Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1996-09-10 '- '-' \.... '-' CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITfEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Frietze called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Presen t: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Willey (5:10 PM), Young and Chairperson Frietze Absent: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Mr. Whittenberg indicated Member Price telephoned to say she would not be present this evening. As no other committee members had called to say they weren't going to attend, they might walk in as the meeting progresses. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Member Young requested moving Agenda Item VI-4 ahead of VI-3. MOTION by YOUNG; SECOND by UNA TIN to move agenda item VI-4, Review of City Council Consideration of "A Research Design and Investigation Program of Archaeological Sites Located on the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California" to VI-3. MOTION CARRIED: 6 - 0 - 4 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Price, and Willey D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96.M1N\L W\09-16-96 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Frietze asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. V. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. RECEIVE and FILE "Archaeological Investigations: Hellman Ranch, Seal Beach, California - Aerial Photographic Analysis of CA-Ora-261" , prepared for Environmental Research Archaeologists by B.A. Silva and Shawn Cibbarelli, July 1996 Recommendation: Receive and File subject document. Director Whittenberg explained the Committee did not receive the accompanying report as part of their agenda packet. It contained the aerial photographic analysis that Dr. Stickel presented at the last meeting. Staff reviewed this document and felt the material was confidential and therefore it was not put in the packet. It is available for review at City Hall, however, by any member of the Committee. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Johnston to approve the Consent Calendar. ~ MOTION CARRIED: 6 - 0 - 4 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Price, and Willey VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 7, 1996 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections appropriate. Chairperson Frietze asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 24, 1996? Member Willey arrived at 5: 10 P.M. '-' D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96 .MIN\L W\09-16-96 2 \. Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 Members Hahn and Young indicated they had not had time to review the Minutes and would abstain. Member Johnston commented that the second paragraph on page 1, which says "Member Johnson said she was confused about the agenda...". She said the sentence starting with "When she spoke to Lisa Bosalet, Lisa told her. . " was incorrect and she would like it to be changed to read "When Lisa Bosalet spoke to the Committee, she said that the Navy Station...". Member Johnston stated she had had no personal communication with Lisa Bosalet. -.... Member Johnston commented on page 2, the last paragraph which says "Member Unatin said he did not think it was in the Committee's best interest to suddenly decide it was not interested in the Navy parcel." She recalled that Member Unatin had agreed with the Committee, but at Chairman Frietze's suggestion or comment that the Committee was going to leave the Navy in limbo, that's when Member Unatin made his comment. She emphasized he did not mean that the Committee was going to drop its interest in the Navy. She felt the statement was not in the context of the discussion. Member Unatin said the minutes correctly state what he was trying to say and asked Member Johnston what sentence she felt didn't work. Member Unatin stated "If you're asking me, this is what I said. If there's something missing in between here I don't remember". Member Johnston said she remembered the issue differently. She remembered Member Unatin had agreed to do what the Committee wanted to do. Member Unatin stated said he had commented in response to Member Hahn's comments and had nothing to do with Chairperson Frietze's comments. Director Whittenberg said he would be will to listen to the tape of that meeting again. He said the Minutes recently have contained a great deal of detail on what people were actually saying. Member Johnston said her feeling is that Member Unatin actually did not agree with the other Committee members in the beginning and from what she remembered, he had agreed. Member Unatin said that while reviewing the tape might be useful he indicated that through that entire discussion he had only one point to make, and that was it seemed foolhardy to accept saying well let's just drop it because they're going to do what they want to do. Member Johnston agreed he had said that and said she agreed 100% with his recollection. Chairperson Frietze asked what was the desire of the Committee? MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey for Mr. Whittenberg to go back and review the tapes for clarification and if it comes out like this it should stay as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 7 - 0 - 3 "-' D:\WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96.M1N\L W\09-16-96 3 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Young, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price Member Johnston said that on page 2, the second to last paragraph, which reads "He felt it would be foolhardy, after the time and effort the Committee has put in at the Naval Weapons Station to suddenly decide it's not going to do it anymore because Lisa Bosalet told you about their plans. She said it should be "told the Committee". Member Unatin said he was not talking to her at that time, he was talking to Member Hahn. Member Hahn said she could not remember this and said the tape should be reviewed for accuracy. Member Unatin said the crux of the minutes are accurate, this is what was discussed. Member Hahn said she thought Member Unatin was correct. Member Unatin said Member Hahn had wanted to get right to the Hellman Ranch items. Member Hahn agreed. It was decided the tape would be reviewed for accuracy. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Unatin to approve the Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of August 7, 1996 with the corrections as noted above. '-' MOTION CARRIED: 5-0-2 AYES: Members Goldberg, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price ABST AIN: Hahn and Young 4. REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF "A Research Design and Investigation Program of Archaeological Sites Located on the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California" Recommendation:Receive and file status report re: City Council actions of August 26, 1996. The Chair noted staff recommended the Committee receive and file this status report regarding City Council actions of August 26, 1996. ~ D: I WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MIN\L WI09-16-96 4 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 Mr. Whittenberg said he had prepared a summary of what happened at the City Council meeting when they considered the research design document. Since this Committee considered the document there were comments received from a number of agencies and individuals. There were comments from the State Office of Historic Preservation, the California Coastal Commission, two local Native American organizations. Mayor Forsythe reviewed the document and did a redline/strikeout version on a number of things she had concerns about. A copy of all of those comments and the redline/strikeout version of Dr. Stickel's report has been furnished to all Committee members for their information. At the Council meeting, Mr. Bartlett submitted additional comments on Dr. Stickel's report and copies of that have been provided to the Committee as well. ~ Member Hahn asked if the City got comments back from the Army Corps of Engineers on the draft research design? Mr. Whittenberg said no, it was not sent to them. Member Hahn asked if they weren't part of the review process? Mr. Whittenberg said no, not according to the City's Archaeology Element. It's required as part of a review for an EIR however. It would not go to the Army Corps of Engineers until they get ready to do some work on a site which involves a wetland area. Member Hahn noted the entire project site involves the archaeological work as well as the wetlands and asked if Army Corps archaeologists don't have to review the research design? Mr. Whittenberg replied only if it affects a wetland area. Member Hahn asked if staff knew what the APE is for the wetlands? Mr. Whittenberg said they do for 1990 and it is down in the far western portion by the San Gabriel River. Member Hahn restated Mr. Whittenberg's comments in her words, saying that the policy has not changed and he doesn't believe they need to review the research. Mr. Whittenberg said his understanding of the current regulations is no, the Army Corps of Engineers does not have to review the research design. Mr. Whittenberg continued, indicating at the time the City Council considered the research design, staff thought the Council would be in a position to take action on the document and approve it in some format --- perhaps with changes recommended by various organizations and/or comments received. One of the comments was from the California Coastal Commission and it said if you're going to be disturbing more than two (2) square meters of surface land area on the property, as part of the test phase, a Coastal Development permit is required through the Coastal Commission to perform the test phase excavation work. That was a different response than City staff had received from their staff on an informal basis several months prior, so Staff was not anticipating having to go through that process. Once the Coastal Commission determines they need a permit to do the test phase excavations, it requires that the research design be approved by the Regional Director of the Coastal Commission. Their guidelines require that before the Regional Director can approve the research design document it has to undergo a peer review by three (3) other archaeologists. Staff, therefore, had to change it's '-" D:IWP51 \ARCHCOMMI09-1 0-96.MIN\L W\09-16-96 5 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 report and go to Council on August 26th and indicate the City received these comments from the Coastal Commission. Staff then recommended the City Council authorize staff to select three archaeologists to have this peer review done, so it can come back to the Council and then go to the Coastal Commission. The City Council agreed with this and the City is in the middle of that process right now. The three archaeologists selected to perform the peer review area: 1. Roger Mason, Chambers Group 2. Michael Macko, Macko Archaeologists 3. Henry Koerper, Professor at Cal State Long Beach ...,. Member Hahn asked if this meant that Interdisciplinary Research Associates will not be one of the review architects? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, as they were not able to meet our schedules. They had other commitments. Staff had hoped to get their comments in time to put this item back on the September 23rd Council agenda. When Interdisciplinary Research Associates indicated they could not, staff had to find another archaeologist who could take their place; staff found Dr. Koerper yesterday, September 9th. It will be on the Council agenda for October 14th. It is still in the process and staff does not know at this time how the Council will proceed. Once they see the peer review comments they will have a couple of choices --- one will be based on those comments refer it back to this Committee for an additional review of all the additional comments and then back to them for another recommendation. Another choice would be to take those peer review recommendations and deal with it themselves; that will be the Council's choice. Member Hahn asked how Dr. Koerper was selected for the third peer review? Mr. Whittenberg said the City Council gave him the authorization to select somebody. Member Hahn asked how Dr. Koerper was selected? Mr. Whittenberg said Dr. Koerper was selected because staff knew he was familiar with this area and he was able to do the work. It was a combination of general knowledge of the area and being able to do the work and do it within the time frames the City was looking for. Member Goldberg restated her understanding of the peer review process ---- that three archaeologists will review it and they will make comments on things they think should or should not be changed. Mr. Whittenberg said that was correct. Those comments will come back to the Council and the Council will decide if they're comfortable to deal with it themselves or if they want to turn it back to this Committee. Member Unatin asked if this due to the intervention of the Coastal Commission? Mr. Whittenberg indicated yes. ~ D: \WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 O-96.M1N\L W\09-16-96 6 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 Member Willey asked if the document which was given to the three peer review archaeologists was the document as it was prepared or was it the redlined version? Mr. Whittenberg said they were given both documents, as instructed by the City Council. They will be reviewing the redline/strikeout version and all of the other comments from the other agencies. Chairperson Frietze said her concern is she doesn't understand why a Mayor is censoring a research design. Mr. Whittenberg said he could not answer that question. Chairperson Frietze said that with all due respect to Dr. Stickel and all the archaeologists she has never heard of such a thing being done. She would think her job as the Mayor of Seal Beach --- (INTERRUPTED). Member Unatin asked if the Mayor was going to drop by this meeting? Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't know. ~ Chairperson Frietze continued by saying that her concern was that as her job as Mayor she should be trying to preserve any cultural or historical sites here in Seal Beach rather than trying to destroy them or get them developed. "I would think that would be her priority ... the version I saw, I was quite upset with it. I don't understand where her qualifications were to do that. Or to even take this research proposal and do the strikeout that she did ...". Mr. Whittenberg said the comment period, as required in the General Plan's Archaeological Element, is to allow anyone to comment on a research design document. Any member of the general public can comment on a document. They can propose something. But whether the City Council ultimately as a body determines to accept any of those changes or not will be something they have to decide on themselves. At this point it's a proposed document, just as comments from the other agencies are proposals for the City to consider. What happens with those proposals will be up the full Council, as a body, to make a decision. The comment period does not restrict comments to be received from only certain persons, it is to allow anyone to comment on a document. Chairperson Frietze said she felt that because she's the Mayor that it will stand on record that this is done. Despite the peer review, she felt this is setting a precedent that the Mayor can do this. Keith Till, City Manager, introduced himself to the Committee and said he didn't think this was a matter of the Mayor exercising her authority in any way. He thought it was more a matter of a City Council member who happens to represent the district in which the project would occur doing her own review and at her own initiative as an individual member of the City Council taking a shot at it and coming up with some input and fine ~ D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MIN\L W\09-16-96 7 \.. Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 tuning. This is provided to the Council as a whole and as a whole body they will take a vote on what the research design is. This is a matter of one elected official, who has a special interest in a project located in her district, providing her input into it. All the input will be provided to the full Council, who will decide the final content of the research design. Chairperson Frietze said "Well, it's just that some of the areas she covered --- I took offense. Because it pertained to Native Americans. Facts are facts, whether you strike them out or cross them out or however you want to do it, it's a fact". She said there were some comment letters from the Gabrielino Tongva and Coastal Gabrielianos that we weren't associated with the area. Realistically everybody co-habited the whole coastal territory. There were no territory borderlines. It's sad to see that they used this format to bring up problems that we had within the Native American groups. She felt some of the questions Mayor Forsythe was addressing are important to stay in the document. She wanted these statements to be a part of the Record because she wasn't very happy with the Mayor's comments. '-" Mr. Whittenberg said he felt it be helpful for the full City Council, when the research design comes back to them, if this Committee would put its disagreements with changes made by Mayor Forsythe in the Record. In that way the Council will have your concerns as a Committee regarding those issues and they will be able to consider that. Member Hahn asked if the City Council meeting in August was a public meeting or a closed session? Mr. Whittenberg said it was a public meeting. Mr. Till said Mayor Forsythe and the City Council members realize the full effort this Committee has put into this document. Many hours have been spent going line-by-line through the research design document. Then to have it redlined '" it's natural that Committee members might reactive sensitively. He said he didn't think anybody should personalize any of this comments, this is a process --- to get this to a point where the City Council as a body can agree that this is what we move forward with. Chairperson Frietze said in reading it, it effects every person differently. Member Unatin said it may have made Native Americans unhappy and asked if this process was done with the Bixby Ranch Co. proposal? Mr. Whittenberg said no, because that site was not within the Coastal zone and doesn't require Coastal Commission review. The Coastal zone boundary is anything south of Westminster A venue and anything in this zone must go through this review. Anything north of that does not have to go through the peer review process. '-" D: I WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MINIL WI09-16-96 8 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 Member Hahn asked the Chair for permission to speak. With permission granted, she said she agreed with Mr. Whittenberg's comments. She felt the Committee might consider writing a letter, right now, to be presented at the Council meeting. This would be presented at the next City Council meeting so that the Committee member's individual concerns can be heard. She said she understood what Mr. Till was saying but said she had very specific comments she would like to make, for the Mayor to take a second look at and perhaps fine tune her revisions so it meets what Dr. Stickel is trying to say. She felt the way in which it has been edited changes the meaning. The Committee should write a letter. Member Willey said she agrees with Member Hahn's comments, noting she had received and reviewed a copy of the Mayor's changes to the research design. She too was uncomfortable with the fact that as the Mayor is in a position of a certain amount of influence, she was redlining a document. She did not mind it as an individual citizen but when she received it, the cover clearly said "Redlined by Mayor Forsythe". Director Whittenberg said that when staff has documents which come from Councilmembers, staff will indicate their position on the Council, e.g., councilmember, vice-mayor, or mayor. ~ Member Willey said that is essentially secondary to certain things. There are some things that were fine, such as the clarifications which she did not have a problem with. Stating she agreed with Member Hahn's suggestion to prepare a letter to the Council, she said one of the issues needing to be addressed is the Gum Grove Park issue. But, there are a number of things which not only changed the meaning of Dr. Stickel's report, but there were references cut out here and there, there were elements of the research design which were deleted. For example, she felt it was critical to include how the individual was going to go about the research design. She was very uncomfortable having this removed. Mr. Till said the letter should do as Member Hahn suggested and collectively present their comments to the Council. However, this Committee should be aware it was a consensus of the City Council that the strikeout version, which Mayor Forsythe took upon herself to draft, was supported by the Council. It was the consensus of the Council that it should be a preferred document at this point in time. Member Hahn objected. Mr. Till said he was just making a statement of fact. It doesn't mean that that's the final document, it means that is the preferred document at this time. It comes closer, in the Council's opinion, to meeting the requirements of the City's General Plan and State law '-' D: IWP51IARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96.MINIL WI09-16.96 9 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 than did the original version. He felt the Council is open to additional comments from this Committee. After the Peer Review and Coastal Commission review the City will finally wind up with a finished product. He said again that the Committee should recognize that it was a consensus of the City Council that this document was closer to the mark than the original version. ~ Member Johnston said she could understand anyone removing redundancy in a document to achieve a more readable document. But did the Mayor have help or did she do this herself! Mr. Till said the Mayor made the changes herself. Member Johnston asked what are the Mayor's credentials in order for her to undertake those changes? Mr. Till said the Mayor's credentials were being a concerned citizen and a City representative. Member Johnston said she could understand the Mayor taking portions of the document which she personally understood or had some kind of experience in, but when you take a document and revise the whole document ... it appeared to her that the Mayor had credentials in this area. Not that she agreed with the changes the Mayor made, but it appeared to her she was credentialed and it might appear that same way to other people also. Mr. Till said "That happens a lot in this town", noting the City has down-sized the City staff a lot and we have a lot of volunteer type work done. Member Johnston said she was afraid that when the Mayor removed a pertinent paragraph or two. Mr. Whittenberg restated that's why the Committee's letter, stating it feels those paragraphs should remain in the document, are important. Member Hahn asked if a motion and second were needed? Member Goldberg said "I'm not going to be as diplomatic as you are. I think it's a real political football now. And I think her presenting the document the way she did is dividing up the community." Member Goldberg went on to say that while the Mayor may be worried about how many digs are being done and costs to the City, the Mayor must realize the costs are not to the City, it's a cost to the applicant. This is the biggest piece of land the City has, we know Native Americans were present on this site and she said "Let's do it right! Let's stop kidding ourselves, if it's going to be a political thing, then what the H_ are we doing sitting here at this Committee and giving all of our time? .., I think we're all Mickey Mousing around ... I don't know how smart or not smart the Mayor is but, the Mayor could not have done this document on her own. She is not an Archaeologist. She does not have background in Archaeology or Anthropology and I really resent this. I feel this Committee has worked their tail off and now it's coming back. And it can bypass this Committee and that's fine, that's the right of politicians - they can do that - it doesn't never have to come back to this Committee - they can sit up there on the 14th, or whatever day that is, and pass it exactly like the Mayor wanted it passed. And I agree 100% - if one of the other Council members worked along with her and represented this District and another District, I would feel ~ D:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MIN\L W\09-16-96 10 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 more comfortable. But for her to be living in this District and doing it, I don't accept that. I think it's a real political thing now". Member Willey said she had a question which goes along with what Member Goldberg said. She asked if the Mayor, as a citizen, has a right to revise the document do I have the right, as a citizen as well as a member of this Committee and as someone holding a Doctorate in Anthropology with specifically North American Archaeology as her emphasis --- do I equally have the right to come to the City Council meeting and put forth my views and disagreements with anything that's done? Or am I restricted because as a member of this Committee? Mr. Whittenberg indicated Member Willey has the right, as a citizen, to make whatever comments she felt might be necessary, over and above what you as a member of the Committee feel may be necessary. Member Goldberg commented that you will have five minutes to make those comments. Mr. Whittenberg said that speaking rule is not always enforced by the Council. Member Goldberg said she was saying that there is going to be a time limit for the people to get to the microfilm and then you will have five minutes to speak. ~ Member Hahn said this item, Item #4 on the Agenda, was a formally scheduled matter on this Committee's Agenda for the last month. Member Hahn said she had a little trouble with the fact that the Committee was not given the comments, including the Mayor's re-write, as part of the documentation that was delivered to the Committee member's doors ten days before the meeting. Member Hahn said she wound up having to go to Mr. Whittenberg's office to get these materials. Mr Whittenberg was busy when she arrived ("I don't mean to fault you for that") and couldn't locate the materials at that time. She had go back later in the day and pick up the materials, xerox the materials and mail them to the other Committee members --- because she had concerns. This cost her $60.00. She felt the City has an obligation to get the material on the Committee's Agenda as a Scheduled Matter in a timely manner so the Committee members may consider it in a timely manner, prior to the meeting. She asked for these comments to be made a part of the Record. Mr. Whittenberg responded that at this point there is not a final document under consideration by the City Council. The Council themselves still have retained the review function of the document at their level; they have not given it back to this Committee. "And yes, we didn't provide it to you as part of the Agenda packet because, quite frankly, we didn't have time to make copies of the size of this packet and get it ready with other things we were needing to get done for the Council agenda, the Planning Commission agenda, and we had two different Request for Proposals we were preparing. ~ D:IWP51 \ARCHCOMMI09-1 0-96. MINILWI09-16-96 11 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 So there were a number of other things going on. The packets were ready to give to you tonight. It was indicated in the staff report that they would be provided to you tonight". Member Hahn said "Well, there would be no time to review it, Lee". Mr. Whittenberg said "Technically it's a Council-level review at this point in time". Member Hahn said "We're the Archaeology Committee ...". Mr. Whittenberg explained "You're an advisory body to the Council and the Council has retained the right, at this point, to deal with the document. They haven't given it back to you as a Committee for any other review functions". Member Hahn said "I would like it to go on the Record that if it's a Scheduled Matter we need it in a timely manner so we can review it". Mr. Whittenberg explained "We gave you a report, which is what it was indicated to be, a status report". City Manager Till said "I think one of the things that maybe is being missed here is the fact that there is a firm commitment on the part of the City Council, City staff, and I think everybody in this room, to have a bona fide, legitimate, thorough study done here. And that this isn't a sell-out or a compromise. People can disagree on how to approach it, some of the specifics on it, but there has been no decision that... because a study costs money that it isn't going to be done properly. It's just a matter of getting to that point. That there can be agreement on the part of the people who are elected to make those judgments that we're doing it in a reasonable way that meets the law", ~ Member Goldberg said "I would like to say that this may be true, what you're saying, I'm not saying that it's not true. But if you're not going to call all the shots the way they are, then what is the sense of Dr. Stickel and his crew coming up here to the meetings and for us to show up at the meetings to make some kind of recommendation that --- I mean, this looks like a done deal. You can stand there and shake your head but I'm sure a lot of the staff that worked on this and the City Council have already figured out what they're going to do. And that's fine. I've been a politician too in another state and I know exactly how things work. And if that's what you want to do, that's fine. Then why have us, and let us look like a bunch of pawns sitting here? Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't think the Council has seen this body as a "bunch of pawns". He thinks the City Council respects what you give them. They will evaluate all of the information they get, including the Peer Review and they may decide to send it back to you, or they may not. "I don't know what they're going to do. I have no idea what they're going to do. That's their decision to make. We can make suggestions to them as to what you as a Committee feel should be done. And they will take that into consideration also. And then ultimately if you dislike the decisions the Council makes, you as a Committee need to decide how you'd deal with that issue. I make recommendations to the Council all the time. Sometimes they agree and sometimes they don't. You kind of learn that's the way the process works. Not all the time does every idea that you come up with sold to five people" . ..... D:IWP51 \ARCHCOMMI09-1 0-96. MINIL WI09-16-96 12 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 Member Young said she was wondering about the document which is redlined, asking if the whole City Council passed this already and if it was read before the last meeting? Mr. Whittenberg said the red lined document was submitted by Mayor Forsythe during the required comment period and was given to the entire City Council --- as were all the other comments received during the comment period. They have had it since August 26th. They get their packets on Thursday, before a Monday Council meeting, four days before the 26th. Member Young stated "This is like just one person's idea of how it needs to be changed, right?" Mr. Whittenberg agreed. She continued by saying that if she were just a citizen it would be okay, but since she's the Mayor it like it holds a lot of weight. All the Council members might say "Oh yeah, that's good, she's the Mayor, she must know II . Mr. Whittenberg said that if she's watched the City Council when something comes from a Council person it doesn't necessarily mean it's good. "That's up to those five people to determine what's in their minds. I can't make that judgment and I don't think you as Committee members can". ~ Member Young asked if this redlined version is the only version that the Council is considering? Did any of the other Council members prepare a version? Mr. Whittenberg said no one else submitted anything during the comment period, other than SHPO, the Coastal Commission, and the Native American groups. Now there will be three separate and individual Peer Reviews by Archaeologists of the document also. Chairperson Frietze asked if the Archaeological Advisory Committee was ever notified of the comment period? Mr. Whittenberg said "You were told once you approved the document that if there was a thirty day comment period before it went to Council. And I believe that was back in one of your earlier sets of minutes. I'd have to go back to the minutes and see." Chairperson Frietze said she would have objected. I know I would have as a group. Mr. Whittenberg asked what she would have addressed? She said she would have addressed Dr. Stickel's research design, not the redlined version. Mr. Whittenberg said "Well, you'd already made comments as a Committee." Chairperson Frietze said she was talking about herself, as an individual. Mr. Whittenberg replied "I guess at that point, I didn't understand that members of the Committee, as individuals, may have still wished to make comments. It was posted in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeology Element that there was a review ~ D: I WP51 \ARCHCOMMI09-1 0-96. MINIL WI09-16-96 13 ....... Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 period. In fact, it's still posted in City Hall --- indicating when that review period started and when it ended and the document was attached to it" . Member Unatin asked why the redlined draft put on the Committee's agenda for this evening? Mr. Whittenberg replied it was agendized for the Committee's information, along with all the other comments, so the members could see what comments were coming in on the document from interested agencies and persons. Member Hahn said she thought she might have put it on the agenda at the last meeting. Mr. Whittenberg said no, he put it on the agenda. Chairperson asked if it were the consensus of this Committee to write a letter to the City Council? Member Unatin asked when the next City Council meeting will be held? Mr. Whittenberg said the next meeting is September 23rd but this item will not be on that agenda because the City won't have the Peer Review back. This item will be on the October 14th Council agenda. ~ Chairperson Frietze restated her question on the letter. Several members said yes. One member, Mr. Unatin, said he agreed to sending the letter but not in preparing such letter tonight. He said "There's no rush. There's no reason we should have to come up with all our concerns this evening". Chairperson agreed, saying she didn't the Committee could do it this evening. Mr. Whittenberg suggested to the Committee that their next regular meeting is October 9th and the Council meeting is October 14th, if the individual Committee members would like to send their comments to him, he could package them up as a group, put them into some sort of memorandum format from the Committee and give that back to the Committee on October 9th to look at. Several Committee members made comments at one time but they seemed to reject that suggestion in favor of preparing a letter. Member Hahn said "I think we should get started tonight and I think we should do it as a body rather than taking the secretaries time". MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Johnston that the Archaeological Advisory Committee write a letter as a body to the City Council, that the preparation be started tonight and that it would be finished so that we could make sure that there would be no question that it would be presented at the October 14th meeting. Before a vote, Member said she would like to amend this Motion, adding she would like to start and finish that letter tonight. And then we can write a second letter if we have other concerns. Member Unatin said he disagreed, saying "There's nothing served by ~ D:IWP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MINIL W\09-16-96 14 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 using haste here. Are your comments listed and ready to go? Member Willey are yours?" Member Willey said her comments were written in the borders/margins. Member Hahn asked if the Committee could hold a Special Meeting between now and the Council meeting? Several of the Committee members spoke together, saying they liked that idea. Member Hahn said "0.K., then let's schedule that". Member Goldberg withdrew her Motion. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Willey to hold a special meeting to address this Committee's concerns pertaining to the Mayor's redIine/strikeout report. MOTION CARRIED: 7 - 0 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price '--' The members asked when this meeting would be held? The Chair reviewed a calendar and discussed possible dates with the members. Member Hahn asked Mr. Whittenberg again if anything would happen with regard to this item at the September 23rd City Council meeting? Mr. Whittenberg said no. Member Unatin suggested the Committee hold the meeting on September 17, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. This was the consensus of the Committee. This will be the only item on that Agenda. The Chair asked the members for suggestions on how they want to go about this Agenda so time is not wasted? Member Unatin said yes, and suggested each member list their concerns and perhaps photocopy their concerns to distribute to the other members. He then suggested that one of the members who has the time and would accept the responsibility would try to edit those comments, then the Committee can look at it again. "If you're going to complain about the redline, let's redline the redline". MOTION by Unatin, SECOND by Goldberg to hold the Special Meeting on Tuesday, September 17, 1996 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The Chair asked if a Motion were needed for the meeting date on September 17th? Mr. Whittenberg said a Motion is on the floor. The Chair asked all in favor to say" Aye". MOTION CARRIED: 7 - 0 '-' D:\ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MIN\L W\09-16-96 15 \w- Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price \w- Member Hahn asked if Dr. Stickel would be back for that meeting? She then asked Dr. Stickel if he would be attending or comments he would like to make? Dr. Stickel indicated he would attend. The Chair asked Member Hahn what her question was? Ms. Hahn said "I was just wondering if he would be able to make the next meeting since, you know, he's not going to have any opportunity to talk". The Chair said "For Tuesday? That would be up to him if he wants to address this Committee. I mean I asked earlier - -- do you wish to be put on the agenda to speak?" Mr. Whittenberg said Dr. Stickel didn't have to be put on the agenda to speak, anyone who wished to speak could speak. He suggested to Dr. Stickel that he put his comments on the redlined document in writing for submission to the Committee. Mr. Minch asked if the archaeological team would have a chance to revise the document based on the peer review comments, and to respond to areas of concern raised? Mr. Whittenberg said that if they had comments on changes that they felt he didn't have a concern with that he so indicate in writing. And, do likewise for those areas they did have concerns with. Mr. Minch asked if the comments from the peer review archaeologists will be available by the 17th? Mr. Whittenberg said no, that's why it will not be on the agenda for the 23rd. "Two of them should have theirs back I think the 25th, and Dr. Koerper, who I just gave the package to today still needs to contact me and look at it and let me know how long it's going to take him to review it. so I don't know at this point when his will be back". Mr. Minch asked when the archaeological investigation team will receive the peer review comments? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the packet of information will go to the City Council, and copies will be made available to the Committee and to Dr. Stickel, as the preparers of the document. John Minch said. "My question is again, will all the documents be made available ... had the reputation ... II (Speaking away from microphone, not heard). The Chair asked the speaker's name. He said he was John Minch and worked with Dr. Stickel on the project. He's a geologist but also works with archaeology. Mr. Whittenberg said that at this point he does not believe staff will be making any formal recommendation to the Council. Staff will be packaging up the comments and '--' D: IWP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. M1N\L WI09-16-96 16 ~ Archaeological Advisory Corrunittee Minutes September 10, 1996 saying "Here they are. These are some alternatives on how you may wish to deal with those comments and one would be to refer it back to the Committee for their further review. And then the Council is going to have to decide how they want to proceed at that point". Mr. Minch continued to speak but could not be heard on the microphone. He indicated they are very willing to listen to other people and change things that are necessary. Obviously anybody that has put forth a document has their ideas, and if other people are confused, they would wish to work that out, so there is no question about what the document says. Mr. Whittenberg again indicated that all of the peer review comments will be forwarded to Dr. Stickel for his review also. ~ Member Johnston asked if the Committee has any concerns regarding the comment letters from the Native American tribal organizations, or if any clarification was necessary? She doesn't want this to go, if it is disturbing to anyone. Member Hahn said she didn't recall seeing the letter from the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Council that was written to the Archaeological Review Committee, and she actually called Mary Ann Moore, who said the letter was sent to the City for the Review Committee to look at months ago, and she was wondering why the Committee didn't receive the letter? Mr. Whittenberg stated he would need to look at the packet, since he doesn't remember which letter Member Hahn is referring too. Member Hahn asked if Mr. Whittenberg could review this and provide an answer at the September 17 meeting. Member Goldberg asked if the three archaeologists doing the peer review are being paid? Mr. Whittenberg indicated they are, and those costs are being reimbursed by the Hellman's. Member Goldberg asked if the Committee will review the Native American letters on the 17th? Member Johnston said it is up to the Committee, she is available to provide information and to help people be more comfortable with the Juaneno's and their role. Chairperson Frietze, with the consensus of the Committee, indicated the Committee can discuss this matter on the 17th. 3. REVIEW and CONSIDERATION OF "Draft - Archaeological Site Survey of the Hellman Ranch, City Qf Seal Beach, California", prepared by Environmental Research Archaeologists, dated July 1996 Recommendation: Review and consider subject report. Provide any amendments to Archaeological Consultant for incorporation into final document ~ D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MINIL WI09-16-96 17 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 for presentation to City Council. Authorize Chairperson to sign Memorandum recommending approval of final document, with any appropriate amendments, to the City Council, or instruct staff to finalize a revised draft Memorandum for consideration at a continued Committee Meeting, or at the regular Committee Meeting of October 9, 1996. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the document was provided earlier to the Committee for review. The Committee at the last meeting decided to not utilize the sub-committee review process to review the document, and had scheduled the document for review this evening before the entire Committee. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he has prepared some comments and questions, as was done for the "Research Design" report. The first group of those comments are primarily grammatical issues, with the major comments starting at page 9 and continuing through page 11 of the staff report. Mr. Whittenberg stated he understands Dr. Stickel has just returned from a vacation, and is not sure what effort he has been able to devote to reviewing the staff report and the comments and questions. It is up to the Committee to determine how to proceed. .~ Chairperson Frietze stated her concern is with the memo from Mr. Bartlett, provided to the Committee this evening. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that memo referred to is the "Research Design" document, not the document under consideration at this time. The "Research Design" document is the one previously discussed, the redline/strikeout document. The City has not received any comments from Mr. Bartlett on the "Site Survey" report. The Chair indicated since Mr. Bartlett was here, maybe the memo could be discussed now. Mr. Whittenberg indicated those could be considered when the Committee is forming it's comments on the "research Design" report, it is not proper to be mixing comments on two different reports. Member Goldberg asked if the Committee had a copy of Mr. Whittenberg's suggestions? Mr. Whittenberg indicated his memorandum starts at page 5 of the Staff Report. Chairperson Frietze indicated it is 6:00 P.M., and how does the Committee wish to proceed? Mr. Minch indicated he and Dr. Stickel have just had a chance to review the Staff Report recently, and felt they could save the Committee a lot of time if they through the Staff Report and presented back to the Committee in a short period of time a response to the comments. A brief review of the comments indicates that many are typographical or are unclear. Many items appear to be mundane and can easily be changed. Mr. Minch indicated they are probably only a few substantive items to be discussed, and he could probably have the responses ready within a week, as he is approximately half way done already. The Committee concurred with holding this matter to a later meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this item, because of the peer review of the "Research Design" -...., D: \ WP51 \ARCHCOMMI09-1 0-96. MIN\LW\09-16-96 18 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 document, is not time-sensitive, and suggested placing this matter on the regular Committee meeting of October 9, after the Committee has dealt with the "Research Design" document. This would give Dr. Stickel and Mr. Minch additional time to respond. This was agreeable with Dr. Stickel and Mr. Minch. Member Hahn clarified that since this document will not go forward until after the City Council the "Research Design" document has been finalized, it might as well be put on a regular agenda and devote the Special Meeting for the "Research Design" comments issue. Member Goldberg concurred. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Hahn to place this matter on the October 9 Regular Meeting Agenda for review and action, and that all corrections and suggestions be included so the Committee can move along. '-' Mr. Whittenberg asked for clarification of the motion. Was it the desire of the Committee that if Committee members have comments on the document, did the Committee want those included so the Committee can consider those prior to the meeting? Member Goldberg indicated there would be time on the 9th for Committee discussion, since it will not be going to the City Council at the October 14th meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee to consider individual Committee member comments at the Regular Meeting. Mr. Minch indicated he will present their draft responses to the Committee at the special meeting. It was clarified that no action will be taken regarding this matter on September 17th. MOTION CARRIED: 7 - 0 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price Mr. Whittenberg indicated procedurally, it would be proper for the Committee to excuse Member Price since had indicated she would not be present, and not excuse the other members, since they did not indicate they would be able to attend. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Johnston to excuse the absence of Member Price. MOTION CARRIED: 7 - 0 '--' D: IWP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MINIL W\09-16-96 19 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price VII. COMMITTEE CONCERNS - None VIII. STAFF CONCERNS - None \..,- Dr. Stickel stated there has been an inordinate amount of interest in this "research design" and at this point, unfortunately, this is holding everything up. A lot of the concerns expressed here tonight, he totally agrees with, and he thinks this amplified by the review by the California Coastal Commission, which reviewed his research design. The Commission set forth six criteria for an adequate research design, and the proposed program for the most part appears to meet all six criteria. They go point by point, stating the theoretical problem, research hypothesis, data required, data collection procedures, and data analysis has been addressed, and the main question they have is curation, which he also has. He has to say he is surprised by the Mayor's redline/strikeout version, which to him seemed to go beyond comments and went into the arena of re-writing a scientific document. As a professional he has to be very careful, there is a whole profession that is looking to him to uphold the highest standards of the profession. The document that is approved, goes forward, and is the basis for doing the research on the project, has to be one that he as a scientist has written, not another version. It has to be one he has written, one that professionally he can stand behind and answer to my profession and my colleagues. There is a potential for repressment here that we have to be very careful of, that is his main concern. Dr. Stickel indicated he doesn't mind criticism and a peer review process is fine. Chairperson Frietze stated if Mayor Forsythe is such a good writer, to in such a short time, to address those documents when those with the expertise take longer to do, then maybe she should be hired as the archaeologist and do the work. Mr. Minch indicated they are not afraid of iterations on the report. Chairperson Frietze indicated Dr. Stickel has his temperaments, and nobody is perfect, however, he is very thorough, and the thoroughness has to be part of the mitigation. Without proper mitigation, it is not going to get done, it is part of the process and can't be bypassed, has to be done and include all of the parties involved. Mitigation is the whole purpose of saving money, and the sooner you can get the parties together and mitigate, in the long run money will be saved. Right now, the way Chairperson Frietze looks at it, an awful lot of money, in her personal opinion, is being spent to discredit Dr. Stickel's ~ D: I WP51 IARCHCOMMI09-1 0-96 .M1N\L W\09-16-96 20 \. \. IX. '--' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 professional research design that he drew up. Not even the Native Americans addressed the research design as thorough as Mrs. Forsythe did. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he understood the concern, but that those comments should be addressed to Mayor Forsythe and not Mr. Bartlett. Chairperson Frietze she just wanted Mr. Bartlett to understand why the Committee is so concerned. Mr. Bartlett indicated they have addressed their concerns and they are 100% behind the peer review process, and the document should be the best document possible, so we can move forward. Member Hahn indicated that while she applaud's the Mayor's effort to improve the document, and there are so typo's and repeat sentences that could be struck out without any problem, but when she start's making substantive changes in the science, that is where she has a problem. For one thing, there will be wetlands restoration involved with this project, which would probably require a Federal 404 permit. That means there is federal involvement, and that means the Secretary of the Interior's standards apply, which means that anyone who is doing the written documentation for the archaeology, would need to be an archaeologist, or have expertise in anthropology. That is the part Member Hahn is concerned about. It is one thing if you are just taking out extra language, but we do care when you start changing the meat of the document. Mr. Bartlett asked if the original aerial photographs can be viewed? Mr. Whittenberg stated yes. Member Goldberg asked if the documents were not confidential? Mr. Whittenberg indicated yes it is, but the property owner, as well as Committee members have the right to view that information at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Goldberg to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 p.m. to a Special Meeting on Tuesday, September 17, 1996, 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. MOTION CARRIED: 7 - 0 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Prietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, and Price D: IWP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96.MINIL WI('f}-16-96 21 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes September 10, 1996 V ice-Chairperson, Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of September 10, 1996 were approved on October 9 , 1996. '-' '--' D:IWP51 \ARCHCOMM\09-1 0-96. MINIL WI09-16-96 22