Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1996-08-07 CITY OF SEAL BEACH '-" ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MlNUTES AUGUST 7, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Present: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey (5: 10 PM), Young and Chairperson Frietze (5:02 PM) Absent: Member Willey Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director ~ Mr. Whittenberg said he had heard from Member Willey, and that she was running late but be at the meeting. III. 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 Johnston said she was confused about the Agenda, noting that at one point the Committee decided it wasn't going to take action on Naval Weapons Station documents but instead would receive and file the information. When she spoke to Lisa Bosalet, Lisa told her that the Naval Station was going to do what they were going to do no matter what the Committee decided on. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that discussion was in regards to the Harp plan. He indicated Ms. Bosalet's emphasis was that the Navy was going to finalize the document regardless of what this Committee did simply because it has been such a long period of time in reviewing it. He did not think the Committee should put those words in Ms. Bosalet's '-' D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.MIN\L W\08-16-96 . . . Archaeological AdVIsory Comnuttee Mmutes August 7, 1996 mouth for every document that comes in from the Navy. If the Navy did not want City input they would not continue to send documents for review. Member Goldberg agreed with Member Johnston, saying she reviewed the Minutes of May 22nd. The Committee said they would not be writing the Navy anymore unless, after meeting, they decided they wanted to do so. The discussion included Bruce Fitzpatrick and he also agreed. This is now opposite of what the Committee said it was going to do. Member Hahn remembered Lisa Bosalet (Naval Weapons Station/Cultural Resources Coordinator) had said she (the Navy) has a contract to close out, perhaps it was a five months contract, and she couldn't wait for the Committee anymore. Member Hahn felt this item should not be on the Committee's schedule anymore. Member Willey arrived at 5: 10 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg said it is up to this Committee whether it wants to make comments or not. This was a matter discussed at the June 24th meeting. At that time there was a draft letter from the Committee. The Committee did not finish the discussion on the matter and there was no direction at that time not to bring the matter back, primarily because the Committee had to adjourn due to lack of a quorum. The matter is back on this Agenda as continued from the June 24th meeting. It is up to the Committee if you wish to comment or not, that has always been your purview. Member Hahn said she would prefer to change the Agenda order and put the Hellman issue first because this Committee's members are on this Committee to deal with the City's business and the Navy really doesn't need the Committee to make decisions for them. She suggested considering the Hellman issue first and perhaps not considering the two Navy issues. Member Johnston agreed. Member Unatin said he did not think it was in the Committee's best interest to suddenly decide it's not interested in the Navy parcel. It cuts off communication, transfer of knowledge and cut's off the Committee's ability to mix in and make changes that may be for a greater benefit than simply getting to the Hellman project early. He felt it would be foolhardy, after all the time and effort the Committee has put in at the Naval Weapons Station, to suddenly decided it's not going to do it anymore because Lisa Bosalet told you her thoughts about their plans. The Navy does make minor modifications based on whatever input they get and this is the only place they bother to get input. And they want this Committee because they can say they do get community input and refer to this Committee. D \WP51\ARCHCOMM\08-07-96 MlN\LW\08-16-96 2 "-r Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Member Hahn said "So they want letters from us saying that their projects are great and go ahead with them" . Member Unatin said what was discussed at the June meeting was specifically that if this Committee has no opinion it makes no response. If it has no prior knowledge then it has no opinion so we make no response. The problem at that time was the Committee had no basis for making a positive comment the Navy could use. He recalled the Committee said it would either not respond or it would respond stating the Committee has no knowledge of this particular subject. Certainly not that the Committee is going to ignore the Naval Weapons Station --- that's the other half of the territory the City is interested in. Member Hahn agreed the Committee is interested in the Naval Weapons Station but indicated her recollection was the Committee had decided that instead of reviewing everything the Navy sends over as an agenda item, it would be left up to the Committee members on a case-by-case basis to decide. If someone thought a document was important, should be discussed and should be responded to then, at that point, the Committee would agendize it for a special or regular meeting. There was a unanimous vote on this determination. Member Hahn stated she didn't know if the Committee wanted to change direction? ~ Member Unatin asked Member Hahn if the Committee was saying the Harp document is something that this Committee should not be concerned with? Member Hahn said yes, it's a done deal and thought the Committee should bypass that for sure. Member Goldberg said she left at the tail end of that meeting but as she was walking out the door she thought there was a list of questions that Member Hahn had submitted. So how can the Committee proceed, or agree to write a letter, when they haven't had a chance to respond to the list of questions? Member Hahn noted it has been two months and the Navy hasn't answered any of her concerns. The Navy told this Committee the contract was done so she didn't understand why this Committee would have to deal with this issue. Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee is dealing with a number of issues. One is whether or not this document is worthy of some sort of comment back to the Navy. It's a document that helps support their program for considering all future archaeological concerns on the property. He was not sure the Committee would want to miss commenting on this document unless the Committee decides the Navy document is proper, and that is a decision needs to make. Member Hahn made comments to that document that the Navy received on June 24th. To this point the City has not received any comments from them. He said he had telephoned the Navy. '-' D: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\LW\08-16-96 3 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Member Hahn asked Mr. Whittenberg, in relation to receiving documents, if he had received a letter, addressed to him, from the State Office of Historic Preservation about the Hellman property? Mr. Whittenberg said no and asked when it was received? Member Hahn said they sent a copy to her and she assumed he had received a copy. This is one of the reasons she thought Hellman proceeds the Navy --- because this is an issue that's up here and now. Mr. Whittenberg asked what was the content of the letter. Member Hahn indicated the letter is about the research design. Mr. Whittenberg said this Committee has already approved the research design. Member Hahn said it is also about the site survey and all the stuff on the Hellman property. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he has not seen the letter. Member Hahn said she felt the Committee should deal with the City's business first. The Committee needs to prioritize its concerns and make what they're appointed to do comes first. Member Benjamin asked if the Navy wasn't the Committee's business also? Member Hahn said the Committee cannot determine what the Navy will or will not do; the Navy has told the Committee this many times. Whereas, the City appointed the Committee specifically to help them make decisions. '-" Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee has a clear decision to make as to whether it wants to make any comments to the Navy on any of their documents. If the Committee feels it is not appropriate, that's fine. Staff will not put anything on the Committee's agenda regarding the Navy archaeological matters other than as a Consent Calendar item for its information. The June 24th documents were already in process before the Committee made that decision; that was in April. You have had two meetings with the Navy archaeologist on that particular report. His feeling from the last Committee meeting was that the Committee wanted to finish off their discussion of that letter. Member Hahn stated it is a done deal. Mr. Whittenberg indicated just because it's a "done deal" doesn't mean the Committee should not go on record if you feel there is something wrong with the document. Member Hahn indicated she already had responded and the Navy didn't respond. Mr. Whittenberg said that even though Member Hahn had responded, it did not mean the Committee should not respond also. That's the Committee's decision to make. Member Goldberg said she felt the Navy owes the Committee answers to certain questions before the Committee can write them a letter detailing what the Committee thinks. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the Navy were to come back to the City in writing, would the Committee want staff to put that back on the Committee's agenda? If the Committee doesn't want to send a written response to the Navy then there's no use in doing anything with a response other than distributing it to the Committee for information. Staff needs direction as to how to proceed. Member Unatin suggested that, in regard to the Committee's stance on any letter which is sent by the Navy, it should state the Committee is still waiting for a response to the '-' D: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\LW\08-16-96 4 .\...- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 items mentioned by Member Hahn. Until such time the Committee cannot recommend anything. The idea that this Committee is no longer interested in the goings on at the Naval Weapons Station is a serious error to make. If the Committee has certain people here who want to consider Hellman Ranch first, we can vote on that. In no way, shape, or form does he think it is in our best interest to not consider what is going on at the Naval Weapons Station. He made two suggestions in the form of a Motion: MOTION by Unatin, SECOND by that (1) a response letter to the Navy is written stating that the Committee has not received any reply to our concerns; (2) Before the vote the following discussion ensued: Mr. Whittenberg advised that if the Committee wants to make this decision, this item will need to remain on the Agenda and discussed at that point on the Agenda. What the Committee is talking about now is whether or not it wants to remove this item from the Agenda and not consider it or, whether you want to keep it on the Agenda and consider it at a later point. Member Unatin said to keep it on the Agenda and consider the matter again at that time. '-" Mr. Whittenberg asked if this applies to the second item on the Agenda which also applies to the Naval Weapons Station? The Committee asked for item #4 to be pulled from the Agenda and not replied to. Member Hahn said perhaps she misrepresented herself, saying she does care what goes on at the Naval Weapons Station. She didn't feel the Committee necessarily wants to write a letter to everything they do. Member Unatin said it was decided at the June meeting. He wants to have the option to decide which items he wants to pursue or not pursue. Mr. Whittenberg restated his understanding of the Committee's discussion. The Agenda will remain as it is with the exception of Item #4 which will be removed from consideration. Item #4 is the bioremediation report. Member Hahn asked if the order of the Agenda can be changed? MOTION by Unatin, SECOND by Goldberg that the Agenda will remain as it is with the exception of Item #4 which will be removed from consideration. The Chair called for the vote: '-" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\L W\08-16-96 5 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Frietze asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. Dr. Stickel he would like to address the Committee regarding Agenda Item VI-5. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Whittenberg indicated there were no consent calendar items before the Committee. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 24, 1996 ~ Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Chairperson Frietze asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 24, 1996? MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Fitzpatrick to approve the Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of June 24, 1996 as submitted. Members Johnston and Young indicated they would abstain due to absence from this meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-0-2 A YES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Members Johnston and Young "-' D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\LW\08-16-96 6 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 2. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING: MA Y 20, 1996 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Chairperson Frietze asked if there were any corrections to the Sub-Committee Minutes of May 20, 1996? Member Goldberg asked if the minutes were to be approved by the full committee? Mr. Whittenberg they should be considered by the members of the sub- committee. Member Hahn indicated she would abstain as she hadn't had time to read the minutes. MOTION by Fitzpatrick; SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Archaeological Advisory Sub-Committee Minutes of May 20, 1996 as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 2-0-0-1 AYES: Members Fitzpatrick and Goldberg NOES: None ABSENT: None '-' ABST AIN: Member Hahn 3. 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, May 22, and June 24, 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, or at the regular Committee Meeting of October 9, 1996. Mr. Whittenberg explained this matter is now before the Committee, based on it's previous decision on whether or not to leave this item on the Agenda. He felt the Committee was asking staff to prepare a letter to the Navy indicating the Committee will not be responding to the document in any form until answers to the questions presented by Member Hahn have been received by the Committee. At that time the document would be brought back before the Committee to decide what to do. ~ D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96. MIN\L W\08-16-96 7 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 MOTION by Unatin; SECOND by Johnston to prepare and send a letter to the Department of the Navy saying the Archaeological Committee will not consider the Harp Plan document until the City receives a written response to Member Hahn' s comments. MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None '-' The Committee had a short discussion of what it meant to be in limbo in this matter. In regard to the Harp Plan, if the Navy doesn't make any response to Member Hahn's questions, it would be Mr. Whittenberg's understanding that the Committee doesn't want the document back before them for further consideration. Mr. Whittenberg indicated future reports from the Navy will automatically be placed on the Consent Calendar, for Committee information and direction to staff as to how to proceed. Mr. Whittenberg further indicated that in regards to the HARP Plan, if the Navy does not make any responses to Member Hahn's questions, his understanding is that the Committee does not want the document back before them for further consideration, based on the motion. Member Unatin asked for a clarification. Mr. Whittenberg stated he understood the motion to send a letter to the Navy saying the Committee will not consider the HARP Plan until a written response to Member Hahn's inquiries has been received. If the Navy does not respond, the Committee will not comment on the HARP Plan. That was the consensus of the Committee. 4. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF "PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PARCEL PROPOSED FOR AN EXPERIMENTAL ANAEROBIC BIOREMEDIATlON PROGRAM -NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", dated March 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, or at the regular Committee Meeting of October 9, 1996. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this item has been removed from the agenda. '-" D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96. M1N\LW\08-16-96 8 '--' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 5. RECEIVE "Draft - Archaeological Site Survey of the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California", prepared by Environmental Research Archaeologists, dated July 1996 Recommendation: Sub-committee determination as to when it will wish to meet to review subject document. After the document has been reviewed by the sub- Committee, it will be reviewed by the full Committee, prior to forwarding to the City Council for receiving and filing. Chairperson Frietze introduced this matter and the suggested recommendation. Member Goldberg suggested this document be worked on by the total Committee. She explained a sub-Committee had been formed specifically to work on this document but she felt the full Committee should begin to consider this document tonight. She said the sub- Committee spent a tremendous amount of time, and in many ways a waste of time on the part of the sub-committee, on the document because it was a meeting spent correcting punctuation and grammar. She felt quite a few of the Committee members have already read the document, it's very well written this time, and she felt the Committee should move along. '-' MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Fitzpatrick that this document be reviewed tonight by the entire Committee. MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None Chairperson Frietze invited Dr. Stickel and his staff to speak on this matter. Member Hahn asked Dr. Stickel and Mr. Whittenberg if they anticipated any changes being made to the site survey report? Mr. Whittenberg said he had not started to review the document. Dr. Stickel said right now the answer is no, but it will depend on how this Committee feels about the report. The situation is that Hellman apparently doesn't want to go forward with the project because they got my budget and they don't like it. He felt he was on hold at this point. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the Hellman's haven't made a definite decision to proceed or not, they are evaluating. Member Hahn if Hellman was deciding to proceed with the whole project or just with the archaeology? They are '-" D: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.MIN\LW\08-16-96 9 ......... Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 determining how far to proceed with the archaeological work before they submit an application to the City for a project on the site. Member Hahn asked what about the project as a whole? Mr. Whittenberg said the Hellman's are determining how far to proceed with the archaeological work before they submit an application for a project. Member Hahn asked what about the project as a whole? Mr. Whittenberg indicated they will be proceeding to submit a project. Member Hahn asked if they will do the project? Mr. Whittenberg indicated they will submit an application. Member Goldberg asked if the Hellman's could submit an application without an archaeological study being done? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, they could submit an application but the project cannot be approved prior to the archaeological work being done. It's a question of when they do it. In talking with representatives of the Hellman family, it's a question of how far down the road they go with the archaeological investigations prior to compiling all the other information they need for wetland restoration, geologic hazard abatement, and a number of other things that they need to include in their project budget to determine what kind of a project will ultimately be submitted for an approval to the City. The discussion regarding the budget is an issue that's not an issue for the Committee to consider, that is not under your purview. ~ Member Hahn asked if Mr. Whittenberg was talking about Hellman's budget for the project or for the archaeological work? Mr. Whittenberg said for both. This Committee is to review documents and make recommendations on documents. Your charge does not include reviewing budget proposals. You review the scope of work, which ultimately impacts a budget, but the actual budget is not something the Committee reviews. Member Hahn asked Dr. Stickel if his investigation has been temporarily shut down? Mr. Whittenberg said it's on hold. Member Hahn asked if any efforts are being made to revive or get it going again? Dr. Stickel said yes, he has been talking with Mr. Whittenberg and Hellman. Mr. Whittenberg said they have looked at a number of alternatives to alleviate some of their concerns and clarify some of the budget issues to their satisfaction. Dr. Stickel is to get some of this information back to staff later this week or the middle of next week. Once staff has received this, they will go back to Hellman. Hellman then will make a decision on whether they want to continue with part of the process now or if they want to wait on the entire process until a later point in time, which they have the authority to do. Member Goldberg asked if the research design was accepted and Dr. Stickel will be paid for that part of it? Dr. Stickel said yes, he had been paid. Mr. Whittenberg said Dr. ........, D: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\LW\08-16-96 10 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Stickel has been paid for all his work to date. Dr. Stickel said he could not review the site survey until the Hellman's get back on track and move forward with the project. Member Goldberg asked if would be beneficial for the Committee to write to the Hellman's saying a lot of different surveys have been done but not a total site survey and the Committee, as a whole, would like to see a thorough survey done. She added there aren't many vacant parcels of land in Seal Beach anymore and since we do know there are some archaeological items on the site we need to find out what did go on there. Mr. Whittenberg said the question from the City's standpoint is not whether or not thorough research will be done, if a project is submitted, a thorough research will be done. If this applicant were to not file a project, nothing has to happen, the property would just stay as it is. Member Goldberg asked if the Hellman's could put a price on it or cut down the design? Mr. Whittenberg said if the Hellman's were to submit an application, those portions of the property which are subject to that development application must be surveyed, tested and evaluated to determine if mitigation is necessary in accordance with the City's Archaeological Element. This work has to be done prior to a project being approved, in accordance with the terms of the Archaeological Element. It doesn't have to be done before a project even being submitted for consideration to the City. -- Member Goldberg asked if the archaeological work could be done in a non-thorough manner --- could the applicant cut corners? Mr. Whittenberg said the archaeological investigation would be done in accordance with the terms of the scope of work determined by the City's archaeologist. Member Goldberg asked if the Hellman's could set a dollar amount on the amount of work to be done? Mr. Whittenberg indicated no, the archaeologist works for the City. Member Hahn asked Dr. Stickel about his negotiations with the City and the Hellman's. She wanted to know what format this took. Dr. Stickel said he had a meeting last Monday with Mr. Whittenberg and Keith Till, the City Manager. Ms. Hahn asked if they were discussing budget issues or procedures, and could the Committee attend? Mr. Whittenberg said they were discussing budget issues. Member Hahn asked if they discussed anything technical, such as how they were going to do the studies? Mr. Whittenberg replied the issue at this point is a budget concern that Hellman's have and ways to resolve that concern. He continued by emphasizing that this Committee is not charged with the duty of being involved with things other than reviewing reports by archaeologists that come before the City. This point is made very clear in the resolution which establishes this Committee. He indicated he understood the Committee's frustration however. "-' D:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\L W\08-16-96 11 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Dr. Stickel said part of the problem is misinformation that circulated. The Hellman's apparently got upset by a letter from Mr. Bartlett, and he is very disappointed by this. Somehow the Hellman's arrived at an unrealistic idea of how much adequate mitigation should cost. So, that's why we had the meeting. He said he would not quote any figures but assured the Committee that the costs he proposed were reasonable and were the sort of monies which had been spent in Orange County for a long time. They are on balance with what LSA charged six years ago for digging at four of the sites. We proposed a reasonable program and they're balking at it in essence. Mr. Whittenberg came up with a creative suggestion on how to deal with this. We're trying to submit another budget and hopefully the Hellman's will get back on track with this. Dr. Stickel said he can't do the project for so little money that they can't do an adequate job; this is the bottom line. He said he is stalemated right now, he can't have people go out there and work without being able to pay them. '-' Member Goldberg asked Dr. Stickel how long he could be on hold before he gets busy? Dr. Stickel said this is the situation right now. He has already lost crew, they have taken off for other jobs. When he has to find new crew members he has to spend a great deal of time calling and interviewing, and they may not be available. He wanted to give the Committee some insight into the survey report and answer questions. He wanted to show them the remote sensing he did. He said he prematurely showed it to the City Council. He apologized for not showing it to this Committee. He said he was successful with the remote sensing in finding, for example, some of LSA's pits and a circular feature which may be a prehistoric house. He wanted the Committee to know there are some potentially important things on this site. These things should be investigated by an adequate test phase program. Member Hahn asked if the scope of work would change now that Dr. Stickel is thinking in terms of revising a budget? Will that effect the materials the Committee has already read? Dr. Stickel said no, not from his perspective. It's a question of where he digs initially; not the total program. Mr. Whittenberg said Committee needs to keep in mind the research design document is not finalized yet, it will be considered by the City Council on August 26th, there's a comment period until August 15th, and there may be public comments which cause the City Council to want to make some changes to the document or refer it back to this Committee to make those changes. He is not sure how the Council will proceed. Member Hahn asked if the City Council were to decide to revise it, would they refer the document back to this Committee for comments? Mr. Whittenberg said it would be up to the Council to determine that. He would suggest that they refer back to the Committee to get comments on. ~ D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.MIN\LW\08-16-96 12 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Member Johnston said she read about the infra-red technique Dr. Stickel used in locating the circular structure and asked if he would be integrating that information in his new proposal? Dr. Stickel said yes, he thought he would have to. The purpose of doing remote sensing is not only to try to find the pits which the previous archaeologists dug, but which were not documented, but to find features like the circular feature. If the feature is a pre- historic house it adds to the significance of the site. On the other hand, this feature may be the foundation of a water tank which was there when the ranch was there. He said he wasn't happy with the press on this matter because this Committee should have known about the feature first and then maybe the City Council. He is not in favor of publicity until these sites have been looked at in the proper way. '-' Member Fitzpatrick said he was up flying around the other day and he circled around four or five times over the terrace. He asked Dr. Stickel if he planned work only on the terrace area or if he would go below that area? Dr. Stickel replied that he would not be working in the lower area, we have already surveyed it and there is nothing there. We flew over the area and took color, black/white and infra-red photographs, and passed around some of the photographs. He has used infra-red in the past and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But with the new technology, computer image enhancement, on this he saw interesting features. The rectangles show the pits dug probably by LSA, as both Mr. Whittenberg and Member Hahn have previously described. The pits are laid out in a North, South, East and West pattern. You'll also see a dark circular ring and that could be the house ring, it is of the size that fits with the ethnography of local Native American houses. The photo was held up for reference, with Mr. Whittenberg describing the property gate location on Seal Beach Boulevard. Member Goldberg asked Dr. Stickel if, in proportion, that the circle could be a possible kiva? Dr. Stickel said no, he would not call it a kiva, but it could be a house or a squat house or a number of things. He said he was very pleased with this. He noted the cheapest way to go in trying to detect the subtle features is the remote sensing; these are micro-topographical features that cannot be seen when walking around. Dr. Stickel said he appreciated the Hellman's concern for costs and in that regard was pleased he got an offer from a fellow who wants to volunteer remote sensing for the project. He is a former professor of the Museum of Northern Arizona State University. Part of the problem is FAA requirements in flying over the Eucalyptus trees, he wasn't allowed to fly too low due to safety reasons. He said they had success with site 261 but when they moved over to site 260 and enhanced the picture we didn't see anything. The stuff has got to be there because there's even more digging on site 260 than there is on site 261. The fellow used an 8' model airplane to which he attached cameras. He then '--' D: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\L W\08-16-96 13 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 flies around taking pictures but at a much lower altitude. Then these can be enhanced. He offered to provide this for free. Dr. Stickel thought this was a great offer. ...... Chairperson Frietze asked if it were correct to say this project is on hold until some type of feasible budget can be agreed to? Dr. Stickel said the budget must adequately explore each site. There was some jumping of the gun which looked at the initial budget and said the costs would be staggering. Dr. Stickel said "This is not true... two of the sites are very tiny ...". His hope is he could work with the Hellman's and show them in a step-by-step fashion that their costs are reasonable and they are not asking for the moon. The Hellman Company needs to be concerned about, and provide adequate funding, to do this. There's a good chance of finding burials out there. He just received a report from another gentlemen that said he found a complete burial (human skull and long bones) out there 45 years ago. While he wouldn't put much stock in that, he said he found it right next to the oil wells along Seal Beach Boulevard. He also found a unique artifact, a spindle-shaped item made of granite with two serpents carved on it. He also said he would retrieve it for Dr. Stickel to see. This is exactly the site where LSA found the human metacarpal, which Dr. Judy Suchey identified. This lends more weight to the fact that we're probably going to encounter burials out there. His response to Hellman is yes, archaeology costs a fair amount of money but it is very labor intensive. The vast amount of money goes to the crew who does all the digging. We want to have adequate coverage so that if there are burials, hopefully we will be able to find them and be able to address them in the appropriate manner. This is a much better scenario, for example, than if Hellman went out in two years when they are ready to build and they find a whole cemetery and then they must stop. The relatively minor costs that we're having right now will look very attractive to them at that point. Member Unatin said Hellman cannot go out on the site in two years, start digging and find a grave yard without prior approval by the City. Mr. Whittenberg agreed. Member Unatin said that if there are burials out there the best thing to do is leave them alone. If Hellman chooses not to proceed on this project we've done our duty. Mr. Whittenberg said on any vacant property the City is in the position of responding to the property owner's desire to either develop or not develop his property. If the Hellman's decide to submit a development application for the property, which they have indicated they will, the City will ensure the archaeological issues are resolved in a manner staff and the City's archaeologist think is appropriate. The question at this point is whether the Hellman's want to pay for some of that work before they've submitted an application or at some time after they've submitted an application and started to go through the approval process so they get a feel for how the community is going to react to a project. Staffis hearing from the Hellman's that they don't want to put what they consider to be a substantial amount of money into doing archaeological work, get through ~ D: IWP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.MIN\L W\08-16-96 14 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 the Environmental Quality Control Board, the Planning Commission and then find out that nobody's supporting the project. They would have put a lot of money into archaeology work and can't do anything with the property. That is Hellman's concern. Member Hahn said none of this work is project-oriented, it's preliminary. Mr. Whittenberg stated it is not project-oriented, it never has been. The Hellman's have never submitted a project. Member Benjamin asked if Mr. Bartlett is representing the Hellman family? Does he understand the situation? Is he presenting the situation to them in the correct way? Mr. Whittenberg indicated Mr. Bartlett is representing the Hellman family. Dr. Stickel said "In all candor, I don't think he does". Dr. Stickel said communication between himself and Mr. Bartlett has broken down. He said it was unfortunate that Mr. Bartlett sent the letter, although he has not seen it himself. Mr. Whittenberg cautioned the Committee that it was getting into areas that are not the concern of this Committee. '-" Member Hahn asked, aside from budget issues, do notes exist from the meeting? Was anything procedural discussed that is our business? Mr. Whittenberg said he would be frank and indicated the meeting discussed alternative methods of trying to determine how much test phase digging needed to be done on the site. There are some other ways to do that which are less labor intensive and less costly; these were suggested to Dr. Stickel by myself. Member Hahn asked Mr. Whittenberg where he came up with those methods? Mr. Whittenberg replied he got those methods by reading through a number of different research design documents done by other archaeologists. Ms. Hahn asked if this is something which can be considered by this group as a committee? Mr. Whittenberg said no, because it's a budget-related issue. Dr. Stickel has all that information for his review. If he feels it's inappropriate he has only to come back and say it's inappropriate and we go on with whatever his budget is at that time. Member Hahn asked if Dr. Stickel would lose his job? Mr. Whittenberg said no, he is the City's professional archaeologist to give us his professional opinion as to what is the best methodology to proceed. As a way to find a budget accommodation, staff suggested another alternative to consider. If he feels it is not appropriate, he tells us that, we go back to Hellman and indicate that determination, and then Hellman decides to proceed now or wait till later. '-' D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\L W\08-16-96 15 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Dr. Stickel said staff made a good suggestion. They had originally budgeted to dig 24 pits at site 261, that's the random sample. The suggestion was that Hellman's didn't like that budget but wanted to see more extensive coverage. Staff suggested perhaps some of the units can be dug at all of the sites and get some information from them initially. That's a creative way, in his opinion, to get useful information. Dr. Stickel would dig 2 - 3 units at each of the site. In response to a question from Member Unatin, Dr. Stickel indicated the normal procedure is as he had proposed, to focus on a site. There's pros and cons to every approach --- if we dig two or three units at every site we get some information but we don't get the extensive information. We would have to go back and do a complete test phase anyhow. It will give good, useful information, but will delay the overall extent of the project. Prom his point of view, if this is the way to prime Hellman's pump, fine. As the work is done, the digging is not blindly done. As the digging progresses, they have Native American monitors with them, they constantly discuss what they're finding. If they find a sterile area, they don't dig down a full meter they have budgeted, they move over to the next area. By performing a running analysis, the field work is always changing. You use your intelligence and feedback and try to move your project along as fast as possible. Most good archaeologist's ethic is you want to dig as little as possible and get the maximum amount of information back as soon as possible. You want to spend more time in the lab doing analysis than out digging. '-" Chairperson Frietze said it's important for the Hellman's to know you need to budget so if you come across some circumstances you know the money's there to cover those expenses. I think he has a hard time understanding that, asking why can't you do it for "X" amount of monies and worry about it when you come to that? There is no doubt things will come up. Dr. Stickel agreed, saying that all the sites are vastly larger with the exception of 850 and 851. He mentioned the variety of artifacts they have already found --- the discoidal, the net weight, the Apache tear. Every time we find something that's unique that tells me we have to dig more pits, not fewer pits. On site 261 we randomly sprinkled those 24 pits across a large site. LSA thought the site was 3,000 square meters instead of our 9,000 square meters. LSA dug 21 pits but in a much, much smaller area. Chairperson Frietze said if you were to review the LSA reports you would find they weren't really adequate in what they were doing. Dr. Stickel said he is proposing to dig a lot less than LSA, per unit area, but yet get a lot better information. He felt the Hellman's may not be used to archaeological problems and situations. Mr. Whittenberg said the Hellman's have never dealt with an archaeological investigation on this property; there is a learning curve. Chairperson Frietze said that's where the mitigation becomes so important, yes it will cost a little money, but it is worth it in the long run. You will get the project done,and be able to move on. '--" D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\L W\08-16-96 16 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Dr. Stickel said if we don't encounter burials out there with all the digging we will do, or we find very few that can with decency be located, or preserved in place, that would be money well spent. The Hellman's would know they won't have to worry about this when they develop. Dr. Stickel said it is in their interest to push on, we have these delays, and we could have had two sites done by now. Mr. Whittenberg said we're having problems not only with the archaeology, but with their approval of a general reimbursement for the environmental consultant and fiscal impact consultant. The Hellman's are going through a corporate restructuring and decisions are not being made until this is completed. Staff is hearing this will be another several weeks away. The property in question is controlled by a family trust, comprised of 48 voting members, with a majority vote of those members being required. It's an unwieldy process because those members are scattered from Hong Kong to Beirut. .... Member Hahn asked Dr. Stickel about digging 24 pits at one site versus the City's asking you to dig 3 pits at all the sites. Dr. Stickel said the City's request is acceptable to him with the proviso that those 2 to 3 pits would not constitute an adequate test phase exploration of anyone site. Member Hahn asked if that wouldn't require a greater cost to the developer in the long run, because if they do opt to go ahead with the development, won't you have to do the whole thing over and do it right? Dr. Stickel said it would not be totally redone but it would cost more money that way. He noted he has done this same scenario before, and it costs more money and time. The Hellman's were quite keen to try to get this done by next February, if that is the case, then we need to push on, if that is not the case, that's fine. He indicated it doesn't matter, except that he loses crew, and he is not compensated to interview new, prospective crew members. Chairperson Frietze said she appreciated Dr. Stickel's coming in to explain the process and indicated the Committee was waiting to hear if the project is on or off. Mr. Whittenberg said that at this point it's an unknown. As staff hears more from discussion with the Hellman's, staff will keep the Committee advised, and that was why there is an update item on this agenda, to let the Committee know there is a lull in the process. Member Fitzpatrick said he was concerned about the letter Member Hahn holds and asked if it pertains to this issue? Ms. Hahn said the topic is Comments on Research Design and the Investigation of Archaeological Sites at the Hellman Ranch, Orange County. It was signed by Cherilyn Widell, Director of the State Office of Historic Preservation in Sacramento. It was reviewed by a staff analyst by the name of Steven Warner. Member Hahn said she received this letter today and was under the impression it had already been sent to Mr. Whittenberg. Mr. Whittenberg said he had not been inihis office since 9:30 a.m. and said it may be on his desk. '-" D: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96. M1N\L W\08-16-96 17 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Member Hahn said the letter is a critique of the research design and the proposed investigation on the Hellman Ranch. The Committee should be provided copies of this letter. Member Hahn guessed Mr. Whittenberg had sent the research design to the Office of Historic Preservation as required by the Archaeology Element of the City's General Plan, and this is their review, and will be part of what the City Council and we consider, especially the City Council in order to determine if they will adopt the "Research Design". Mr. Whittenberg indicated that was correct, and evidently it is in response to our sending them the research design document for review and comments. Chairperson Frietze asked if the Committee can get a copy of the letter? Member Hahn said yes we should. Mr. Whittenberg indicated yes. Member Hahn said the next meeting is in October, and shouldn't we make a decision about this, take a vote? Member Goldberg stated even though it is a draft, the Committee shouldn't wait until October, stating that if the budget matters are settled the Committee can really get going. '--' Mr. Whittenberg said this document (Site Survey Report) is basically a results document of the archaeological survey. It's not a document which the City Council has to approve before any more work can be done on the property. It's not a time sensitive document to review to go to Council for any particular purpose. The Committee can review it at any time it feels appropriate. Member Goldberg said she didn't think the Committee would go through it with a fine tooth comb like the last time. This is a review of what Dr. Stickel's already done. Mr. Whittenberg said he has not started to review this document because the Committee's prior policy was to schedule this before a meeting of the Sub-Committee. He was going to look at it to make comments by the time of the Sub-Committee meeting. Member Goldberg asked if it were possible to hold a special meeting to just discuss this so the Committee will know this is done and over? She felt they should not wait until October because who knows what the Committee will have on the agenda by then. It could drag on. Chairperson Frietze asked for a consensus of the Committee. Most members said they did not want to wait. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Hahn that the Archaeology Advisory Committee meet on Tuesday, September 10, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. This will be the only item on that agenda, unless there is something else that relates to Hellman property. '-' D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\LW\08-16-96 18 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 1996 Before the vote, Mr. Whittenberg said Council is going to be considering the research design document on August 26th. If they refer it back to this Committee that will be put on the agenda also. Member Hahn said let's just do that because the SHPO letter is interesting, and Dr. Stickel may want to take that into consideration. MOTION CARRIED: 10 - 0 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None Member Hahn asked for the Committee to receive the full range of data, she felt that Dr. Stickel is, in a sense, an employee of the City of Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg advised the Committee that Dr. Stickel is not an employee of the City of Seal Beach, he a contractor to the City, and there is a big difference. Member Hahn asked if any contract the City has with Dr. Stickel is not a public document? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the contract is a public document. \w Member Hahn asked if there are any changes to the contract based on the Hellman's consideration of budget, she would like to be kept abreast of this and receive a copy, she wants to know what going on. Mr. Whittenberg advised the contract document has, as attachments to it, budgets approved for certain phases of work. He would be happy to provide those budget phases to Committee members, when approved. He again cautioned that the Committee does not have the authority to involve itself in the negotiation process as to what that budget is comprised of. Member Hahn said again, that as the contracts evolve she would like to be kept apprised and see the contracts. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Dr. Stickel submitted a listing of the different phases, a budget and a time schedule. The Committee will be seeing is only that portion for the next phase. Member Goldberg asked if it would be possible for the Committee members to get a copy of that prior to the agenda comes out --- so they have time to read that letter? Mr. Whittenberg said when something involves the Committee, City policy states it be sent out ahead of time. Dr. Stickel said he would like to make a copy of this now so all the Committee could read it. The members agreed. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the remote sensing report will be provided to the Committee. ~ D:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\LW\08-16-96 19 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes '-" August 7, 1996 VIT. COMMITTEE CONCERNS Member Goldberg asked if on May 22nd, the letter from staff to the Navy asked if the letter actually went out? Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't remember but didn't think so. He thought this was the matter which was continued to the October meeting, regarding the use of Native American monitors to review sites on the Naval Weapons Station prior to formulating a request to SHPO. vm. STAFF CONCERNS - None IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Hahn to adjourn the meeting at 6:19 p.m. to Tuesday, September 10, 1996, 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. ~ ~q~. Ch rson, --- Archaeological Advisory Committee Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory Com Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of August 7, 1996 were approved on {~ep;r~/eJb:< /b , 1996. ....., D:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\08-07-96.M1N\L W\08-16-96 20