Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-01-08 CITY OF SEAL BEACH ~ ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Frietze called the meeting to order at 5:07 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Members Bel~amin, Goldberg, Hahn, Unatin (5: 12 PM), Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze Absent: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Price '--' Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director APPROVAL OF AGENDA Member Hahn requested Item Y.2 on the Consent Calendar be considered separately. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Willey' to remove Item V.2 from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration and to approve the Agenda as amended. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 AYES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, Price, and Unatin ORAL COMMUNICATIONS '-" C:\My Documents\ARCI ICOMM\O I-OS-97 Minutcs.uoc\L W\O 1-22-97 Archaeological Advis01Y Committee Minutes January 8, 1997 ~ Chairperson Frietze asked for oral communications from the audience, there were none. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Receive and File Staff Report re City Council Actions relating to Recommendations of the Committee regarding "Request for Statement of Qualifications for Archaeological Consulting Services" MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Young to approve the Consent Calendar: MOTION CARRIED: 5-0-4-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Willey, Young and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSTAIN: Members Hahn ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, Price and Unatin \....r The Committee next considered Item #2: 2. Receive and File Staff Report re "Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis - Operable Unit 1, Site 1, Wastewater Settling Pond, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station" Member Hahn indicated to the Chair that she had just distributed her notes on Item #2. She thought this was something the Committee should take a good look at and consider bringing back at the Committee's next regular meeting. She referred to the Agenda packet, noting this is Attachment 2 of the Staff Report, Table A-3 - Potential Federal Location-Specific ARARs, NWS Seal Beach, Site 1 EE/CNRAP. Dr. Unatin arrived at 5: 12 p.m. \....r Member Hahn said she was concerned because this is the ARAR determination table for the EE/CA for Site 1, which is the Wastewater Settling Pond at the Naval Weapons Station. That's Site IR #1 in your Installation Restoration Program. They have listed ARARs which are applicable, relevant and appropriate regulations. This means the laws that pertain to removal actions of the toxics. If you look at the fourth item on the table, "National Historic Preservation Act, 16 use, Section 470", the Navy's comments say "The site contains no known or suspected cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Bissell, 1987). The SHPO has concurred with this finding 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 2 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 8, 1997 '-' (Office of Historic Preservation, 1994)." She was concerned that Bissell never surveyed IR Site #1 and she had the data to back this statement up. She felt the eommittee would not want to review the fourteen pages of this documentation, so she footnoted it and noted where the originals could be found at City Hall and/or the Naval Weapons Station. She had the map of Bissell's research and it was nowhere near IR Site #1. Also, in 1994, while it is true that the State Office concurred with the Navy's finding that there would be no adverse impact to historic resources, the Advisory eouncil overturned that decision. So the Navy is only presenting part of the picture here. If you read Table A-3, you would conclude there is nothing there and that SHPO has already concurred with the Navy to go ahead and build or mitigate, but in fact, that is not what happened. She asked the Committee members to read her notes at their convenience and requested it be put on the Committee's next agenda. She suggested the Committee would like to write a letter to the base commander and communicate its concerns. '-' Mr. Whittenberg commented that, referring to Table A-3, the item directly above this, "Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 use et seq." cites the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Member Hahn said this is a much weaker law. The National Historic Preservation Act, Section 1 06, is a project-driven law and it provides stronger controls than ARPA. She said "In fact, I don't know what ARPA does, there are no teeth in that law. Whereas Section 106 is a very strong law that they have to address. And there are a lot of particular measures that they have to take in addressing it". She indicated there are letters from the Navy to the Advisory Council and from the Navy to the Archaeological Advisory eommittee, July 2, 1996, in which they say they will address Section 106 in the National Historic Preservation Act; that's not ARPA. "That says they are going to do something but I don't think that something is going to be enough. Unless they say, yes, the National Historic Preservation act applies and we will be addressing it." Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee may choose whether it wants to schedule the matter for further consideration at a future meeting of the Committee. The Navy indicated they would be receiving comments on their document until January 29, 1997. The Committee's next regular meeting is on February 5th. Or, the Committee could adjourn this meeting to another date or call a special meeting. Member Goldberg asked if some of this slipped by because the eommittee has "ignored" some of the items the Navy has been sending to the eity? There has been so much information the Navy has sent in the past year and the Committee has been preoccupied with the Hellman Ranch project. Has the Committee missed something? Mr. Whittenberg said no, the eommittee has not missed something here. He felt Member Hahn was indicating there is a lot of other information, and that it doesn't appear the Navy is aware of it or isn't paying attention to it if they are aware. She was suggesting this Committee may wish to refi'esh the Navy's memory on these issues. \....- Member Hahn said Table A-3 was prepared on October 30, 1996; it's fairly recent. They did something similar on December 31, 1994 in another document. That was prepared for 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 3 Archaeological Adviso1Y Committee lv/inutes January 8, 1997 \.... the RAB committee's and the public's review. They said neither ARPA nor the National Historic Preservation Act can be proven to apply to IR Sites 1, 17, 19, and 22. It appears this is something the Navy routinely does. Member Goldberg asked that because this is Federal property, is the Navy excluded from doing certain things? Mr. Whittenberg said the Department of the Navy is subject to Federal regulations. Those are the regulations which are cited here. One of the questionable items is whether or not provisions of CEQA also apply. Staff has discussed this with the City Attorney's Office., and because of certain agreements signed between the Navy and the State of California regarding cleanup activities on the base, the City Attorney's Office says they are also subject to CEQA provisions, which would require a CEQA analysis for this type of activity. The City will be making those comments to the Navy, but separate from archaeology concerns. eEQA obviously has archaeological concerns. Chairperson Frietze asked if the committee wished to discuss this matter now? Mr. Whittenberg suggested if the eommittee wished to further consider this matter prior to January 29u" he would copy Member Hahn's information and distribute it as part of that future agenda packet. ~ Mr. Whittenberg said he was unsure of the differences between the requirements for the National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. The Navy indicated they would prepare an Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for the site. Member Hahn said ARPA is very philosophical but Section 106 gives some particular strategies that they have to follow. It also cites the educational and professional standards that their personnel have to have; it's a stricter law. Member Willey said this Committee has to remind the Navy. Member Goldberg asked if Member Hahn was saying that Ron Bissell did not survey as opposed to their comment saying he did? Member Hahn said yes, he did not survey it. He includes a map in his comments and he puts a dashed line around the areas he did survey and all of them are at least a half mile away from IR Site # 1. The Committee determined to schedule this for future consideration prior to January 29, 1997. Member Hahn gave staff her notes, which are to be photocopied and included in the next agenda packet for that meeting. It was decided to continue this meeting to January 15, 1997 at which time this item will be considered. The Committee determined to invite a Navy representative to attend. Prior to adjournment the Committee will determine a future date for this item. \....- 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 4 Archaeological AdvisOlY Committee Minutes January 8, 1997 '-' SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Approval of Minutes of December 4, 1996 Member Hahn said she audio-taped the last meeting and found the Minutes had a few mistakes and omission of material. "I don't like to bore everyone with a lengthy discussion about it, so what I've done is simply word processed off the tape recorder the parts that I thought were important that were either wrong or that I thought it was an interesting presentation and it was really summarized too briefly for my liking in the minutes". She asked the Committee to consider this and if they agreed maybe vote to accept it. She continued to explain her objections: Page 2: The oral communications were summarized too briefly. She wrote verbatim what Lillian Valenzuela Robles had to say. Page 2: She was supposed to have asked Secretary Whittenberg about SRS, but that was Member Young. Page 5: Paragraph 4, "Member Johnston stated an opinion, and Mr. Whittenberg answered, this discussion was not in the Minutes as presented from staff, it was copied off of the audio tape. \....- Also, she thought Member Unatin had some concerns as to what he had said, so Member Hahn also typed those from the audio tape verbatim. Page 7: Last paragraph, it was written as "there is no law against it" and she did not say this. She said "hiring policy", and although the correction was minor she made it. Chairperson Frietze said she had a problem inserting Ms. Robles comments verbatim because she does not know if there are ashes at the site, she is assuming there are. It has not been proven, it is not factual. Member Hahn said that is what Ms. Robles said and it has been proven. ehairperson Frietze asked by whom? Member Hahn said "Well, the eoroner's Office has reports of ashes and charred bones --- that I picked up today. Actually I have that with me". Chairperson Frietze said she would like to see it. Member Goldberg said that, regarding the Minutes, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's the fact that Ms. Robles said it at a meeting. Chairperson Frietze said that's why our Minutes are so long - they are almost verbatim. They should concentrate on the Motions and the things that are done. '-" 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 5 Archaeological AdvisofY Committee Minutes January 8, 1997 \....r Member Hahn said it would be more accurate to reproduce it in full than summarize it. Summarizing is a way of opinionating it or slanting it. Chairperson Frietze said she did not think the intent was to slant it. Member Hahn said that sometimes where it is read it doesn't sound like what you heard. Chairperson Frietze indicated she would disagree with including comments from Ms. Robles verbatim. Chairperson Frietze asked if the Committee wished to go through these changes item by item? Member Hahn indicated the eommittee did not need to go through them, but could just read them and vote yes or no, that would save the time or going through them line-by-line. Member Willey suggested they be attached to the minutes as an addendum. MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Goldberg to attach Member Hahn's corrections to the minutes as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-3-1 AYES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Unatin, Willey, and Young ~ NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Price ABSTAIN: Chairperson Frietze Member Willey indicated on Page 11, the last paragraph should read: "SUNY [State University of New York,] Geneso". MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Hahn to approve the Minutes of December 4, 1996, with Member Hahn's attachment and Member Willey's correction as noted. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Price '--' 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 6 Archaeological AdvisOIY Committee A1inutes January 8, 1997 \....- 4. Selection of Committee Members to Serve on Interview Panel for "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Archaeological Investigation Services" Recommendation: Select up to five (5) members of the Archaeological Advisory Committee to serve with two members of the City Council on the subject Interview Panel. Mr. Whittenberg explained the City Council determined that they didn't like the current process of selecting archaeology firms to work on a rotating basis. They preferred selecting an archaeologist to work on a specific project. They instructed staff to reformat what this eommittee had recommended to them and to begin the selection process for an archaeologist to work on the Hellman Ranch proposal. He provided the Committee members with a copy of the final Request for Proposal (RFP), due to the changes based on the comments of the City Council. The eity Council was very clear that they want this Committee to participate in the selection process. The Council determined not to have public meetings for that purpose. There can be no more than five (5) members of this Committee serving on that interview panel. Mr. Whittenberg continued, indicating in the staff report he has tried to give an indication of the time commitments which will be required to serve on the interview panel. '-" The Committee discussed the staff report, commenting on who could and could not be on the interview panel and whether the interview date could be changed. Member Benjamin asked if Mr. Bartlett would be involved in the selection, with Mr. Whittenberg indicating not at all. Member Goldberg indicated she could serve if the interviews were held a week later. Members Willey and Young said they will serve if the interviews were on Tuesday. The Committee asked staff to contact the members who are absent tonight to see if they could serve. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Unatin to request the interviews be scheduled a week until Member Goldberg is available to serve. Staff is to contact the absent members to see if they can serve on Tuesday, February 18, 1997. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 AYES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze NOES: None ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Price \..- Mr. Whittenberg stated his report to the City Council would indicate that the Committee has two members indicate they will serve, that staff has been requested 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 7 Archaeological Advis01:V Committee A4inutes January 8, 1997 '-" to contact the absent members to see if any of them would be available to serve all day on Tuesday, February 18, and that the Committee is recommending that the interviews be held on February 25th. COMMITTEE CONCERNS The Committee determined to continue this meeting to January 15, 1997 after discussing the member's various schedules. '-" Member Hahn said some people think that Landing Hill may be connected to the Native American village of Puvungna. She cited some Native Americans, archaeologists, research designs and reports of other consultants because she thinks this is one theory the next archaeologist should explore. She added that some scholars think that rather than a temporary camp site, the Hellman site represented a Native American village. She thought the next archaeologist should investigate this thoroughly also. For the Committee's reference, Member Hahn passed around a t10w chart because there was a lot of confusion at the last meeting regarding whether the eity had hired the firm SRS. While staff said no, the City had not hired SRS, people can tell from this t10w chart that the City is the lead agency and SRS is employed by the City --- Bob Beer works for SRS and he is doing the cultural resource study. Mr. Whittenberg said SRS was hired by P&D Technologies, not by the City of Seal Beach. Member Hahn said it falls under the umbrella of the City. STAFF CONCERNS - None ADJOURNMENT Member Benjamin asked if there would be a budget and time limit to work with on the Hellman project? Mr. Whittenberg said the interviewers should try to get a feel for the professional capabilities, qualifications, familiarity with the area, the project and archaeological theories of the area at this time. A recommendation will then be made to the City Council. The full City Council will make the final decision on who to employ. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Willey to Continue this meeting to January 15, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss Naval Weapons Station issues, and staff to request a representative of the Naval Weapons Station to attend. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0-3 A YES: Members Benjamin, Goldberg, Hahn, Unatin, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Frietze '--' 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 8 '-' ....... ~ NOES: None Archaeological Advisory Committee AIinutes Jam/my 8,1997 ABSENT: Members Fitzpatrick, Johnston, and Price mrperson, Archaeological Adv Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of January 8, 1997 were approved on ~/L? ,1997. 01-08-97 Minutes.doc 9