Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1996-10-09 CITY OF SEAL BEACH ~ ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 5:04 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Present: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston (5: 17 PM), Price, Unatin (5:09 PM), Willey, and Young Absent: Chairperson Frietze Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Mr. Whittenberg indicated Chairperson Frietze telephoned to say she would not be present this evening due to illness and that the other committee members not present had not called to say ~ they weren't going to attend, they might walk in as the meeting progresses. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Vice-Chair asked for changes to the agenda. Member Hahn requested #7 and #8 be considered in reverse order as this would allow review of the Research Design prior to consideration of letters to the Naval Weapons Station. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Willey to approve the Agenda with #7 and #8 considered in reverse order. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: NOES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey, Young None ABSENT: Members Johnston, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~ C:\My DocumentsIARCHCOMM\1O-09-96.MIN\L W\11-25-96 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 '-' Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Member Goldberg said she would like to discuss item # 1 at the Committee's next meeting but had no problem tonight with receiving and filing it. Mr. Whittenberg indicated if the Committee wished to discuss a matter on the Consent Calendar, it would need to be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the next agenda for consideration. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to approve the Consent Calendar and to move the consideration of item #1 onto the Committee's next agenda: 1. Receive and File: Archaeological Resources Protection Plan - Decommissioning of the Research, Testing and Evaluation Area, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, CA, prepared by Battelle and Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, dated 9/16/96. 2. Receive and File: Archaeological Institute of America, Orange County Section Newsletter, September/October 1996. ...... 3. Receive and File: Naval Weapons Station Site 1 - Non-Time Critical Removal Action: Request for Identification of Applicable and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 4. Receive and File: Letter from Mayor Forsythe to California Coastal Commission re Bolsa Chica Project. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-3-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Price, Willey, Young NOES: None ABSENT: Members Johnston, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze ABSTAIN: Member Hahn VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS Member Unatin arrived at 5 :09 PM. 5. Approval of Committee Minutes - September 10,1996 '-" 1O-09-96.min\LW\11-25-96 2 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 Member Goldberg asked about page 7, paragraph 2, where the Mayor is talking but there is a blank which says "(INTERRUPTED)". Mr. Whittenberg explained the audio tape had two people talking at that same point and what the Mayor was saying could not be understood. Member Goldberg asked if there were a better way to say this? Mr. Whittenberg suggested saying "unclear". Member Willey said the Minutes made sense to her as she recalled the meeting. Member Goldberg corrected page 11, paragraph 3, noting where it says "microfilm" it should be "rnicrop..hQn~". Member Goldberg corrected page 11, paragraph 4, noting where it says "she had go back later" it should be "she had 1Q go back later". Member Goldberg questioned page 17, paragraph prior to #3, "Member Goldberg asked if the Committee will review the Native American letters on the 17th? Member Johnston said it is up to the Committee...". Member Goldberg asked if this was the letter that had already been sent out? Mr. Whittenberg said it was one of the comment letters that came back when the Research Design was first circulated through all the reviewing agencies. Member Goldberg said that would be fine. '--' Member Benjamin said that on September 10th she did call in saying she had the flu. Mr. Whittenberg said that was his fault, he had forgotten. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to approve the Minutes as corrected: · Page 11, paragraph 3, "microfilmed" should be "microphone". · Page 11, paragraph 4, "she had go back later" should be "she had to go back later" . · Page 1, should indicate Member Benjamin called in with the flu. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-2-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Young NOES: None ABSENT: Member Johnston and Chairperson Frietze ABSTAIN: Member Hahn 6. Approval of Minutes: September 17,1996 Member Hahn corrected page 43, paragraph 9, "coastal resources" should be IlGYJ.t1-!.mJ resources" . ~ 1O-09-96.min\LW\11-25-96 3 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Minutes as corrected at page 43: · Page 43, paragraph 9, "coastal resources" should be "cultural resources". MOTION CARRIED: 8-0-2 AYES: Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Young NOES: ABSENT: None Member Johnston and Chairperson Frietze 8. 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. '-" Mr. Whittenberg said that based on this Committee's discussion at their last meeting, staff went through and higWighted those areas where the Committee had concerns with the Redline/Strikeout document which the Committee discussed with Mayor Forsythe at its last meeting. Staff tried to put into written form some sort of a decision process that the Council could then see what the Committee's major concerns were with that document. He said that what he prepared is his "best shot" at trying to put something into writing. He said that if the Committee was not happy with the format or had a better way of doing it that would be the Committee's decision to change. He thought it was a way to focus on each of the points discussed, and clearly indicate by referencing back to the minutes, what the discussion was and what the Committee determinations were. And for himself, he wanted to be certain he understood the concerns clearly enough so that when this gets back to the Council, if they have a question, he is setting forth the Committee's concerns in the way you would expect them to be addressed. This is a draft and please feel free to change something to improve it. Member Johnston arrived at 5:17 PM. Member Goldberg said she spent Monday and Tuesday reading and re-reading the Mayor's redline/strikeout document and also the comments that came in from the other archaeologists. She felt Dr. Stickel should pull all the corrections together and clean up the document. And submit this document, as a clean document, so that it can be submitted up to the City Council clean and legible. She felt that would be a much better way to go about it because if all the corrections from this Committee plus the corrections from the Mayor and corrections Dave (Bartlett) put into the document --- I feel that it's really going to be hard for the public to understand what's going on. At this point, she didn't feel the document is as professional as it could be. She thought this would help clear things up. Things that need to be corrected be corrected. And she thought then Dr. Stickel could say this is really his document because the '-" JO-09-96.min\L W\11-25-96 4 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 wording would be his wording and not the wording of the City Councilor the Committee's wording or other people's wording. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Hahn that Dr. Stickel take the responsibility to not re-write the document, but to clear the document up and make it legible so it really becomes a good scientific document for all of us to study. Dr. John Minch said they had already done that, i.e., taken the Mayor's things, what was said last week at the Committee meeting. We haven't seen the other archaeological reviews, the reviews of the three other archaeologists. They have tried to take everything except in a couple of minor cases where it was (unclear). Member Goldberg said she would still like to have a second, and see what the Committee would say and if this is already done, then you've answered the type of information that this Committee has been seeking. Member Hahn said she would Second the Motion with the amendment that although they started on doing that already, but I'd like them to consider the comments that came from the Peer Review as well as the Minutes reflecting the discussion at this Committee's last two meetings and the Mayor's comments. Not only to consider what has already been presented to us but the information that has come in since that point. In that case I would Second the Motion. ~ Member Benjamin asked what Dr. Stickel thinks of this Peer Review? Dr. Stickel said the Peer Review was fine, he had no problem with Peer Review. It's just that he thinks it's a question of a conflict of interest with some of the archaeologists who did it because they're on the list for the city for future projects. Normally, Peer Review is done with people that are totally neutral and not involved or potentially involved in the project at all. It should be completely objective and scientific and so on. He has not seen these comments and was disappointed he was not provided with them. Mr. Whittenberg said he was surprised as the packet was mailed to Dr. Stickel at the same time it was mailed to the Committee. They were mailed Thursday or Friday night. Dr. Stickel said he has not received them. Dr. Stickel said would check his mail again. Mr. Whittenberg indicated if they still have not arrived staffwill re-mail the documents to him. Member Unatin asked when will the City Council meeting be held to consider the RedlinelStrikeout issue? Mr. Whittenberg said the Council's next meeting is October 28th. He was not sure the Council would have this on their agenda because there's not enough time before that meeting for staff to prepare a report which will include everything that has happened, including tonight's discussion. He said he will be on vacation for two weeks and will not be back October 27th. The Council will most likely consider this issue November 11 tho '-" 1O-09-96.min\LW\11-25-96 5 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 Member Unatin restated the Council meeting dates and asked staff how sure he was it would not be heard on October 28th? Mr. Whittenberg said he was not sure at this point and indicated the City Manager will decide when it will be considered. He will make that decision probably at the middle part of next week. Member Unatin asked the City Manager's name and then asked what would be a good time to telephone him? Mr. Whittenberg said it would probably be best to telephone Mr. Till in the middle of the week. Mr. Whittenberg said that based on what he's hearing now, if there's a Committee consensus to have the document cleaned up again, (1) would the Committee want to take a look at the cleaned up version and then forward that to the Council with a recommendation. or (2) would the Committee want to forward the document without looking at it? The Committee said no, they would not want to forward a document without having looked at it first. '-' Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Committee might want to schedule a meeting for that review purpose in early November; it would go to Council after that. It would be a much cleaner document without all the background stuff attached to it. Member Hahn said she wanted to amend her Second to the Motion to add that this he considered with a few changes she wanted to recommend. She noticed some errors where she was quoted. Member Benjamin commented on the Peer Review saying that sometimes there's jealousy involved and sometimes she had the feeling they would love to have the job that you're doing. So she could not be sure they were being objective. Dr. Stickel said it's a well-known situation in California that California archaeologists are very contentious with one another. No one likes the other's work. I think I can wade through that. I will predict that the comments are negative. If they were complimentary I'd probably be shocked. He thought he could wade through rhetoric and get to some legitimate points. If there are positive things that can be changed that's fine. He said he's been around the block when it comes to methodology and went on to demonstrate where he had been quoted by other noted people in the field, by providing several books to the Committee and reviewing them with the Committee. "In all honesty, I can say tell you that I am more widely published in methodology than any of the archaeologists chosen to critique my work. That's not to say I'm going to take them seriously and if they have positive things to say and I can make changes, that's fine. I've gone through this process many times before and I've been very disappointed ". ....... 1 0-09-96.min\L W\I 1-25-96 6 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 Mr. Whittenberg added that of the three Peer Review archaeologists that provided comments, only one represents a finn that is on the on-call contract basis with the City, the other two are not. Those two not on the on-call basis have no capability of doing any work on the project. Dr. Stickel asked how they were selected? Mr. Whittenberg said the Coastal Commission guidelines state that if the City, or the County if applicable, has archaeologists on staff the Peer Review should be done by those archaeologists. The City's first choice then were the two other archaeologists which the City uses on a rotating basis. One of those finns indicated they did not do the work in the time and dollar amount the City had stipulated on; they dropped out. Council then authorized staff to choose two other archaeologists off the certified list for Orange County. The first two staff phoned said yes. Member Hahn asked how those two were selected? Mr. Whittenberg said mainly by name identification, people that I was familiar with in reading stuff that's been going on in Orange County. One was Dr. Koerper and the other was Mike Macko. In response to a question from a member of the Committee, Mr. Whittenberg indicated each one of them was authorized not to exceed $1000 for a cost to do everything for the Peer Review. '-" Member Unatin said he didn't get a copy and asked ifhe could get a copy. Mr. Whittenberg said a copy should have been delivered to his office, noted he didn't have extra copies here tonight but would re-send copies tomorrow. Mr. Bartlett asked Mr. Whittenberg if the peer review, in his opinion, met all the requirements of the Coastal Commission? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. They just require three Peer Reviews of the Research Design be done before they can issue a permit to do the test phase excavations on the property. They don't really care who those archaeologists are. They just say if you have some on staff, you should use those people first. Then if you have to pick others, they should be certified in whatever County you happen to be dealing with. Member Johnston asked what happens to the peer review? Does it go to the City Council? Do they get all the peer reviews? Mr. Whittenberg said the Peer Reviews are provided to the City Council and will ultimately, at this point I'm not sure, --- the Peer Review process comes in because the Coastal Conunission requires that in order to approve the Research Design. So the Peer Reviews also need to go to the Coastal Commission. This would be a strange situation because if the document is substantially revised based on some of the Peer Review comments he was not sure how valid the Peer Reviews would be at that time. That will be something the Coastal Commission has to deal with. .... IO-09-96.min\LW\II-25-96 7 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 '-' Member Johnston asked if Dr. Stickel would take the Peer Reviews and try to incorporate them or try to see what they have? Mr. Whittenberg said that was the Motion and Dr. Stickel indicated he would be doing that anyway. Member Johnston said she got the Peer Reviews yesterday and read all three. She felt on a professional level she could accept the Chambers Group review than the other two. She had a lot of problems with Koerper's review, and Macko made a statement she had some questions on. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Committee was not here to discuss the Peer Reviews. The Committee is here to talk about the Research Design and how you want to deal with that document. Dr. Stickel will evaluate their comments as he is cleaning up his document and ifhe thinks there are valid comments, he is sure Dr. Stickel will respond to them ifhe thinks they are valid. Dr. Minch said he would break the comments into parts if there are multiple parts, and provide the comment and a response. '--' Mr. Whittenberg said that was like what was done on the comments from him regarding the Research Design document. Mr. Minch continued, indicating that way the Committee will know if they agree or disagree with the peer review comment. Member Unatin asked which group worked on the little project, Chambers Group or Macko? Mr. Whittenberg said Chambers Group started on it and then Interdisciplinary Research Associates finished it. Member Unatin indicated Chambers Group received negative comments from Dr. Stickel. Dr. Stickel disagreed, with members of the Committee also disagreeing. Vice-Chainnan Fitzpatrick said he would like to come to some closure on this. He asked Member Hahn to speak. Member Hahn commented for the record that she wished the Committee's concerns would be forwarded to the three Peer Review archaeologists. It looks as though they did consider the comments from Mr. Bartlett and SHPO, the Coastal Commission, and Native American tribes and the City Council --- everyone but us. She just wanted to make a point of that. Member Unatin said they had the minutes to review. Member Goldberg said that all this is after-the-fact as a Motion is on the floor which has been Seconded. The Committee is getting away from what the Motion is and what we're asking to Dr. Stickel to do. Ms. Hahn said she Seconded the Motion with amendments. Ms. Goldberg said she accepted the amendments. '-' 1O.Q9-96.min\LW\11-25-96 8 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 MOTION RESTATED: MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Hahn to ask Dr. Stickel to put together, not to re- write the entire Research Design, to make the language smoother, very professional, and incorporate as many as possible wishes that the Committee has made and which have already come before the Committee through the developer plus information the Committee received from Mayor Forsythe plus Member Hahn's amendments -- which were to consider the comments that have come in since the packet was prepared for the City Council, including the Peer Review archaeologists and including her comments she presented and dated October 9,1996 for the corrections on page 36. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Young NOES: ABSENT: None Chairperson Frietze '-' Dr. Minch asked if they could be given all the materials in one packet? Mr. Whittenberg confirmed. Dr. Minch said he could have someone pick it up at City Hall. Mr. Whittenberg said he would call him tomorrow. Member Goldberg asked Dr. Stickel what is a reasonable deadline? Since you're already working on it. Dr. Minch indicated it will depend on the peer review comments, probably a week to two weeks. Mr. Whittenberg said that from his standpoint, two weeks would be sufficient. He's going to be on vacation for the next two weeks. If it comes back sooner, nothing will happen to it until he does get back into work on October 28. Member Goldberg asked if there will be time for this Committee to meet before the Council would consider anything? Mr. Whittenberg said it would make the most sense to assume we get something back from Dr. Stickel about October 28th and the Committee may want to consider adjourning to a date in early November to review that document. That way it will go to the City Council later in November. Member Willey asked if the City Council is not meeting on the 14th of October? Mr. Whittenberg said no, they are not meeting; it was canceled. Their next meeting is October 28th. '-' 1O.09-96.min\LW\1 1-25-96 9 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 7. Review and Consideration of a Proposed Letter to the Naval Weapons Station re: Utilization of Native American Resource Committee Members for Review of Project Sites Prior to Formulating Request to State Office of Historical Preservation. [Continued from May 22,1996] Mr. Whittenberg said this item was last on the Committee's agenda on May 22nd. It has been continued several times. At this time, you've asked staff to prepare a letter on to send to the Navy. If you still desire to send the letter, the dates need to be changed and the Committee should review the letter to ensure the language is appropriate, if the Committee determines to send the letter. '-" Member Goldberg asked if this was sent in May? Mr. Whittenberg said no. It was on the agenda but was continued. Member Willey asked if this is the letter Lisa Bosalet was so upset about and felt was unnecessary? Mr. Whittenberg said it may have been. There was a concern of the Committee that both sides needed some pre-review before a letter went off to SHPO. He didn't recall Lisa's exact position, he would have to refresh his memory by looking at the Minutes again. It came out of concerns that there should be, in the Committee's opinion, should be some reviews of areas where they are doing construction work in the future, installation site recovery by Native American representatives before they even formulate a letter to SHPO. Member Willey said she would still like to see the letter sent. MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Goldberg to instruct the Chairman to sign the proposed letter. Ms. Hahn asked for clarification as to what the letter does. Member Willey explained this is a letter encouraging the Navy to have Native Americans involved in a project before they went to SHPO and not as an afterthought. Member Hahn asked if archaeologists would be involved or would it be just Native Americans? Member Willey said the Navy has their own set-up for using archaeologists, but her memory of why the Committee did this is that there is no indication of when the archaeological proposal as put forth by the Navy that there had been any input from Native Americans. For example, walking over the site beforehand with the archaeologists and the Navy. It was encouragement to them to involve Native Americans before it was already a done deal, a document was prepared, and it was being sent to SHPO. Member Hahn asked if this would be the Native American monitor the Navy has under contract or would it be open to all Native Americans or just a select group? Member Willey said that may have been the sticking point. Mr. Whittenberg said the way the letter is constructed it says by the Native American re.s'Ource committee members because Member Johnston indicated her tribal group has that type of a committee structure. '-' IO-09-96.min\LW\11-25-96 10 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, J 996 Member Willey indicated she believed Chairperson Frietze had indicated they have a similar tribal structure, rather than an official monitor. Member Johnston said we have done that, and have been allowed that type of visit at El Toro. We have gone on that type of a visit with private owners on the property where they are developing. She didn't understand why the Navy is not cooperating. The Navy has taken over the El Toro site too, and we are allowed site visits, we are setting one up with them. She is confused as to why it is an issue. Mr. Whittenberg, thinking back to the discussion, said she was giving the viewpoint of Lisa and he wasn't sure that her viewpoint might reflect the viewpoint of the Commanding Officers of the base. The letters was to put this issue on the table for them for consideration. Obviously, we can't force them to do anything but at least this will bring the issue to them and hopefully they'll consider it in a positive manner. '-' Member Johnston said she thought El Toro had allowed two site visits by Native American groups. She was also hoping they will allow this at the Weapons Station. Member Hahn said she would be in favor of this if they also invite Committee members. The Committee members mayor may not want to go but they could invite us. Member Goldberg indicated she thought there may some legal issues involved. Member Willey asked if this should be done in two letters, one addressing the major concern that American Indians have the opportunity, and two, another separate letter, offering the Committee the same invitation. In that way, it would keep the issues separate and perhaps make them more easy to handle. If there are legalities involved, for example the Committee's being a part of the City and the Navy being part of the Federal government, it would separate the issues. I'm reiterating my Motion that the letter be updated to reflect the correct dates. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Young NOES: ABSENT: None Chairperson Frietze Member Goldberg asked Member Hahn if she wanted to make a Motion on the second matter. Ms. Hahn said she wasn't feeling well and wanted time to review the wording of the letter; she would pass at this time. 9. Review and Consideration of Draft - Archaeological Site Sun'ey of the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, CA, prepared by Environmental Research Archaeologists, dated July 1996. ~ 1O-09-96.min\LW\11-25.96 11 ~ Archaeological AdvIsory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 Mr. Whittenberg said this item had been on the Committee's previous agenda but was continued to allow the Committee to review the Research Design at that prior meeting. The Committee received a site survey report with a memo from staff, dated September 10, 1996. Drs. Stickel and Minch provided their responses to those concerns at the September 17 meeting. He also prepared a staff report which addressed a couple of remaining concerns. It's up to the Committee whether they want to proceed and start discussion on this document prior to finalizing the Research Design. In response to a question from Member Goldberg, Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Site Survey Report has not been presented to the City Council and will not until the research design document has been approved. Member Goldberg said she was concerned the City could come back and say "we're not going to waitfor Dr. Stickel's cleaned-liP text", should the Committee be working on this document so there's a back-up just in case? Mr. Whittenberg said this document is based on the Research Design document and until that document is approved by the Council he didn't know if the Committee would want to give the Council this document prior to the Research Design. It may work out that you could forward them both concurrently, because they would then be looking at this without the basis of the Research Design, without the knowledge of what the foundation and general parameters are. '-" Member Goldberg asked if this should be tabled until the research design has been approved, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating that is a decision of the Committee. You may want to discuss the concerns expressed to this time to provide direction to Dr. Stickel. Member Hahn indicated she felt the document should be tabled. Mr. Bartlett asked if the site survey became a part of the Research Design, and if so, in reading through the comments that were drafted by Dr. Minch, it sounds like they will all be part of one document at some point. If that's the case, where does the Coastal Commission come in? Mr. Whittenberg said the Coastal Commission will review the Research Design document; that's their level of interest. That is because they cannot issue a permit for excavation work until they have reviewed the Research Design. All the other portions of the packet would be separate documents and would not be something the Coastal Commission would consider. His understanding is they will be like separate chapters of one large book. Member Hahn asked Dr. Stickel if he had more information since the site survey which he could present, she understood he was looking at some photos? Dr. Stickel said he didn't have anything quite ready. Mr. Whittenberg said he felt he was hearing that the Committee would favor tabling this matter and bring it back concurrently with the review of the updated Research Design or at a separate meeting? Member Goldberg asked how much difference are they going to find between what we are going to need to do this document? Dr. Stickel said none from his point of view because the survey report is just actual data, theory is not very involved. There's some methodology but it's ~ IO-09-96.min\LW\11-25-96 12 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 already been done. You run the transect over the sites and tabulated all those shell species and artifacts and so on, and we know the true size of the sites now. The research design now, because it's been done by this grand archaeological committee, with everybody playing into it. Now we have to search through all this and see what makes sense to us professionally to present to you. That would be our version, I think they're separate issues. Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't see much necessity to change anything in the site survey based on whatever might be done in the Research Design because one just says how you're going to do stuff and the other is really talking about what you're finding out there. MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Benjamin to table Item #9, the Site Survey Report, until the updated Research Design has been submitted to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Young NOES: ABSENT: None Chairperson Frietze '-" VII. COMMITTEE CONCERNS More Rotating Archaeologists: Member Goldberg said she was concerned with the City's list of the three rotating archaeologists. She said no member of this Committee is a permanent member and the members are renewed every year. This Committee has gotten more informed as they have been doing their homework. She wondered if there was any way to present something to the City to say that maybe we should be taking a list of other archaeologists that are in the community. Especially since one of them seems to be extremely busy and another one in which a Committee member doesn't have much faith in, Is there any way more people could be added to the list? With the idea of the Committee talking to some of the people about their work. With the aim of trying to get a more professional type oflist. Mr. Whittenberg said he would have to check the contracts to see if they're for a certain period of time. He thought it was a three or four year time period and then the City would go through a new selection process. He will report back at the next meeting. Member Goldberg asked if this could be put on as an action item because we may want to say to the City that three is not enough and five rotating archaeologists would be best. Member Price not absent: '--' 1O-09-96.min\LW\II-25-96 13 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 ~ Member Price said she was marked as absent at the last meeting but she was here. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the minutes would be corrected. Timely receipt of documents & review meeting: Member Hahn said she wanted to make sure the Committee receives the documents and schedule a special meeting to review the revised Research Design at least one week prior to the City Council meeting. There must be an Agenda item to discuss, comment on and make recommendations to the City Council based on the revised Research Design. She wanted that in the record. Aerial Photography: Mr. Bartlett said Member Hahn had indicated Dr. Stickel was doing some work relating to aerial photography and he had requested the aerial photographs two months ago but have not received them. He was curious as to what type of work Dr. Stickel is doing. Dr. Stickel said the work is on hold. Mr. Whittenberg said that's an issue to deal with outside the Committee. "--' VIII. STAFF CONCERNS - None IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Whittenberg advised the Committee's next meeting is December 4th and if they wish to meet in November they need to continue this meeting. The committee discussed meeting in early November. In response to a question from Member Hahn, Dr. Stickel advised he could have the revised Research Design back to the Committee by October 28th, and Mr. Whittenberg indicated he could provide it to the Committee the following day. In response to a question from Dr. Stickel, Mr. Whittenberg indicated he could bill for the time to revise the document in accordance with the motion of the Committee. MOTION by Price; SECOND by Hahn to adjourn the regular meeting to Wednesday, November 6, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0-1 AYES: Benjamin, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Price, Unatin, Willey, and Young ~ JO-09-96.min\LW\11-25-96 14 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes October 9, 1996 '-' NOES: ABSENT: None Chairperson Frietze Vice-Chairperson, Archaeological Advi ory Committee ~ Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of October 9, 1996 were approved on N~v ~ ,1996. ~ JO-09-96.min\L W\11-25-96 15