOES: None
ABSENT: Members Johnston and Unatin
ABSTAIN: Member Hahn
3. 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. Adopt Resolution recommending approval of
final document to the City Council.
.....
Mr. Whittenberg stated the Committee has a version of the document which indicates the
initial text of the document after corrections from the sub-committee meeting of May 20,
which were made without redlinelstrikeout. The redline/strikeout language has been
added in response to written comments provided by Mr. Whittenberg and Mr. Bartlett
as to questions and comments on certain portions of the document. Mr. Whittenberg
indicated Dr. Stickel has provided a memorandum to the Committee which specifically
addresses each comment or question from Mr. Whittenberg and Mr. Bartlett's
memorandums. The basic goal is to review the document, ensure it is in a form
acceptable to the Committee, if possible this evening, and if the Committee reaches that
point, a resolution is prepared for adoption to forward the report on to the City Council
for consideration at a future date. If the Committee is not ready to act tonight, that is
fine, and the Committee will need to indicate which corrections still need to be made,
obtain feedback from the archaeologist as to the appropriateness of those requested
changes in his professional judgement, and then determine how to proceed.
Member Goldberg indicated she was surprised when she saw the document. She further
stated she knew approval was given for the strikeout version, but felt the research design
was changed. She stated she was glad Dr. Stickel had submitted the memorandums. She
didn't visualize that all of the comments from staff and Mr. Bartlett would change some
of the context of what Dr. Stickel had set out to look at. She further indicated hopefully Dr. Stickel would be able to clear up most of those.
...,
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\L W\06-26-96
6
\.-
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Dr. Stickel suggested he proceed through his memorandums, with Member Hahn
indicating she may have repeated several things Dr. Stickel has addressed. Dr. Stickel
indicated it was his understanding that the changes agreed to at the May 20th meeting
were to be the only changes made to the research design. That was why they took draft
off of the title page. Mr. Whittenberg and Mr. Bartlett felt, he guessed, that they didn't
have a chance to present their comments, and in the interest in reaching agreement on
the document, the redlinelstrikeout version has been prepared.
Dr. Stickel proceeded to discuss Mr. Whittenberg's memorandum first, as it was
submitted first, and his comments are numbered to reflect his numbering. The
"Technical/Grammatical Corrections", items 1 through 26 were covered at the May 20
meeting, unless Mr. Whittenberg has a comment. Mr. Whittenberg indicated no concern
relative to Dr. Stickel's responses. In response to a question from Member Fitzpatrick,
Member Hahn indicted she had no items to discuss, but she hasn't studied this long
enough to know. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his comments were picking up on the
typographical concerns covered by Member Hahn at the May 20 meeting. Member Hahn
stated she would give a tentative ok on this portion. Dr. Stickel indicated he will take
that.
\.-
Dr. Stickel then reviewed the "General Comments and Questions" portion of Mr.
Whittenberg's memorandum, dated May 20. Item 1, the Redwine collection at the
Natural History Museum will be reviewed and compared to data retrieved from the sites.
Item 2, various reports discuss the placement of sites 264 and 265. This is moot now,
because he has completed the site survey, and in his opinion, sites 264 and 265 are not
on the Hellman property, and are on the property to the north. Those sites are not an
issue any more in his opinion.
Item 3, the suggested paragraph insertion, which is out of the Redwine report, is a good
quote, it is in the redlinelstrikeout report, and far as he is concerned, he would like to
see it in the report.
Item 4, references to descriptions of sites from the Redwine report, was originally in his
mind to put in the site survey report, after the statements could be verified. He agrees,
and the statements are in the draft site survey report. The redwine statements are true,
and unless the Committee wishes them included in the Research Design, that would be
preferred. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the suggested change has been included on page
30 of the redline/strikeout dOCument.
Item 5, same response as item 4, above.
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
7
'-"
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
~
Item 6, Dr. Stickel indicates he would like to obtain the documents referenced. In
response to a question from Member Hahn, Dr. Stickel indicated a request for the
documents has been made to PCAS. In response to a question from Member Goldberg,
Dr. Stickel indicated it will included in the final packet. Dr. Stickel further stated the
reports are done in a "fascicle" format, where each section of the work is written in
installments, to be combined upon completion into a comprehensive and integrated
document. In response to a question from Member Benjamin as to how the committee
can be sure the tests will be more accurate and conclusive than other archaeologist's tests
previously done, Dr. Stickel stated that is a good question and because of doing the
transects across the property, a greater level of accuracy is provided. Dr. Stickel
displayed a map of the property indicating the sites and the location of the transects and
surface exploration areas, explaining the process utilized. Their work specifically
focused on identification of the various site boundaries, and the location of the various
transect locations on each site surveyed so far. He further described the "ground-
truthing" process and the record keeping process utilized to record that information
obtained. He further stated that Site 261 is mis-located since UCLA clearly puts it in a
different location. In this way, the true extent of the sites is easier to define, and the
work is replicable, in that another archaeologist could repeat the work. A discussion of
the process utilized and a comparison to previous work on the property will be provided
in the site survey report. Member Benjamin asked if artifacts found on the property
could be kept in the City, so local residents could view them? Dr. Stickel stated the
current ethic is to keep the artifacts close, if not on, the site of origin. Mr. Bartlett
indicated Hellman Properties is working with the State Lands Commission to establish
public benefit uses on their property, which could be an interpretative center for wetlands
and cultural resources, and also a location for the Krenwinkel house, if the City decides
this is appropriate. In response to a question from Member Fitzpatrick regarding the
possibility of returning the Redwine collection to Seal Beach, Dr. Stickel stated he would
recommend it be returned, as it is just collecting dust, and there are some nice pieces,
if his report is accurate. Mr. Bartlett stated that if a letter from the landowner is
appropriate, Hellman Properties would be happy to do that.
Item 7, Mr. Whittenberg indicated he has discussed with Chambers Group the
availability of a previous research design regarding the general archaeology of the region,
and will continue those discussions with the report author when he returns to the area
from vacation. Dr. Stickel stated the second part of the comment was to discuss the
Ogden 1996 research design, he briefly referenced it in his research design. To have an
extended discussion would be inappropriate because it is so flawed, and he would have
to spend pages and pages critiquing the Ogden report. He felt that would come out later
on this evening, the anonymous research design by Ogden is unprofessional because
SOP A requires all archaeologists to put your name on your own documents. SOP A
requires an archaeologist, not an organization, to write a research design, and it therefore
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
8
\..
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
starts off in a flawed way. The Ogden report is only twelve pages or so in length, and
is mainly boilerplate, it is not written especially for the project. In a sentence, it lacks
everything that is in his report. He did not discuss it for those reasons, he can, but feels
it would detract from the thrust he is trying to get good information and move forward,
rather than dwell on the mistakes of the past. Since this mistake is not on Hellman
property per se, he would rather not get into that discussion, and deter the thinking on
his research design.
Item 8, Dr. Stickel stated he has requested a copy of the "Geiger" report from PCAS,
he needs to see the PCAS collection and wants to compare it, even though it is from site
265, which is not on the current Hellman property.
~
Item 9, Dr. Stickel stated he did not attempt to clarify the authorship, because he did it
by reference to his overview of the City, where he did review that. It could be done,
but since Ogden is doing current work, it should be better. He can certainly reference
it. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his concern was if it is possible to track down the
authorship of the subject report. In response to a question from Member Goldberg that
it has nothing to do with the Hellman project itself, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that is
correct, and the comment relates to Dr. Stickel's comment in his report as to the
unknown authorship and to the ability to determine who wrote the document. It is an old
enough document that it may not be important to dwell on. Member Goldberg asked if
Ogden could try to determine this issue. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that could be done.
Member Goldberg indicated that would seem more appropriate, since it throws off the
Hellman study, by focusing on an issue not on the Hellman property. Member Hahn
asked what agenda packet and page are Mr. Whittenberg's original comments on? Mr.
Whittenberg indicated the June 19 agenda packet, Attachment 4, page 6. Member
Goldberg asked if the question to Ogden should be put in the form of a motion, with Mr.
Whittenberg suggesting that Ogden could be asked about this matter when their item is
discussed by the Committee later this evening.
Item 10, Dr. Stickel indicated this comment is very similar to one Mr. Bartlett had, and
he would like to defer it until it comes up in the response to Mr. Bartlett's comments.
Item 11, Dr. Stickel indicated the discussion regarding the skull has been modified to
address the concern, with the additional language appearing on page 32 of the
redline/strikeout document.
Dr. Stickel then reviewed Mr. Bartlett's memorandum, dated June 19. Item 1, regarding
the incorporation of Mr. Whittenberg's comments from his memorandum of May 20 has
just been reviewed.
~
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MlN\L W\06-26-96
9
\....
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Item 2, Dr. Stickel stated the proposed change is ok, with the understanding that they are
acceptable to the Committee. He has no problem in adding the suggested language. In
response to a question from Dr. Stickel, Member Hahn asked where the change is
proposed, indicating she has no problem in adding the language regarding CEQA. Dr.
Stickel clarified that the discussion is related to the responses to comments from Mr.
Bartlett regarding the "Abstract" portion of the research design.
'-"
Item 3, Member Hahn indicated she has proposed a little different wording, and we could
wait until the Committee reviews her comments to discuss this item. Dr. Stickel stated
he would prefer to discuss the matter now, with Member Hahn stating it is hard to
correlate this and passed to the members of the Committee her memorandum dated June
17. Member Hahn asked if the discussion is relating to Mr. Bartlett's memorandum or
the redlinelstrikeout document, as the suggested language is written into the re-write?
Dr. Stickel stated the strikeout version reflects the comments of the memos. Member
Hahn stated it is confusing going between the two memos and the strikeout version of
Dr. Stickel's report. Dr. Stickel indicated the item being discussed is on page 1 of the
redline/strikeout version, last three lines of the" Abstract" section. Member Hahn stated
what she would like to do when Dr. Stickel is finished with Mr. Bartlett's comment is
go over her memo to make sure nothing is missed. In relation to this item, she felt a
better change should clarify any determination of significance needs to be expanded to
qualify "by the author", so the archaeologist is determining the significance, and it is not
an issue that anyone could make that determination. Member Goldberg asked ifthat isn't
understood because Dr. Stickel is doing the research? Member Hahn said no, that is not
the way it is written, not anymore, because the rewrite changed it. Mr. Whittenberg
stated he does not understand how the rewrite changed who determines significance.
Member Hahn stated it doesn't say any longer that the archaeologist is the one to
determine significance, so she feels its needs to say "by the author", because he is the
one writing the research design. Dr. Stickel stated what is typically done is that the
archaeologist confers with the Native Americans and they both decide on significance and
formulate a recommendation. Member Hahn verified Dr. Stickel will make his
determination after conferencing with the Native Americans. Dr. Stickel indicated yes.
Member Goldberg stated we're all working this through, and Dr. Stickel is responsible,
because it will be submitted by him to the council, and it meets his approval, the
document is done by him then. Member Hahn stated exactly, and that's what she is
trying to confirm by expanding the way its written, so it always says he is the one to
determining significance. We don't want it to be an open ended question so that
someone working for the developer who doesn't have Dr. Stickel's expertise and
professional experience might be making that decision. She want's to be very clear cut
with it, that it is always the archaeologist making the determination of significance. It
is not clear in the underline/strikeout version, and she is trying to make sure that is
understood. Member Goldberg asked if this really is a significant issue? Dr. Stickel
'-"
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
10
'-'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
stated this is usually considered to be a given, but there is paragraph discussing
significance, and that's where this could be clarified. That would be his
recommendation. Mr. Whittenberg stated from City staffs viewpoint, the archaeologist
which the City has hired is the one we are going to look at to make those determinations.
Member Hahn stated that is right, and so we just want to write it in so that it is perfectly
clear to everyone reading it that is your intent, not everyone has a history of working
with cultural resources management so it should be clear to any non-professional reader
who it is that makes the determination of significance. Dr. Stickel suggested adding
clarifying language to the paragraph on significance to indicate "the author in
consultation with the Native Americans". That was agreeable to the Committee.
Member Hahn asked a motion should be made on that? It was a consensus of the
Committee to agree to the change as recommended by Dr. Stickel.
Item 4, Dr. Stickel stated this comment addresses Section 1.0, Introduction, and read
Mr. Bartlett's comment, stating he feels his original language is fine. He feels the new
paragraph doesn't really improve on what was already in the paragraph. In response to
a question from Member Goldberg, Mr. Whittenberg indicated the subject paragraph is
at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 3 of the underlinel strikeout version, page 2
is a map. Dr. Stickel indicated unless Mr. Bartlett has serious problems with this, he
feels the original language is fine. Mr. Bartlett indicated ok.
~
Item 5, Dr. Stickel stated this change occurs on page 3, third line from the bottom.
Member Goldberg asked if when "and the landowner" is added, does that put Dr. Stickel
in a conflict of interest position, as he is being hired by the City? Dr. Stickel stated it
is appropriate for the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native Americans to make
the recommendations. Certainly, he would discuss those with the landowner, if in a
particular situation it poses an undue hardship, obstacle or hinderance, which might be
worked out another way. Generally, his approach is to work up draft recommendations
after conferring with Native Americans, and there is agreement, to then meet with the
Native Americans and the property owner to discuss those recommendations, if there is
a problem then we see if things can be modified by, as an example, if an foundation is
going to be excavated for a house, and this example comes from some recent work in
Malibu, and an important deposit is located there, pylons could be used, and the house
built above, maintaining most of the Native American deposit intact. This was initially
put into his recommendation, it was acceptable to the Chumash and to him and that was
fine. It is an information flow process and hopefully you arrive at agreement. Member
Benjamin asked who decides which Native American will monitor. Dr. Stickel indicated
it is usually decided by the City. In response to a question from Mr. Bartlett, Dr. Stickel
stated the Native American Heritage Commission is involved in it, but it is his personal
opinion that it is not a good idea for the archaeologist to find his own monitor, it is
better if there are already Native Americans affiliated with the City, that the City make
'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
11
'-"
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
that recommendation and he simply works with those Native Americans that have been
designated for the project. He further stated he thinks the general feeling, and he has
discussed this with Jean Frietze before, is there is an overlapping tribal situation, and he
thinks it would appropriate to have both Juaneno and Gabrielino/Tongva involvement in
the project. He sees no reason why that couldn't work. Member Benjamin asked if this
means the City will choose which one from which tribe? Dr. Stickel indicated he thinks
the Archaeological Element of the City already has a procedure in place for this.
Member Benjamin asked what qualifications they have? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the
element discusses training requirements, but we need to focus on the documents under
consideration at this time. Dr. Stickel indicated it is a very important issue, with Mr.
Whittenberg indicating the element has specific requirements. Dr, Stickel stated he
wished every city had someone like the Chairperson sitting at these meetings, it doesn't
happen, and it should. Dr. Stickel asked if Member Hahn had a question on this item?
Member Hahn stated she is afraid it will get confusing if she is addressing some and
skipping others, and requested to go though Dr. Stickel's responses to Mr. Bartlett's
memo, and then go through her memo and indicate if he is in agreement and the
Committee can tell us if they are in agreement.
Item 6, Dr. Stickel stated it is missing from Mr. Bartlett's memo. Mr. Bartlett stated
he doesn't know how to count.
~
Item 7, Dr. Stickel stated this a request to replace a map in the report with a more recent
map. Mr. Bartlett indicated the map in the report is an old map and a new one is being
prepared. Dr. Stickel indicated the map will be replaced, and he has no problem with
that.
Item 8, Dr. Stickel indicated that Member Hahn may want to present her concerns on
this matter now, as his approach in the original research design was not be exhaustive
to list all the laws, but to give enough to show that there is a legal mandate. If it is
appropriate to cite all the laws in this place, that it is fine. However it is determined is
fine with him. A way to shorten the research design and make it more readable is to cite
the compendium of laws that the City has as part of the Element. Usually it is a good
idea to mention some of the laws so that it is reinforced. Mr. Bartlett has his draft and
Member Hahn has comments, however the Committee wants it done is fine with him.
Member Hahn stated the overwhelming concern that this Committee should have is the
Archaeological Element, that should be the guiding policy, any other laws that apply are
also important, but first off, we were appointed to enforce the City's general plan, so we
have to take a good look at the Archaeological and Historical Element for preservation
guidelines for this project, and that is not cited too frequently in the re-write. That is
her main point, first off, address the Element, and the other considerations are secondary
to that. Mr. Whittenberg stated from a legal standpoint, he is not sure that is the case.
'--'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
12
'-'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
'-'
Member Hahn stated right from a legal standpoint, but from a policy standpoint we have
to address the element. Mr. Bartlett stated his concern is only that it is made sure that
somewhere down the line that somebody can't sue the document for being inadequate
because it didn't cover all the right statutory procedures. Member Hahn indicated that
is her concern also, and as it is re-written it doesn't stand up and wouldn't stand up in
court because it doesn't address the requirements of the Archaeological Element of the
City of Seal Beach. Mr. Bartlett stated he couldn't debate that as he is not an attorney.
Member Hahn stated she understood. Mr. Whittenberg stated he didn't think any of us
can make a statement as to what would be upheld in a court if this report were to be
challenged. Member Hahn stated her attorney looked at it and he felt this was the first
thing we had to do. Mr. Whittenberg stated he is not sure all attorney's agree on
everything all of the time. Member Hahn stated we need to be very careful about the
element. Mr. Whittenberg stated he thinks the element gives the general direction as to
what has to be done, the Element doesn't deal to the level of detail that the CEQA
guidelines do. Member Hahn stated no, it goes beyond CEQA, she begs to differ, it
actually goes far beyond CEQA's guidelines. Member Goldberg asked Mr. Bartlett if
he felt it was better to not include anything, than to put part of it in? Mr. Bartlett
indicated there were mis-references to CEQA statutes and he just wants to make sure all
the pertinent legislation was covered, and the City's archaeology element certainly, if
inadvertently omitted should be included. Mr. Whittenberg stated there is no concern
from the City's standpoint to putting in a reference to the City's archaeology element,
he wants to make sure the Committee understands that in addition to that document, there
are several other federal and state legislative provisions that have to be dealt with. Mr.
Whittenberg further stated in the realm of what usually has a suit filed against it, it's
much more a CEQA-related document that will have a suit filed against it than a non-
CEQA document. Most challenges to a project are based on a CEQA challenge.
Member Hahn stated except for Mola. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that was challenged
on a housing element, which is a state-mandated element, this in not a mandated element.
Member Goldberg asked Dr. Stickel from his viewpoint would an appendix be better to
add at the end of the document, with a statement that this may not list all of the
guidelines to cover this type of situation for the City? Dr. Stickel indicated it would, and
his point is that there is a legal basis for what is being done, there are laws, and he is
not attorney and doesn't know the fine points of these legal parameters. He is not trying
to stir up a can of worms, he is trying to mention a few laws, but he could say
something like "the legal mandate for this project is contained in Appendix _", and he
can copy verbatim everything the city's archaeological element has and if there is
anything that should be modified, Mr. Bartlett should make the City aware of that and
get that straightened out. It was the consensus of the Committee to follow Dr. Stickel's
suggestion and move on. Member Hahn stated she thought Member Goldberg's idea of
saying this may not be every single thing, it is the best we can do, because this releases
,...
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.M1N\LW\06-26-96
13
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
us from liability. Dr. Stickel indicated he would work up a new appendix and provide
it to the City, the Committee and Mr. Bartlett.
\.-
Dr. Stickel indicated the second part of this comment from Mr. Bartlett was a question
about unique, and unique is certainly one of the attributes of significance for
archaeological/cultural resources, it is not the only one. Dr. Stickel was taught by the
founder of the "new archaeology movement", Dr. Binford, and archaeologists are not
after the mundane data, little bits of bone and shell that really tells us how these people
made a living in the past, how they survived, how they adapted, flourished, and changed.
These basic little bits of everyday life are also important. Dr. Stickel would not want
to overly stress unique, it is certainly a criterion, but the other criterion that are also
important are data important for scientific interpretation. Member Goldberg asked are
we are looking for a new word instead of unique and non-unique? Mr. Bartlett stated
this really a quote from CEQA, if you want to take the paragraph out, you have that
option. He is trying to make sure we were covered in terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act. Dr. Stickel agreed, stating CEQA is also based on the
National Register of Historic Places criterion of significance, which is included as an
appendix, and one of those is a site is significant if it has yielded or can be expected to
yield data important for scientific research. Member Hahn asked if Dr. Stickel would
like to add a sentence about scientific research potential is also a criteria? Dr. Stickel
indicated he would come up with a sentence. Mr. Whittenberg asked for clarification
if the paragraph would be left in, but some additional language would be added as
appropriate? Dr. Stickel indicated he would like to shorten this, since the appendix lists
the criteria of significance. We could say "CEQA requires a consideration of potential
impacts on unique archaeological resources defined as an archaeological artifact, object,
or site, which it can be clearly demonstrated. . ." and sites which "have yielded or may
be expected to yield data important for scientific research." Mr. Whittenberg asked if
the reader would then be referenced back to the appendices that have the CEQA and
National Register criteria? Dr. Stickel answered yes. Member Goldberg asked if this
will be cleaned up and shortened? Dr. Stickel answered yes.
Item 9, Dr. Stickel stated this change is ok with slight revisions. Dr. Stickel asked
Member Hahn if she had anything on this item? Member Hahn stated she liked the way
Dr. Stickel had it better, because the focus may be to apply CEQA and the National
Historic Preservation Act, but in addition the focus is to bring the research into
compliance with the City's Archaeological Element, she thought the way Dr. Stickel had
it was good. Mr. Whittenberg stated he doesn't see any of the language that is being
stricken that had a reference with the Archaeology Element to begin with. Member
Hahn stated right, it's just that the language is comparable, and she wasn't sure what the
benefit of the second version was. She further stated what bothered her is the focus of
the test phase is to determine significance in accordance with state and federal criteria,
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
14
'-"'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
then we need to add on "and the City of Seal Beach Archaeological Element". In
response to question from Mr. Whittenberg if it could say, "local, state, and federal",
Member Hahn said she wants a specific reference to the City of Seal Beach
Archaeological Element, so they know exactly what we are talking about. Mr.
Whittenberg clarified if the Archaeological Element is added would that be ok? Member
Hahn indicated that would be fine. Dr. Stickel indicated where the insertion would
occur. Mr. Bartlett asked since the CEQA significance criteria is shown as provided in
Attachment 1, can the City's criteria also be referenced in an appendix? Member
Goldberg indicated she would prefer to see it in the paragraph, its there and can be seen,
why attach something if you add three words and its there. Member Hahn stated as long
as it states "and the City of Seal Beach Archaeological Element", and not just referring
to state and federal significance criteria. We are not just talking about significance
criteria, we are talking about procedural, things like that, the element has it, more than
the state and federal laws. Dr. Stickel stated the significance appendix will be retained,
maybe with a different number, but it will also refer to the City of Seal Beach
Archaeological Element. Member Hahn indicated the proposed language, as read by Mr.
Whittenberg, would be fine for now, she will get into it more when we are finished with
Dr. Stickel's review.
Item 10, Dr. Stickel stated he doesn't have a problem with this proposed change.
~
Item 11, Dr. Stickel stated he agrees with elimination of the language as proposed, but
would wish to retain Figure 2, as it shows the overall property.
Item 12, Dr. Stickel stated he doesn't have a problem with this proposed change. He can
amplify this more when the actual research is done. Member Hahn asked why was the
language eliminated? Mr. Bartlett indicated it was a request he made because the
statement is not true, there is a fault that goes through the project. If a statement like
this is to made, we should be quoting a geologist who has some expertise in the field.
There are some other faults related to the oil production at depths of 8,000 to 10,000
feet. Member Fitzpatrick indicated there are dozens of oil related faults. Dr. Stickel
agreed the statement isn't relevant.
Mr. Whittenberg notified the Committee it will need to adjourn from the Council
Chamber about 5: 15 PM, as the City Council has a 5:30 budget study session scheduled,
and the Committee will be moving to an upstairs conference room to continue.
Item 13, Dr. Stickel stated the proposed change is fine with him.
Item 14, Dr. Stickel stated he didn't understand what was meant by the change. Mr.
Bartlett stated there has never really been any ranch construction. Dr. Stickel said there
--
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
15
'-"
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
was a ranch house, wasn't there? Mr. Bartlett said the ranch house was on the Rockwell
property. Dr. Stickel said he knew that and his comment was to the very beginning there
were disturbances. Mr. Bartlett said the point he was making was the major disturbances
were the result of urbanization, of the Orange County Flood Control District when they
made the retarding basin, they dumped all of the fill on the Hellman property. When
they made the river, the fill was dumped on the Hellman property, when the Haynes
Generating Station was built, the soil was dumped on the Hellman property. So, in
comparison, when you look at urbanization compared to a couple of small ranch houses
and some roads, the major disturbance on the site has been the result of urbanization.
Dr. Stickel said the point was well taken, but nonetheless, there was some disturbance
by ranch activities such as building the roads across the site. He wouldn't mind adding
the word "minor" to provide balance. That was agreeable to the Committee.
Item 15, Dr. Stickel stated he has no problem with the change. Dr. Stickel said it should
be spelled out because not everyone may know what it means, and Mr. Whittenberg
indicated it should refer to "OCFA", as the Fire Department is now called the Orange
County Fire Authority.
'-'
Item 16, Mr. Bartlett indicated he suggested the addition of "inadvertently", he didn't
think anyone was destroying them on purpose. Dr. Stickel stated this is a little nit-
picking, as he doesn't know what their motivations were, and maybe some were out to
destroy them. Destroyed is a fact. Member Fitzpatrick stated there is a history of that.
Leave the language as is and move on. That was the consensus of the Committee.
Item 17, Dr. Stickel stated his intent was to point out there have been some changes to
the hydrographic landscape, with the river and wetlands. He is not trying to cast any
blame, he doesn't mind making the change. He was trying to set up a research idea that
the sites might have been located on Landing Hill, in an upland situation, with the river
meandering around right below, and the sites were riverbank sites. He has no problem
in making the changes. Member Fitzpatrick indicated he didn't think there was any
question as that a meandering river created the terraces.
Item 18, Dr. Stickel stated the map is ok to eliminate since it is based on inadequate
research, and hopefully a better map can be obtained.
Item 19, Dr. Stickel stated he has no problem with this change.
Item 20, Dr. Stickel stated this item discusses the birth place of an individual on the
Hellman Ranch. Mr. Bartlett stated the ranch included several thousand acres outside
the current boundaries. Dr. Stickel indicated he was not comfortable to say "may have
been born", the lady said she was born on the ranch and he has to take her word. Dr.
'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
16
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Stickel said he doesn't have a problem to add "within the original boundaries", since he
doesn't know where on the ranch she was born. Mr. Whittenberg stated the concern is
obviously that the lady was born on the Hellman Ranch, it is just that she may not have
been born on that portion of the ranch that still exists today. Mr. Bartlett indicated that
is correct, she could have been born on what is now the Weapons Station, Leisure
World. After discussion, Dr. Stickel proposed saying she was born on the original
Hellman Ranch, as he didn't want to offend this person. It was the consensus to make
the change as indicated by Dr. Stickel.
Item 21, Dr. Stickel indicated he needs to read Mr. Bartlett's comment.
Mr. Whittenberg suggested since it looks like there may be a little bit of comment on
this, to go ahead and take the break and adjourn at 5:20 in the upstairs conference room.
Chairperson Frietze adjourned the meeting at 5: 10 PM, to reconvene at 5:20 PM in the
upstairs conference room.
Chairperson Frietze called the Archaeological Advisory Committee meeting of June 24
to order at 5:20 PM in the upstairs conference room with all members of the Committee
being present who were in attendance.
'-'
Dr. Stickel continued with Item 21, reading the request from Mr. Bartlett to reference
regional research designs in the area and SHPO guidelines for the preparation of research
designs, then read his response and presented his critique of the research design for
Puvunga, the most sacred site of the Gabrielino, which is a completely unethical research
design. Secondly, the Bolsa Chica research design is unavailable, but the City should
have been given a copy of it. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the City does not have it,
unless it is the regional one prepared by Dr. Mason, maybe they are one and the same
document. Dr. Stickel continued, stating the comments referencing the state "Research
Design Guidelines" are inappropriate, as they are meant to refer to mitigation level,
major excavation at a site prior to development, not to test phase investigation where you
are trying to get the scope of the site, the depth, width, how many artifacts/ecofacts,
number of burials. His theoretical position is that a test phase level should define
baseline information, referencing an article from Dr. Charles Redman. Dr. Stickel has
published with Dr. Redman and knows his theoretical position very well. Dr. Stickel
read a quote from Dr. Redman on page 43 of the strikeout report. In response to a
question from Member Hahn, Dr. Stickel indicated he doesn't want to change the
language. It was the consensus of the Committee to retain the current language.
Item 22, Dr. Stickel stated the proposed change is ok, but the use of "significant" may
be overstated, and he would not be able to determine the significance of pot-hunting until
his test phase investigation work commences. In response to a question from Member
"-"
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
17
'-"
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Hahn, Dr. Stickel indicated he would prefer to delete significant from the proposed
change. That was the consensus of the Committee.
Item 23, Dr. Stickel stated he has already agreed to view the PCAS collection in
response to Mr. Whittenberg's comments. In response to the second part of the comment
from Mr. Bartlett, Dr. Stickel stated the PCAS collection would not help hypotheses
because we don't know the context of those finds, and there are categories mentioned he
is not familiar with.
Item 24, Dr. Stickel stated the corrections requested have been made to the map prepared
by Redwine.
Item 25, Dr. Stickel stated he has been in touch with PCAS and they want to see him.
Item 26, Dr. Stickel stated he has modified the original language by clarifying a
reference to Redwine's report. Member Hahn asked if the change was ok with Dr.
Stickel? Dr. Stickel indicated it was with him if it is ok with everyone else. There were
no objections.
~
Item 27, Dr. Stickel stated the context of the sentence as originally prepared he would
prefer to keep. The reason is an anonymous report is completely unprofessional, SOPA
code of ethics is predicated on an archaeologist writing all reports, and it doesn't say an
organization or an anonymous group, it says an archaeologist "shall". To amplify that,
he sat on SOPA's national membership committee and he knows how they interpret this.
In response to a question from Mr. Whittenberg asking if that was the requirement in
1980, Dr. Stickel stated yes, the code of ethics may have been changed a bit, but
certainly not that, no professional archaeologist would say it was acceptable to write an
anonymous report. Dr. Stickel continued by indicating that for research purposes alone,
it makes sense, if you get a report that is 50 years old, you want to know who wrote it,
because the person may still be alive, or they may relatives who have access to
information you could track down.
Item 28, Dr. Stickel stated comment is similar to Mr. Whittenberg's earlier comment re:
site disturbance. Dr. Stickel read Mr. Bartlett's comment to the Committee. He further
stated he wants to keep the original language, because these comments don't accurately
reflect his theoretical viewpoint. The Archaeological Associates' report equated
"disturbed site" with "worthless" in terms of cultural heritage value and/or analytically
worthless to science. Dr. Stickel stated almost every archaeological site has been
disturbed by vandals and others, and the most famous example is King Tut's tomb, even
that tomb had been broken into by vandals. Any professional archaeologist would hardly
consider such sites as worthless or scientifically valueless because they have been
........
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
18
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
subjected to disturbance. Dr. Stickel presented his full resume. Member Hahn asked
what page is the item being discussed located on in the re-write? Mr. Whittenberg
indicated page 35, top of the page, starting at the bottom of page 34. Mr. Whittenberg
stated Dr. Stickel did actually make a clarification to expand the discussion a little bit
based on his comment from May 20, he thinks the change generally addresses his and
Mr. Bartlett's concern. Everything we had been hearing in the past was, if you have a
site that has really been disturbed, it is hard to get a relationship as to where the material
was actually deposited, the age of it, effect on the relation to other things found on the
site, and the clarification allows us to understand that even though it has been disturbed,
if there is something there that compares to other sites in the general area, a relationship
can be determined. That is important for us to know. Dr. Stickel stated he is concerned
that Archaeological Associates equated "disturbed" with "worthless". Mr. Bartlett
indicated he wasn't asking Dr. Stickel to put the quote in the report, he agrees with Mr.
Whittenberg's comment and had put an ok next to Dr. Stickel's response. The
committee determined to move on and leave the language as shown.
'--"
Item 29, Dr. Stickel stated this is discussing the backhoe work of Roger Desautels, and
he has modified his critique to minimize the comments more than Mr. Bartlett's comment
suggested. Dr. Stickel stated the comment about the code of ethics about another
archaeologist, one, Desautels was not an archaeologist, he falsely proposed he was an
archaeologist, he lacked a minimum degree in anthropology or archaeology, and so the
code is really about archaeologists referring to other archaeologists, and his methods
were atrocious and no legitimate archaeologist would have agreed to using such methods
as a primary data recovery tool. That is why he found only three artifacts or so, and we
found more just walking over the sites. Basically, Dr. Stickel modified the critique. The
committee determined to move on.
Item 30, Dr. Stickel stated the proposed change was ok.
Item 31, Dr. Stickel stated that thanks to Dave Bartlett, Beth Padon had called him and
they have had a discussion. She was one of the archaeologists who wrote the research
design for LSA, and she agreed to come out to the site and hopefully find where they
dug. This will help so we won't dig the new units in disturbed areas. Mr. Bartlett
indicated he has contacted LSA once again to see if he could get additional information
from them, they did a lot of work out there, and he has copies of the "Field and Archival
Review of Archaeology Sites on the Hellman Property", "Field Review of Archaeological
Sites on the Hellman Property", the Research Design which the City already has, "Test
Level Investigation and Determination of Site Eligibility", an inventory of all the
materials collected and the location, and general correspondence, basic inter-office
memorandum from LSA and the developer. In response to a question from Mr.
Whittenberg, Mr. Bartlett indicated this is additional material not previously obtained,
~
D: \WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.M1N\L W\06-26-96
19
\.-
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
with the exception of the research design. Member Hahn asked if Beth Padon come out
an make a presentation to the Committee about all of her findings. Mr. Bartlett indicated
that would be Dr. Stickel's call. He further stated the more information we had relative
to LSA's work, we would be better off with. He presented the documents to Mr.
Whittenberg, with the Committee expressing appreciation for getting the documents. Mr.
Bartlett continued, Hellman's have asked their attorney to send another letter to Mola to
ask once again in no uncertain terms that the materials which were "thrown away" be
returned to Hellman or shown where they are, so they can be retrieved. It is against the
agreement that we made with Mola for them to throw anything away without Hellman's
consent, and they could be subject to a lawsuit because of it. Hellman is trying to once
again get that material. Mr. Bartlett indicated the research design indicates Mola threw
900 bags of material away, based on a conversation he had with Mola, he really doesn't
want to be on the hook for that, that is what they told him, but he wants to get something
in writing from Mola saying what they did or did not do with the bags. Who knows if
that is the truth? Dr. Stickel agreed, saying he prefers primary resources, not a
secondary source. Mr. Bartlett stated he is trying to make a primary source for that
information. Dr. Stickel said he would be happy to change that.
~
Item 32, Dr. Stickel stated the confusion is he got that from CEQA, the copy he has of
CEQA. Mr. Whittenberg indicated when you go to Appendix 1, it is not CEQA
guidelines, it is National Register guidelines. Mr. Bartlett suggested adding another
appendix that provides the CEQA guidelines. Dr. Stickel stated the CEQA guidelines
are based on National Register criteria guidelines. Mr. Whittenberg indicated CEQA has
a set of guidelines, and if the document references those guidelines, they should there,
not National Register guidelines. After discussion among the Committee, it was
determined to provide both guidelines in the document. In response to a question from
Dr. Stickel, Mr. Whittenberg indicated he would provide the CEQA guidelines to him.
Dr. Stickel stated the appendix will be changed to read "CEQA and National Register
Criteria" .
Item 33, Dr. Stickel stated he has no problem with the changes proposed in Items 33
through 35.
Item 36, Dr. Stickel stated he has just slight changes, and reviewed the changes for the
Committee. He indicated there are two problems with the suggested change, you cannot
have enough data with the test phase data to establish whether "communities were
sufficiently established". There is a whole realm of research to be done to determine if
they were living there permanently, or were trans-human, seasonal occupational sites
versus perennial sites. Even major projects haven't been able to define those. The
second part of this is anthropologically it is incorrect, there is a great deal of data in
anthropology knowing that even people who are trans-human, who move across the
~
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
20
\.-
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
landscape in accord with the seasonal rounds, still oftentimes bury their dead in specific
places. The proposed change is just not accurate, what we can say is we will test the
hypothesis that the prehistoric sites on the ranch have human burials or not. Mr. Bartlett
indicated that was the thrust of his comment.
'-'
Item 37, Dr. Stickel stated the comment is referring to State guidelines, and read the
proposed change of Mr. Bartlett's. Dr. Stickel stated his response is the document cited,
the State guidelines, is inappropriate and misguided as it has confused higher level
research goals in a mitigation phase and final excavation of a site with a test phase level
goals that define the scope or baseline information of the site which is the primary
purpose of conducting a test phase. Mr. Whittenberg asked for an understanding of the
comment, are you saying the State guideline is inappropriate? Dr. Stickel stated yes, and
the reason is the suggested state guidelines were written by, and he is not certain about
this, maybe an MA level person, maybe a BA, whereas there is a lot of good things in
there, the person lacks the perspective to differentiate the research objectives,
requirements and differences between a test phase and a mitigation phase program. He
ascribes to the theoretical position that Dr. Charles Redman, who asserts that the baseline
information is the appropriate objective of this kind of research. For example, if would
be a waste of time to develop a hypothesis to test for cultural change over time in the
subsistence practices at a site, for instance, chronological changes in faunal types over
time, if the subject site were a single occupation site, in other words, occupied for only
one time period, has no depth and therefor no stratigraphy, that would be a ludicrous
hypothesis and a complete waste of time. It would also be a waste of time and money
to develop a "formal study hypothesis" to test for trade relationships between a subject
site and a greater region or cultural area in which it belongs, if there were no trade items
found at the subject site. The formal study hypotheses developed for this research design
are absolutely appropriate as testing them will establish the nature of each of the Hellman
sites and their variability of data that, once established , will provide for the formulation
of reasonable, justifiable, formal study hypotheses at the level of mitigation analysis. In
other words, the person who wrote, in other words I teach a class in research design at
UCLA, I know about research designs. He published in the first international book on
the "New Archaeology", edited by Colin Menfers, the foremost authority on theory in
all of Europe. Dr. Stickel stated when he knows what should be in a research design,
he is coming from authority. He showed the Committee the first international book on
theory of the new archaeology, his article on research design is cited as a standard source
by people like Michael Shipper in "Behavioral Archaeology" or Richard Gould in
"Living Archaeology". What he is saying is if I say that I know more than this person
who wrote the State guidelines, I do know more. Member Hahn stated we know that you
do, and what would you like us to do to fix this? Chairperson Frietze indicated we
cannot change the State guidelines, that is already established, isn't it? Dr. Stickel stated
the State guidelines are just that. Chairperson Frietze stated this Committee could
--
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
21
\...-
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
probably make recommendations, but we cannot do anything as far as changing what they
have. Dr. Stickel indicated he is not saying we should change the State guidelines,
although he would like to debate with the person. He continued, stating the comment
that the hypotheses I want to test for test phase are inappropriate is not right, the
hypotheses he has for the test phase are appropriate, and to do what the State guidelines
is suggesting would be waste of time, because we don't know if we can test for cultural
change, subsistence practices over time, we don't know those things until you do the test
phase. That is why he doesn't want to change it.
\...-
Item 38, Dr. Stickel read Mr. Bartlett's comment, indicating he basically doesn't have
a problem with that, but you have to bear this in mind with his extended discussion of
Item 28 above, with the things he may have a problem with that. Member Hahn asked
since there's not that much time, how can we do this? Can we have Dr. Stickel get the
audio tape and put it the way he want's it, and then look at it again, how shall we do
this, and I haven't even had a chance to present my comments, but I want to hear Dr.
Stickel's first. Dr. Stickel indicated we are almost through Mr. Bartlett's comments.
Mr. Whittenberg stated in fairness to the people from the Naval Weapons Station, the
Committee has previously indicated that you may not go past 6:30, and it is now 5:55
PM. Member Hahn stated that's why she is concerned about the time. Member Price
said we only have 4 more items, with Member Hahn indicating she has a memo for
review also. Member Benjamin indicated this is not fair to the Navy. Member Hahn
said city business should come first. Mr. Whittenberg again stated in fairness to the
Navy, we should indicate if we intend to discuss their matter this evening. Member
Fitzpatrick stated a couple of members will have to leave, maybe we'll still have a
quorum and can go on and finish this thing. There was discussion among the Committee
as to if a quorum would be available after 6:30 PM, with Member Price recommending
we go on and see how far we go. Member Goldberg indicated Mr. Whittenberg is
saying if we go until 6:30 with this review, the Navy people are still waiting. Member
Benjamin stated it is not fair to them. Member Hahn indicated she felt it will probably
go to 6:30. Chairperson Frietze asked how significant are Member Hahn's points to
what we are doing now, is it a real drastic change or minimal? Member Hahn indicated
it is not drastic, it's important, and is 21h pages long and we have answered about half
of the points, and she wants to go over it. Dr. Stickel indicated we are essentially done
with his.
Item 39 and 40, Dr. Stickel stated he has no problems with these.
Item 41, Dr. Stickel stated he has already talked about that he can't establish therproposal.
Items 42 through 46, Dr. Stickel stated he basically agrees with Mr. Bartlett's changes.
~
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
22
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Member Hahn stated first off, she wants to be sure that the first page of the document
reflects that it's purpose is to make sure that the requirements of Resolution 4138 of the
Archaeological and Historical Element are satisfied, because she thinks that is why we
were appointed. The City wrote the element, they appointed a committee to address the
element's concerns, and that has to be one of the first things that comes up in the
research design. Dr. Stickel asked where Member Hahn would want that put in, it could
be at the end of the abstract? Member Hahn stated it could be the second sentence, as
a primary purpose of the research design is to be sure that the research is done in
compliance with the "Archaeological and Historical Element of the Seal Beach General
Plan" , and then get on to the criteria and all of that. It should be inserted as the second
sentence, first page, under "Abstract". Dr. Stickel asked if anyone had a problem with
that? Chairperson Frietze asked if we weren't going to include that at another section?
Dr. Stickel indicated we had already determined to include this, and it is just being put
up front.
The second thing Member Hahn indicated was just that if the City believes CEQA and
other laws adequately protect its resources, it wouldn't have bothered to adopt the
Archaeological Element. The Element actually goes beyond what CEQA and the
National Historic Preservation Act do.
'-'
The next point is the third paragraph in her memo. On page 3 of the strikeout version,
anywhere in the document that it says "significant" or "determined significant", we need
to write "by the author" because this thing has been written and re-written by so many
people we want to make it clear that the archaeologist who wrote it is the one
determining the significance of the site and of the artifacts, we want a professional
basically. Member Price asked if we just didn't do that in the other room? It was the
consensus of the Committee this has been done. Member Hahn indicated it needs to be
done again somewhere. Member Price indicated Dr. Stickel said he would do it.
Member Hahn asked if Dr. Stickel can put it in throughout? Dr. Stickel indicated he
could. Member Hahn indicated that is good. Mr. Bartlett stated CEQA has significance
criteria, and as long as it is done within the criteria as established by the state, local and
federal guidelines, that is his concern. Dr. Stickel indicated he really doesn't know any
other way to do it. Mr. Bartlett stated it shouldn't be so subjective, it should be
objective as it relates to the local, state and federal laws. Member Hahn stated
absolutely, by the professional who knows the most about those, presumably. Dr. Stickel
stated he will have written justifications for his statement's of significance. Member
Hahn indicated that is good, so anywhere it's significant, it is Dr. Stickel's decision.
Member Hahn discussed page 3, paragraph 3, line 6, indicating it says the "landowner",
shouldn't that be changed to the "landowner's representative", since Mr. Bartlett is the
representative of the Hellman family, we don't need them to come down from San
'-"
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
23
.......
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Francisco, Mr. Bartlett is their representative. Mr. Bartlett stated if something happens
to him, with Member Hahn indicating it could read "landowner or his representative",
that change should be made. Mr. Bartlett agreed. Member Hahn indicated the other
thing is to follow the archaeological element, it should be expanded so its not just, she
doesn't remember what it was before, she thinks it was the archaeologist, the landowner,
and maybe Native Americans. Dr. Stickel what section Member Hahn was talking about.
Member Hahn indicated page 3, paragraph 3, line 6 of the strikeout version, and in order
to follow the requirements of the Archaeological Element, the sentence should be re-
written "The author will work closely with the City Council, the Archaeological
Committee, the Planning Commission, the Native American Monitors, the landowner or
his representative, and city staff to develop. . .", it shouldn't be limited to just one or
two of the parties. Dr. Stickel asked if he could reconsider this. Member Hahn
indicated to just invite them, we don't all have to be there. Dr. Stickel said give him a
list and he will put it in. Member Benjamin stated this is a good idea.
\
"\r/
Member Hahn discussed page 6, paragraph 1, line 5, indicating this is a really good
addition that Mr. Bartlett made, and she thinks it would be even more clear if we put a
clarification between the word "process" and "to", ",in this case, "by the City of Seal
Beach, which is directed by the City Council,", so a non-professional reading this knows
who it is that makes the decision, just to make it clear what's the lead agency, well it's
the City, who's in charge of the City, it's our elected officials, the City Council. I just
want to be clear.
Member Hahn discussed page 6, paragraph 2, lines 8 through 10, indicating this has
already been discussed, and we can disregard this about "non-unique".
Member Hahn discussed page 7, paragraph 1, line 3, indicating Dr. Stickel has already
covered this and she is satisfied with that.
Member Hahn discussed page 7, paragraph 3, line 2, indicating insertion of the language
"determined by the author" throughout. We are agreed to that, good.
Member Hahn discussed page 9, paragraph 2, lines 4 and 5, indicating this has already
been done. Mr. Bartlett indicated he doesn't have any problem with the language "as
determined by the author", but what if Dr. Stickel is no longer involved in this project?
Member Hahn suggested revising the language to say "as determined by the professional
archaeological consultant hired by the City for this project." Member Price indicated if
you have a different one, you may have another opinion. Member Hahn stated it will
still be the professional archaeologist hired by the City. After discussion among the
Committee, Member Goldberg preferred to retain "author", because if something happens
\.r
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
24
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
1
to Dr. Stickel, and they decide to do something 40 years from now, it was what the
author did at that time.
Member Hahn discussed page 15, paragraph 3-4, indicating it is ok with Dr. Stickel, but
how many people are going to know the "historic Los Cerritos wetlands" are even in
Seal Beach. Dr. Stickel indicated it is technically ok, and Member Hahn suggested
leaving it as Dr. Stickel has it.
Member Hahn discussed page 25, paragraph 1, line 9, indicating the disturbed site
discussion has already been determined.
Member Hahn discussed page 29, paragraph 2, asking Dr. Stickel if the added language
regarding "salvage nature" is ok? Dr. Stickel stated yes. Member Hahn stated she
would go along with him. Dr. Stickel stated it is actually a good quote.
Member Hahn discussed page 37, line 3, indicating the acronym, she, believes, is
"ACE", with Mr. Whittenberg indicating it is correctly indicated as "ACOE". Mr.
Whittenberg indicated he would be happy to contact the Army Corps of Engineers to
determine the correct acronym.
~
Member Hahn discussed page 44, paragraph 2, lines 5 through 7, indicating this has
previously been discussed in the previous two issues. Dr. Stickel has already explained
how the test phase differs from the excavation phase.
Member Hahn discussed page 44, paragraph 2, lines 6 through 7, asked Dr. Stickel if
this was ok as written, with Dr. Stickel indicating Mr. Bartlett's change is fine. Member
Hahn concurred with Dr. Stickel's conclusion.
Member Hahn discussed page 44, paragraph 2, line 8, stating this has already been
agreed to.
Member Hahn discussed page 44, paragraph 3, line 3, stating this is important. Member
Hahn stated the element, in fact, requires that all of the cultural sites encountered by the
archaeologist be test phased, not just a handful of them. Dr. Stickel indicated that is his
understanding. Member Hahn said she thinks we need to delete the proposed language
to make it in conformance with the Element. Dr. Stickel asked which language?
Member Hahn stated before "proposed site disturbance or destruction", because you may
have found cultural sites that are not in the path of development that are on the project
site. Another thing is that you are not just talking about the housing construction, we
are talking about putting in utilities, roads, golf courses, restoration of wetlands. All of
that will have an impact on archaeology. Dr. Stickel asked Member Hahn what change,g
.......
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
25
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
are you talking about deleting. Member Hahn stated before "proposed site disturbance
or destruction", because the Element requires that all cultural sites discovered in the
course of a walk-over survey should be test phased, it's not final excavation. Member
Willey stated Member Hahn is making a distinction between test phase and final
mitigation, because there may be reasons in an area where a site exists that you will not
be disturbed for a long time, you may wish to wait for doing a final mitigation for
further advances in the field. Member Hahn concurred, indicating basically if you found
cultural resources, test phase them, we don't even know the extent. The Committee
concurred with this.
'-"
Member Hahn discussed page 45, paragraph 1, lines 1 and 2, stating the first two lines
should not be deleted, as Dr. Stickel's language if fine, and in fact, is in compliance with
the Archaeological Element. She read the language indicated to be stricken, indicating
that is in fact what the Element says. If there is a site there he has found, test phase it,
it doesn't say only three of them, it says all of them. Mr. Whittenberg stated that what
it says right in the proposed language right below. Member Hahn read the following
language under discussion, indicating ok, as long as they do all of them, that's fine. We
can keep that in as long as all of the cultural sites are test phased. Dr. Stickel said we
can clarify, instead of saying for "each site", for "all sites". The Committee concurred
with this change on line 5 of the rewritten text. Member Hahn asked we should change
"test program" to "test phase program", with Dr. Stickel indicating the language is the
way it is normally expressed.
Member Hahn discussed page 45, paragraph 2, lines 1 through 8, stating this has been
covered and the change made.
Member Hahn discussed page 51, paragraph 3, line I, stating she didn't understand why
this was done. Dr. Stickel had used "burial" and perhaps Mr. Bartlett had proposed
"partial human remain", indicating that is not a term you normally read in cultural
management documentation. She looked through all the documents she has, they either
say "burial" or "human remains", they didn't say "partial human remains", so maybe we
should revert to the way Dr. Stickel had it, delete "partial human" and just use the word
"burial", just to be in compliance with the other CR documents. Mr. Bartlett indicated
his comment that he wasn't certain from looking at all the literature that it was a reported
burial, and that it was a partial human remain. Whatever the Committee is comfortable
with, he just wanted a clarification, is it a burial'] Dr. Stickel stated the usual respectful
term is burial or inhumation, but partial burial sounds off color. The Committee agreed
with Dr. Stickel's comment and to change it back to "burial"
Member Hahn discussed page 51, last two lines, stating she would like to add the words
"and the Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical Element" after the proposed word
'-"
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
26
'-'
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
"laws" . The Committee concurred. Member Hahn indicated that was the last of her
concerns.
Member Hahn asked if the Committee shouldn't decide how to proceed? Mr.
Whittenberg suggested that with the changes Dr. Stickel has indicated he will make, after
he makes those changes, the Committee would then forward that document, with the
changes, along with all of the memos received by the Committee for changes on the
document, and the minutes of the meetings, and forward that packet on to the City
Council at this point, where it doesn't have to come back to the Committee to look at as
a final draft document again. Member Hahn asked if this would include her comments,
with Dr. Stickel indicating yes. Dr. Stickel asked if this will be the "final" final draft
document? Mr. Whittenberg indicated when the document goes to the City Council, they
may decide if they want any changes to the document, it is a final draft pending Council
approval. Mr. Bartlett asked does this document get circulated? Mr. Whittenberg
indicated there is process to do all that, we will not have to come back before the
Committee again for a final approval. Member Goldberg asked we will actually adopt
the resolution? Mr. Whittenberg stated his suggestion is that you adopt the resolution
and authorize staff to forward the revised document as approved by the Committee this
evening, along with all of the memorandums, and minutes of the meetings to the Council
to consider.
~
MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Benjamin to adopt Archaeological Advisory
Committee Resolution No. 96-1, as revised as indicated above, authorizing staff to
forward the revised document as approved by the Committee this evening, along with all
of the memorandums, and minutes of the meetings, to the Council to consider.
MOTION CARRIED:
7-0-2
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey, and
Chairperson Frietze
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Members Johnston and Unatin
Dr. Stickel indicated the document is now cast in stone, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating
until the Council sees it. In response to a question from Member Willey, Mr.
Whittenberg indicated the documents provided tonight by Mr. Bartlett from LSA will not
be provided to the Committee, they will be available at his office for review.
'-"
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
27
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
5.
Special Meetings of the Committee (Member Hahn)
Chairperson Frietze introduced the item, indicating the order was re-arranged by the
Committee earlier this evening.
Member Price asked if this matter could be continued? Member Hahn indicated all she
wants to ask is it seems like we're having trouble getting a quorum at these meetings
because there is so many of them and they are closely spaced. She wondered, and she
knows Monday and Wednesday works out best for Mr. Whittenberg, but they don't work
out well for her, she was wondering if the next special meeting we have could be on a
day other than a Monday or Wednesday, what is the consensus of the group? Member
Fitzpatrick indicated just as long as not on Thursday. Member Goldberg indicated not
a Friday. Member Hahn suggested a Tuesday, with Member Fitzpatrick asking if you
are talking about a regular meeting. Member Hahn stated no, just the special meetings
that keep coming up.
MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Price to schedule any special meeting between now and
the next regularly scheduled meeting for a Tuesday. Mr. Whittenberg clarified if the
motion is for any special meetings in the future, or just between now and the next regular
meeting. Member Hahn indicated yes.
'-'
MOTION CARRIED:
7-0-2
AYES:
Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey, and
Chairperson Frietze
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Members Johnston and Unatin
4. 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, May 8, and May 22, 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 a
continued Committee Meeting.
-..
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
28
~
Archaeological Advisory Comminee Minutes
June 24, 1996
Mr. Whittenberg indicated the next item for review is the Navy's HARP Plan and he
placed at your seats downstairs a copy of the minutes from the May 22 meeting where
you had a brief review of the document, and the concerns that he had prepared in his
memo, the packet is in a big paper-clipped group with a June 24 letter on the front. At
that meeting the Committee started going through the concerns set out in Mr.
Whittenberg's memo, with Joyce Clevenger responding, and we did not finish those.
Mr. Whittenberg indicated his concerns were fairly minor in detail, with Member Hahn
preparing a memorandum regarding this particular report, and maybe it would be more
productive at this point to look at her memorandum, and then back up to his memo. The
Committee determined to finish off the rest of Mr. Whittenberg's concerns.
Lisa Bosalet, Naval Weapons Station, asked for clarification regarding the 6:30 cut-off
time, as it is that time. Member Goldberg indicated the Committee acted by motion to
adjourn at that time earlier, if there is a quorum after she leaves it won't make any
difference. The Committee determined to proceed until there is no quorum.
Mr. Whittenberg started the discussion referring to Item 15 of his draft concerns dated
May 22. There seems to be some language being quoted, and it is not clear where the
quote starts and ends, the punctuation needs to be clarified.
.~
Item 16, Mr. Whittenberg indicated a word was misspelled and needs correction.
Item 17, Mr. Whittenberg indicated a sentence seems incomplete on page 5-22, second
paragraph, first sentence. Ms. Clevenger indicated it isn't complete.
Item 18, Mr. Whittenberg indicated this comment relates to the research design document
itself, we are just indicating the previous comments already made on the research design
document are incorporated again, as they are still appropriate.
Item 19, Mr. Whittenberg indicated this goes back to the language regarding having a
Native American at a pre-construction meeting, and he is not sure if the Committee still
feels this is an appropriate concern, because at the last meeting it was discussed that
normally the archaeologist attends that, and when they tell their Native American
monitors how to proceed on the site, they provide that information to them. The
Committee didn't determine whether to leave the comment in or not. When you go back
to that comment, you need to keep in mind this is another place where that comment
comes up. Member Hahn asked if that was something the Committee decided to defer
until the regular meeting in August? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that was a separate issue
relating to Native Americans. In response to a question from Member Goldberg, Mr.
Whittenberg indicated it is up to the Committee to determine whether or not the concerns
here are what you still want to forward on or not. To give an idea, Item 13, which talks
'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
29
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
about treatment categories, based on the response, he would recommend you delete that
comment, because it doesn't apply.
'-'
Chairperson Frietze asked if she could get an outside opinion, addressing a gentleman
in the audience as to if he would like to part of that pre-construction meeting. In his
experience, he goes on a case-by-case basis, with Joyce Clevenger he felt very
comfortable in not attending the pre-construction conference. Chairperson Frietze asked
if it would be based on the individual that gets selected, whether they want to part of the
process. In response to a request from Member Hahn, the gentleman introduced himself
as Sam Dunlap. Mr. Whittenberg asked if part of that concern is based on your
knowledge and relationship with the archaeologist he might be working with also. Mr.
Dunlap stated yes. Chairperson Frietze indicated it is also about knowledge of the area,
and you know what's there, and that part of the aspect with the development part is
something they do with their crew. We just go in there and follow along with the crew
worker, we already have our assignments, it is based on individual preferences. Mr.
Whittenberg stated you as a Committee need to think whether or not this is the type of
comment you want to forward to the Navy or not, it is up to the Committee. Member
Price stated she didn't think so. Mr. Dunlap stated his experience with the Navy has
been on a contract basis and his job specifications have been very detailed, it is up to the
contractor if there is some discrepancies that need to be changed, that is between the
contractor and the agency he is working with. Member Goldberg asked if it has been
Mr. Dunlap's experience to accept the Navy to get started on a project you have if you
have good vibes with the archaeologist that you will be working with, or has there been
times when you haven't been called in and you should have been? Mr. Dunlap stated
there are pros and cons on both sides of this, the problem we have in the past, as the
Native American community not being notified, he understands that is a big concern.
He would say his own personal experience is he would not have that problem in working
with the Navy on this project. Ms. Clevenger stated in her view this is a construction
related problem with engineers, it is before the archaeological problem comes up and she
doesn't feel a Native American needs to be involved. She indicated a Native American
will be contracted, it is a federal project and it is required. They will come into the
picture, but she thinks at this point it is premature, it is a construction issue, where
pipelines are going to go, where roads are going to be changed, that kind of thing. This
is her opinion only. Chairperson Frietze asked for Committee response to the question
from Mr. Whittenberg, what does the Committee want to do with this type of issue? Mr.
Whittenberg indicated the basic issue, as discussed at your last meeting, is whether or
not you just want to recommend the Navy invite a Native American monitor to those
meetings, and then it is up to them whether or not they want to attend. It is an issue that
is just that simple, do you want to make that suggestion, or not make that suggestion,
just let them work with the process as they determine is most appropriate. They will do
whatever they feel is most appropriate anyway, it's just a question as to whether you
"'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
30
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
~
think it is important enough to make that type of suggestion to them. Member
Fitzpatrick indicated he would leave that up to the Native Americans in the room.
Chairperson Frietze indicated where there is a project and the Native Americans are
contracted, they are part of the process, and it doesn't necessarily mean attending these
pre-construction meetings, it's part of a lot of other meetings. Member Hahn asked the
Chairperson if she were a monitor, would you prefer to be contacted by the Navy at all
phases, and simply invited, whether you decided to go or not, would you prefer to be
invited? Chairperson Frietze said she would like to know what's going on out there,
sure. Member Hahn stated it is a courtesy, regardless of whether you feel it is necessary
to attend, to invite you. Chairperson Frietze stated it is a touchy thing, with the fact you
will be inviting all the Native American's that are out there. Member Hahn asked for
clarification if it would be all the Native American's, or simply the one's that are
working on that project. Ms. Clevenger indicated it is not specified, you are working
on a whole new thing now. Mr. Whittenberg stated maybe we need to ask if at the time
the Navy is doing a pre-construction conference on a site that has a potential
archaeological impact, would you already have a Native American monitor under
contract, if you don't then the issue is moot? Mrs. Bosalet stated if we know there is
an archaeological site with something to be disturbed, the contract with the archaeologist
would include to have a Native American monitor. Member Benjamin asked how you
choose one, from which tribe? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that is the Navy's decision.
Mrs. Bosalet stated she would ask her archaeologist to recommend somebody.
Chairperson Frietze stated they also base it on nearest descendent. In response to a
question from Member Benjamin, Member Hahn stated that is the Navy's decision, not
us. Chairperson Frietze asked the Committee how they want to address this? Member
Fitzpatrick stated he thinks we should make the recommendation that the appropriate
group or tribe be invited, whether they accept or don't is up to them. He thinks we
should make the suggestion. Mr. Whittenberg asked ifthe Committee would want to say
the "contractual Native American monitor" since it is probably under a contract at that
time? Member Hahn asked what if there is no contract at that time? Member Fitzpatrick
said if there is no contract there's not going to be any work. Member Hahn asked what
if it is a construction project and they haven't contracted to get the monitor yet? Member
Fitzpatrick indicated it was stated by law they have to. Member Hahn asked if
construction or anything you have to, up front? Mrs. Clevenger indicated you wouldn't
get to the stage of a pre-construction meeting, which is when you are setting up you
project without having a previous contract. In response to a question from Member
Hahn, Mr. Whittenberg indicated you would not need to make a motion, but when you
go back and if you ultimately approve a letter with the attachment, the committee will
need to indicate the changes to be made.
Item 20, Mr. Whittenberg indicated the last concern he had is in Appendix D you are
indicating emergency data recovery may be necessary in certain circumstances, he had
'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
31
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
a concern that data recovery program, and I don't know if you are going to be doing a,
and if your finding something you need to call an emergency, I don't know what your
process is, and maybe that's the real question. He would assume at that point the Native
American monitor is going to be involved in that process, and he doesn't know if there
is a process that you involve SHPO when all of a sudden you are doing a much larger
process. Mrs. Clevenger stated you would go back and do a research design to address
the emergency issue. Mr. Whittenberg stated he was thinking of emergency as because
of something going on, you are just going to pull it out of the ground real quick and not
worry about some of the other processes. Mrs. Clevenger stated no, an emergency
situation would be human remains or a site that is intact, and you didn't expect it to be
there, and you found it buried. You found it in construction monitoring or something,
as a unique find. Mr. Whittenberg clarified at that point you would do? Mrs. Clevenger
said you would stop the process, construct a research design to address this situation,
whatever it is, human remains or what. If human remains you confer with the Native
Americans under NAGFRA and get that process going. If it were a village site, you
need to go back and address it with research design under an emergency situation, SHPO
has to approve that. Mr. Whittenberg stated in that case he thinks the comment we are
making probably might want to have the language clarified to expand the description of
that process to a general reader. Mrs. Clevenger agreed.
~
Member Hahn stated that since Member Price has to leave, and she would prefer
Member Hahn simply present her memo to the Navy, which she has already done, and
to the Committee, than go over it. Without Member Price we don't have a quorum. If
that is acceptable, she is not prepared to sign a letter, she doesn't know if the secretary
has prepared a letter saying that we are all in agreement with it or anything. She didn't
feel the HARP Plan was very well written, so she has written her comments out so the
Navy may address them. In response to a question from Mrs. Bosalet as to when they
were sent to the Navy, Member Hahn stated she handed it out at the beginning of the
meeting, weren't you there. Mrs. Bosalet indicated the beginning of the meeting was
specifically designed for Stickel's work. After a pause to ensure everyone has a copy
of Member Hahn's memo, Member Willey indicated she hasn't had a chance to look at
Member Hahn's memo, but she has a couple of questions of her own. Member Hahn
asked how to proceed, as member's leave, we will not have a quorum if Member Price
leaves. Member Willey stated she suspect's the Navy needs to look at Member Hahn's
memo, and her only additional comment is a statement like "direct radiocarbon evidence
indicates a 4,000 year old occupation", what is the reference? Member Fitzpatrick asked
we could go to a sub-committee for another half hour? Mrs. Bosalet said she would
really like to have an opportunity to address Member Hahn's comments and any other
comments that the Committee has. We had intended to start this discussion and going
over it at 4:30, being it is going on 7:00, she would really find it difficult to continue on,
considering that the meeting was originally set up to discuss the Navy document. In
'-'
D:\WPSl \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
32
~
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
June 24, 1996
response to a question from Mr. Whittenberg, Mrs. Bosalet stated they would like to
have an opportunity to go on with this and let us address the comments in a written form.
Member Hahn indicated that is what she prefers also, if you could just get the time to
consider it and come back and state your comments in writing. In response to a question
from Mrs. Bosalet, Member Willey stated she will provide any additional comments.
Mr. Whittenberg stated before Members Goldberg and Price leave, the Committee needs
to determine when to continue this meeting to so the Navy can come back again, the next
regular meeting is on August 7. A quorum of the Committee is necessary to make a
decision to meet other than at a regular meeting. After discussion among the Committee,
it was determined to meet at the regular meeting of August 7. Mrs. Bosalet indicated
the Navy will address the comments, incorporate them and move on. The document goes
final, but it never closes out, we can amend the document as appropriate in house, she
needs to close the contract out, they are on a 5 year end of this contract, and she has
other obligations. Member Hahn asked if this means we won't be discussing it because
you have to get moving?
Members Goldberg and Price left the meeting, resulting in the lack of a quorum at 6:45
PM.
~
~i-~"
Chai erson, 0
Archaeological Advisory Committee
~~~
ArchaeologIcal AdVISOry CommIttee
Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee.
The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of June 24, 1996 were approved on
.4uc;..t./ 5 I 7 , 1996.
\.-
D: \WPS 1 \ARCHCOMM\06-24-96.MIN\LW\06-26-96
33