Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1996-11-12 CITY OF SEAL BEACH '-' ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITI'EE ADJOURNED MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Frietze called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. ll. ROLL CALL Absent: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn (5:05 PM), Price, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze Members Fitzpatrick, Hahn, Johnston, and Unatin Present: Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director ~ Mr. Whittenberg indicated he had heard from members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Unatin, and they would not be present this evening. He had not heard from Member Hahn, and perhaps she has been held up in traffic. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to excuse the Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Dnatin MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Price, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Hahn, Johnston, and Dnatin ID. APPRO V AL OF AGENDA MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Price to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 '-" C:\My Documents\ARCHCOMM\II-12-96.MIN.doc\Jwlll-25-96 '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12, 1996 A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Price, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Hahn, Johnston, and Unatin IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Frietze asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. V. CONSENT CALENDAR - No Items VI. SCHEDULED MA TIERS Member Hahn arrived at 5:05 PM. 1. Review of Revised Version of "A Research Design and Investigation Program of Archaeological Sites Located on the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California" '-' The Chair indicated staff's recommendation was to review this document and authorize the Chair to sign a memorandum from the Committee to the City Council recommending reconsideration of the revised document and consideration of any appropriate amendments or instruct staff to finalize the revised draft memorandum for consideration at a continued Committee meeting or at a regular meeting on December 4, 1996. The Chair asked if all Committee members had read the revised version of the Research Design? The members indicated they had. The Chair asked for comments. Change to Context Member Goldberg asked Dr. Stickel if the submitted corrections contained anything which changed the overall document? Was the context changed or was the document simply cleaned up? Dr. Stickel said the document was basically cleaned up. He did address issues such as SHPO coordination, we inserted that SHPO will be coordinated with. '-' 11-12-96.MIN.doclLW\II-25-96 2 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12, 1996 Proofread Document Member Goldberg suggested spell-checking and proofreading the document again, saying she noted typographical errors. Other than that, she didn't anything of significance. Redwine Member Benjamin said the document mentions Redwine, and asked if he was a Ph.D.? Dr. Stickel said no, he was a student. Member Benjamin said Dr. Stickel had thought Redwine's work was pretty good considering his qualifications and the time period, the 1950's. '-' Paee 40: Site Relocation's Member Benjamin said there is one sentence at Section 4.0 on new page 40, third line, which says, "As part of a survey, any previously reported sites will be relocated." She said she could not quite understand what Dr. Stickel planned to do. Dr. Stickel explained that at the time this was written the intent was to relocate the thirteen sites which were previously reported for the property by all of the other archaeologists. Since he has done a site survey, that relocation has now been done. Explaining that a Research Design is supposed to precede field work, so it must read as anticipating work to be done. After these items have been reported on, the archaeologist goes back and notes what has been done. He said he would liked to have relocated where they actually dug their pits but that couldn't be done because the information couldn't be discerned from the surface indications, and that's why we did remote sensing. Page 41: Data Recovery Proeram Member Hahn said she was sorry to have arrived late. Referencing page 41, second paragraph, fifth line, she asked if, in the corrections, the data recovery program changed? She could not find the information. Dr. Stickel said the corrections must be correlated. He asked who had made the comment? Ms. Hahn said she thought it was Mason's comment; page 5 of his response. Dr. Stickel referred the Committee to page 31, the major paragraph in the middle of the page, beginning with "Field work at the Hellman site ...", at the sixth line the sentence reads "The mitigation alternative often selected for significant sites is the conduct of a mitigation phase or data recovery program." That reflects the correction. Paee 43. 3.0: Test Phase Program Member Hahn said she could not find the change that was to be made. Dr. Stickel said it's now on page 33. The first paragraph under the Roman numeral says "These questions can only be adequately answered by a text phase program" (not data recovery program). The reason Dr. Stickel felt the change was appropriate is some people reserve data recovery only for mitigation and not for test phase. Mr. Whittenberg noted that change was made on the handout provided by Dr. Stickel. '-" 1 1-12-96.MIN.docILWII 1-25-96 3 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12, 1996 California Coastal Commission Member Goldberg asked Mr. Whittenberg if the document were totally accepted as submitted tonight, how would the process proceed with the City Council and the California Coastal Commission? The Coastal Commission made recommendations and Dr. Stickel corrected those recommendations. Mr. Whittenberg said the document has not formally been submitted to the Coastal Commission, they have not seen the peer reviews. They requested an initial copy of the Research Design and at that point their understanding was they would not need to issue a permit for the test phase excavation work. Mr. Whittenberg continued, indicating in order to get a permit to perform test phase excavations on the property, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission needs to approve the Research Design. Once the City Council approves the Research Design, then it will be forwarded to the Coastal Commission, along with the Peer Review Comments, Dr. Stickel's response to those comments and the document in whatever form the City Council deems to approve it in. He didn't know what the Coastal Commission's process would be from that point. Member Goldberg asked if we were give an OK on it, and the City Council were to make changes to the document, how would the document reflect those changes? Mr. Whittenberg if the City Council makes no changes, this document with the corrections inserted would go to the Coastal Commission. ~ Member Benjamin asked who stopped the Mola Co. development proposal, the City Council? Mr. Whittenberg said that was a totally different issue, one he did not wish to deal with at this time. He would be happy to discuss those matters at another time. Page 31: SHPO * Determination of Significance Mr. Whittenberg said there were a few spots in the document that use the same language and this needs to be reviewed to have the language consistent. Dr. Stickel said he didn't know if he should cite that each time, as he would actually like to put that in the abstract. Mr. Whittenberg said he felt it would be less confusing to have the language consistent. Dr. Stickel said he had no problem with this. Dr. Stickel restated the language under discussion. Change Title Page Mr. Whittenberg suggested changing the title page to show a November date, rather than a May date. This would be helpful to the City Council. Dr. Stickel agreed. Member Goldberg concurred. Page 49: Reburial Agreement Member Hahn asked if Dr. Stickel would be drawing up a reburial agreement in consultation with the tribes and SHPO? Dr. Stickel said he thought there should be an agreement. But he can't have an agreement until we have an agreement. Dr. Minch indicated the questions relates to a statement in the research design document which indicates a reburial agreement is provided at page 49. Member Hahn .~ 11-12-96.MlN.doclLW\II-25-96 4 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12, 1996 indicated she understood you first need to have a meeting with the Native Americans and decide what it should contain. Chairperson Frietze indicated each Native American tribe would have their own reburial agreement. Dr. Stickel indicated he intended to say that this should be done in the proper way and at the proper time, it may be premature at this time. Member Hahn felt a statement should be included indicating where this agreement will be placed. This would make it clear that this is a part of the document. Chairperson Frietze said she had never seen such an agreement in a Research Design. She noted each tribe usually has its own agreement with a developer. Member Hahn clarified it wouldn't go in a research design document. Dr. Stickel said he has never seen one before, with Dr. Minch suggesting the wording could be changed to say "A reburial agreement will be developed" and take out" and included". The Committee agreed to this proposed change. Mr. Bartlett indicated the Hellman's attorneys felt the proper procedure to develop a reburial agreement was to write a letter to the State Office of Historic Preservation and ask for the "most likely descendent". Their attorney wrote a letter, and SHPO responded. While he had not seen the letter, he thought there was a verbal response, their was a previous agreement between the previous developer and the Gabrieliano, Vera Rocha signed it. Larry Myers from SHPO said he didn't think the most likely descendant has changed. Hellman has made some preliminary efforts to address this concern. ~ Chairperson Frietze indicated that was interesting, and asked Mr. Bartlett if the State Office of Historic Preservation was telling him that the Rocha I s are the family that is the most likely descendent or simply that they serve in that capacity? Mr. Bartlett said it was his understanding, from talking to their attorneys, that Ms. Rocha was the most likely descendent previously and that she still is. Dr. Stickel thought there were other Gabrielino I s who would challenge that. Opinions on Research Design Chairperson Frietze asked how the Committee felt about the revised, updated Research Design? Member Willey said that on the whole she liked it very much. She felt comfortable with it and it has clarified things and is more tightly put together. She caught a couple things she questioned: Page 20. line 4: "Not mentioned at all in any of the site descriptions all ...", the second "all" should be removed. She stated she did not have a newly revised page 20. Dr. Minch indicated this is a good correction. Page 20: Spelling correction. Change "opinion" to "poignant". Page 28: A period is missing at ".. 700 bags qf artifacts or ecqfacts". Dr. Stickel said this is in his new version. '-" 1 1-12-96.MIN.doclLW\1 1-25-96 5 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12, 1996 Page 29: Redundancy needs to be clarified: "The other sites have been inadequately explored, therefore the potential still remains for them as well until such time as adequate archaeological investigation of each site is conducted the potential still remains for them as well." The last clause seems redundant. There was discussion on commas and periods. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that after correcting the punctuation, the last clause is still redundant, with Dr. Minch agreeing to remove the last ". . the potential still remains for them as well. " Page 30. paragraph 2: Correct the paradox. You say, "In Summary, despite four decades ofintennittent CRM work on the Hellman Ranch site, the research has been of poor quality. None of the subsequent projects have equaled, let alone, surpassed the amateur research of Redwine, the first to professionally explore the sites. "Amateur" and "professional" are paradoxical. Dr. Stickel said he was considering changing the word "amateur" to "student". He would refer to Redwine as a student throughout the entire document. Mr. Whittenberg said the concern was that Redwine was not a professional archaeologist. Redwine was an Anthropology major at the under graduate level. After discussion, Dr. Stickel suggested replacing "amateur" with "student", and "professional" with "systematically". '-' Page 30: Change "buried" to "burial." "An even greater loss to our understanding of the subject was the failure to addressed buried data." Dr. Stickel said that should be "burial" data. She wanted to know if he was keeping that term or using "human remains"? Dr. Minch said it should be "human remain data." Page 30: ".. and the grossly unprofessional discard of 700 bags of artifacts. " Member Willey wanted to know what the decision was on using "artifacts/ecofacts." This change was agreed upon by Dr. Minch. Dr. Minch said that correction didn't show up because there was a hyphen that goes right to his "S" in search for artifacts. Page 31. paragraph 3: "In order to test this project's hypothesis a multi-disciplinary team was assembled. They will be presented below." She suggested saying "Their qualifications will be presented below". Dr. Stickel agreed. Dr. Stickel then indicated he thought this got changed somehow, it should state "Their qualifications and areas of expertise are presented below. " Page 38. paragraph 5: "Once these disturbed areas are demarcated on site maps, a suitable sampling program will be devised, incorporaling random sampling and/or judgmental units." Member Willey wanted to know if a decision had been made on this? Dr. Stickel said it has to be a little bit of both because, for example, if the '-' 11-12-96.MlN.doclLW\II-25-96 6 '-'" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12, 1996 aerial photographs show a potential house ring --- you have to place a judgmental unit to test that. That is why it can't be strictly one or the other. Dr. Willey agreed. Page 16: Mr. Whittenberg said the document was talking about the Clevenger work going on during this work, and is that basically a true statement? Dr. Stickel indicated it was at the time, and he is still comfortable with the statement. Page 38. paragraph 2: Member Hahn questioned the sentence which says "The entire test phase program, i. e. , the entire scope of the Cultural Resource Management Program ..." the test phase is only part of it, correct? Shouldn't "test phase" be changed to "the entire program". It seemed to her that the whole thing will be determined in consultation with the Planning Department. Dr. Stickel agreed. After discussion among the committee, Mr. Whittenberg suggested "The scope of the Cultural Resource Management Program will be determined ..." The Committee and Dr. Stickel agreed. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Benjamin to approve the updated and corrected version of the ERA, now dated November 1996. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 '-' A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey , Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Unatin Member Hahn asked if a letter needed to be written to the City Council to that effect? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that in the staff report he provided a draft memorandum which could be signed by the Chairperson to the Council indicating what the Committee's recommendation is. It's divided in half because the Committee had made a suggestion for a number of changes to be made to the last version of the document. The proposed memorandum is Attachment I to the Staff Report. Member Hahn asked if this was Mayor Forsythe's version? Mr. Whittenberg indicated no. The memorandum will reference the Committee's review tonight and the review and concerns noted at the previous meeting with the Mayor. It's structured to take an action to recommend approval of this document with any changed felt appropriate, and further, the memorandum says you as a Committee still feel that Gum Grove needs to be included in the test phase work. The second part of the memorandum is Exhibit 2, which relates to all of the changes the Committee had asked Dr. Stickel to make in your review of the document in September. '-" 1 l-I2-96.MIN.doclLW\1 1-25-96 7 '-" Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12,1996 \. Member Willey said the first Exhibit makes sense in terms of the corrections made today. The blanks can be filled in. The second Exhibit seems useless, because its actually what the Committee did after all the things they went through. The Committee finally came down to the point where it said the ERA has all these things to look at, just go off, rewrite it, and give it back to us to look at. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this was prepared to allow the Committee to determine how to proceed, it can modified at the pleasure of the Committee. Member Willey indicated that to include Exhibit 2 would be extraordinarily confusing. She said that after reading four pages of Exhibit 2 she threw up her hands in exasperation. She recommended completely ignoring Exhibit 2 and not making it a part of the memorandum. Mr. Whittenberg said he was not sure of how the Committee wanted to deal with this situation because the same issues may come up with the Council bringing back one redline/strikeout version. At least at that point they would have something from this Committee saying that you thought of it. Member Willey said it would be at that point where this Committee would be better off saying that it would be appropriate for the City Council to review the revised document and take it as the essential document as a new baseline, instead of trying to sort through the previous iterations of Dr. Stickel's document. This is now Dr. Stickel's document again. Member Goldberg said she would like a simpler document sent to the Council. She didn't want the long letter mentioning about Gum Grove Park or anything. Now, we are looking at the whole project she would like to have a broader statement saying that the Committee accepted tonight the updated version, which it passed with small corrections. The document the Council will look at is the total corrected document. In the City Council packet, if staff wants to put minutes of all the other meetings, or the redline/strikeout version that would be fine. This Committee doesn't care what happened prior to tonight. We don't want to separate things, such as bringing Gum Grove Park as a separate issue. Member Hahn said she agreed with the last two speakers and felt the Committee should decide on the wording for its letter and have the secretary write a new letter which is simpler which is more to the point, that we are encouraging the Council to adopt the November version of Dr. Stickel's document. Mr. Whittenberg said this could be done by going through the memorandum and making changes to it. If the Committee wants its recommendation to go to the City Council on Monday, the Council's agenda packets are going out tomorrow or Thursday. He suggested , that in the second paragraph, where it says liThe Archaeological Advisory Committee recommends acceptance of the subject document, dated November 1996, by the City Council, with the understanding that the proposed amendments set forth in Exhibit 1 are fully considered by the City Council. " '-' 11-12-96.MIN.docILWIII-25-96 8 ....... Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 12, 1996 Member Hahn suggested deleting everything after "November 1996." She felt there was no necessity to go further and include Exhibits 1 and 2, etc. This document makes extensive reference to the Forsythe version. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he suggested the above language as he was not sure if a corrected document could be prepared by tomorrow for the City Council packets. Mr. Whittenberg asked Dr. Stickel if he could get a corrected document to staff in time to include it in the Council's packet tomorrow? Dr. Minch said he could have a corrected copy available to the City by noon. Mr. Whittenberg indicated then Member Hahn's proposed revision would be appropriate. Member Willey said it would get rid of the paragraph on Gum Grove Park. Member Goldberg said she didn't want to send it to the Council this way. She wants a memo to simply say "This Committee agreed tonight that we accept this document as corrected." Member Willey agreed. ~ Mr. Whittenberg referred to the last paragraph on page 6 of the Staff Report and asked if the Committee wanted that left in? The Committee said yes. Member Goldberg said she wouldn't object to having all the documents in a packet, so the Council could see what the Committee went through to come up with the approved document. Mr. Whittenberg clarified what they wanted included. The Committee decided to get rid of all the exhibits and have only a cover page on top of all the documents which says something to the effect of "We've gone through all of this. This is the body of what we went through to get to this point." Mr. Whittenberg said their memorandum would be the draft memo as corrected, with Dr. Stickel's document attached. Member Hahn asked for a review of what is to be included and what the cover memo is to say. The Committee discussed this and determined to leave in the first paragraph. It will include the first paragraph, and a revised second paragraph which will read: "The Archaeological Advisory Committee recommends acceptance of the subject document, dated November 12, 1996, by the City Coundl." Member Hahn then suggested striking everything down to the paragraph that read "The Archaeological Advisory Committee is available at the request ..." maintain that paragraph, strike the next paragraph and maintain "Thank you for your consideration... " and strike the Exhibits. All the other materials will be in the City Council packets. Mr. Whittenberg there would one exhibit, which will be the revised Research Design document, dated November 1996. Member Willey asked Dr. Stickel if the Appendices listed in the Table of Contents will be included in the report which goes to the City Council? Dr. Minch said yes. MOTION by Benjamin; SECOND by Price to approve the memorandum, as revised. '-' 1 1-12-96.MIN.doclLW\1 1-25-96 9 \.p. Archaeological Advisory COIrllniffee Minutes November 12, 1996 MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Unatin IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Price; SECOND by Hahn to adjourn at 5:48 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, Willey , Young, and Chairperson Frietze ~ NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Unatin ~ ~ 1-~~ Chai rson, Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of November 12, 1996 were approved on l?~C + , 1996. -... 1 1-12-96.MIN.doclLW\1 1-25-96 10