Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-01-15 ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONTINUED MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 5:04 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Members Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Willey, and Young, Absent: Members Benjamin, Price, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze ~ Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Mr. Whittenberg informed the Committee that Members Benjamin, Unatin and Frietze had called and said they would not be able to attend, and Member Price has verbally resigned from the Committee and will not attend this meeting. MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND Johnston by to excuse the absences of Members Benjamin, Price, Unatin and Frietze. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 AYES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Willey, Young and Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Benjamin, Price, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Young to approve the Agenda as presented. '- C:\My Documcnts\ARCHCOMMIO 1-15-97 Milllltcs.duclLWIO 1-23-97 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes JanualY 15.1997 '-" MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 A YES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Willey, Young and Vice- Chairman Fitzpatl'ick NOES: None ABSENT: Benjamin, Price, Una tin, and Chairperson Frietze ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Vice-Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience. '-" Reva Olson - Seal Beach Ms. Olson said she heard derogatOlY rumors about her friend, Lillian Robles. Ms. Olson said that Ms. Robles was her dear ft-iend and is well known internationally for her good work and for her knowledge in indigenous affairs. There's a famous European artist, Dianna Vandenberg, who chose Lillian Robles to be in her book, one of the few Elder women chosen. Ms. Robles has been honored by the original people of Australia and the Incas who were in Malibu. There's a strong movement with the indigenous people world- wide and it's strongly supported by the women's movement internationally. Ms. Olson said she could not understand how anyone would discredit Ms. Robles as she is well- known, has walked the sacred path to save the land and the environment, is a spiritual person and is very much for unity. "I don't know who it was or what they said. I heard it from two or three people around town. And I heard that some of it came from Whittenberg. So I don't know. But I do want to tell you that this lady is very credible and I will certainly support her and get many coalitions to support her if she is discredited" . Reg Clooley * 945 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. CIooley said he read Lillian Robles' letter and felt it was disturbing. He said that however the selection of another archaeologist is done it should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair, and that there is not any trend to hide artifacts that have been uncovered or that can be uncovered. If artifacts are found they must be recognized in an honest fashion. Mr. Clooley said he wanted to read a book that is in City Hall, to study the whole plan of what is going on at the site of the Hellman proposal. In the Building Department there is only one copy hanging on the wall, actually one copy in Mr. Whittenberg's hand. While he was free to look at that copy, he felt it was more like being free to glance at it. It's quite a large document and it's ditlicult to read and absorb everything in it in the time he could stand at the Building Department counter. It was indicated that a copy was available in the local library. ~ 01-15-97 Minutcs.doc 2 Archaeological AdvisOlY Committee Minutes January 15.1997 ~ Mr. Whittenberg asked Mr. Clooley if he was talking about the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan document or the Navy's engineering report, which is on tonight's agenda? Mr. Clooley said he was interested in both documents and couldn't get information from the local library. Mr. Whittenberg said that situation would be corrected with the library. Mr. Clooley said he was sure there was some misunderstanding as the library had been given the Specific Plan repOli on the Hellman property. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked staff what the procedure was regarding public documents? Mr. Whittenberg said the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan is available for review at the Building Department's counter. If a person wants to review a document there is a conference room in which he/she can peruse it at their leisure. They just cannot remove the document from City Hall. Copies are provided to the libraries so that persons who cannot come to City HaII could review them at the library. Those documents should be in their reference section(s) so they could not be checked out and taken home. There are also copies of those documents for sale. ---- Lillian Valenzuela Robles Juananina lder * 2830 E. 561h Way. Long Beach Ms. Robles said she had come 11S meeting to clarify something. She said Moira Hahn had been criticized. "The people who are chosen on this Committee are not chosen just to agree with the City for everything. They are chosen to protect sites and to be unbiased and do a good job. To protect our culture, our sites, and our history. Much of our history and our sites have been destroyed. Orange County doesn't have a very good record on saving sites or for choosing archaeologists who are reputable and that are not working for the developer. We have to choose archaeologists who are morally responsible to save our sites and our history and bring that information back to us because much of it is very hush-hush. Our people, the tribe, has kept quiet. We have tried all kinds of avenues. Sometimes we've gotten our wrist slapped, like the letter she got from you. I feel like my wrists were slapped. Well, we're not going to be quiet any more. We've been angry, hurt and devastated. And the elected otlicials in this community and in Orange County and all over California and the world have to change their views. She said they are killing her history and the Native American spirit. When information is retrieved it does not get back to the Native Americans, they are not allowed to come in. She said What are you afraid of as long as it's the truth. We should know about our history. It shouldn't be destroyed. It shouldn't be in some museum before we the people get to see it. That's our history and our life blood. That's why we have so many suicides on our reservation and unhappy people. Because of the way we've been treated over the years. Our own California people --- our Natives didn't get to vote until 1926. In Australia their Natives didn't get to vote until 1964. We haven't been treated well by California or their government. When the Bureau of Indian Affairs loses millions and millions of do lIars of their own money that's owed us and now they don't know where it is. We have to be more accountable and more accountable in what we say because we hurt people. It's very important and that's why we're not going to be quiet any more. Now I want to teII you that we've formed a committee from the Puvungna on one of those people that tried to protect Puvungna and we won in our last court hearing. And we're forming a committee '-' ~ 01-15.97 Minutes.doc 3 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 15.1997 '-' to look out and make sure that all of the communities are following the law. And we've formed this committee --- archaeologists, anthropologists, Native people --- and we're becoming more aware and more educated and we're going to be looking out. We'll go wherever we have to go. I'm sending out a message. You people that are in power, that have this responsibility, you have to watch yourself because we're going to be the watch dogs. It isn't an easy road that we've chosen for ourselves, but it's a road that has to be taken. And last night at my home a spiritual leader came, Corbin Honey, and he prayed over me and he blessed me and he told me to be the spokesperson. And as long as it was the truth. So I want you people to be aware that we're watching out. And not only to you, I want the message to go out on the wind. And wherever we have to go, we'll go. And we're going to protect Hellman Ranch as much as we can. And we're going to make sure that we get to know the truth on Hellman Ranch. It's not going to be like Bolsa Chica and some of those other sites. And I want you to know that people are more aware. Our Anglo friends are more aware and they're standing right besides us. And the people are looking at you all over the country --- our Native people are looking and they're getting the message. We're in touch. So I want you to know that you have a great responsibility. I had Moira type my letter. I'm not a brain but I am intelligent and I have four children that are college graduates and I'm not stupid. Thank YOll velY much". CONSENT CALENDAR ........ 1. Receive and File a Letter from Lillian Valenzuela Robles to the City of Seal Beach, dated December 15, 1996, and a Response Letter from Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services. dated January 6, 1997. 2. Receive and File Copy of Dixon v. Sunerior Court. 30 Car. Ann. 4th 733. Member Young, referencing the letter Ms. Robles received from staff, asked if everyone who wrote in comments on the Notice of Preparation got responses from staff? Mr. Whittenberg said no. If it's a comment as to what should be included in an EIR, those comments go to the EIR consultant. Those will be addressed as a pmt of the EIR. But Ms. Robles was making a number of other comments and asking questions of items that didn't pertain to the EIR, such as access to the Hellman Ranch property. It depends on the types of comments being made. In this case, staff thought they needed to respond to a number of issues that were not related to the EIR. Member Hahn asked if the questions asked in other correspondence, in regard to the Notice of Preparation, would be answered individually in letters or simply would they be addressed in the EIR? Mr. Whittenberg said not on comments which should be addressed in the EIR. There is not a requirement to do a Response to Comments on the Notice of Preparation. There is a requirement to prepare a Response to Comments on a Draft EIR. '-' 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 4 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 15. J 997 '-" MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Young to approve the Consent Calendar as presented: MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 A YES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Willey, Young and Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Benjamin, Price, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Review and Discuss: "Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis - Operable Unit 1, Site 1, Wastewater Settling Pond, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station". '-" Mr. Whittenberg said he had prepared a modest staff report that addresses the purpose of tonight's discussion --- whether or not this Committee desires to formulate some type of formal response back to the Navy regarding information on this paliicular site regarding archaeological concerns. The staff report packet included documentation from Member Hahn which was received from her at the last meeting. Staff also included actual pages from the report to give the Committee a better feel for what the project would entail. A copy of this packet was provided to the Department of the Navy and they were invited to attend tonight's meeting. They picked the packet up on Monday and he was not sure why they weren't present tonight. Member Hahn distributed material she received from the participant's source book, from the GSA [{Federal} Government Services Administration] regarding the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation 1989 handbook. It's a brief summary of the National Historic Preservation Act. On page three she highlighted the Archaeological Resource Protection Act because she wanted the Committee members be able to do a brief comparison of the two laws. She felt there was some confusion over what the difference would be between the laws and she wanted to provide guidelines as to what they are. The Committee took a few minutes to allow all members to review the material provided by Member Hahn. '-" Member Johnston said the Archaeological Resources Protection Act is only set up for public land and Indian land. It says nothing about privately owned land, like the HeHman Ranch. There is a whole set of other laws pertaining to privately owned land. This is where the Native Americans have had problems. It's been a lot easier for them to protect their sacred sites on public lands --- Federally owned or State owned lands. 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 5 Archaeological AdvisOlY Committee Minutes January J 5. 1997 \...- Member Hahn said the Committee is discussing IR Site 1, which is on the Federally owned Naval Weapons Station. She noted that in her review of these materials she did not see anything mentioned about CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). CEQA should be addressed according to the State EPA. That's not in the list ofJaws. If the Committee elects to write a letter, she believed it should include the National Historic Preservation Act, especially Section 106, the Native American Grave Repatriation Act and CEQA. AIl of these should be satisfied by the Navy. '-" Mr. Whittenberg said the ARARs that were identified included the National Historic Preservation Act and _' Member Hahn said they said it doesn't apply for two reasons, which to her mind have no bearing. Table A-3, not numbered, said ARARs are applicable, relevant and appropriate regulations pertaining to the action. It says the ARPA substantive requirements are applicable and they will prepare a plan. Under the National Historic Preservation Act it says the site contains "no known or suspected cultural resources eligible for the National Register ", citing Ron Bissell as the archaeologist for 1987. When she first looked at Bissell's reports the maps showed where he investigated and this is not one of those areas. In fact, he was a half mile away from this site. She highlighted (in pink) the areas that Bissell did look at and (in yellow) she highlighted the wastewater settling pond. This happens to be an archaeological site that two firms working for the Navy identified. The areas which Bissell looked at are not on nor near the area in question. Beyond that, the second reason that the Navy says the National Historic Preservation Act applies but doesn't matter in this instance is that SHPO has concurred with this finding. She asked the Committee to recall that after SHPO concurred the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Federal oversight agency, reversed that decision. They are only providing some facts and they are not providing the facts that tell us that they have been told. In a letter of November 16, 1994, included in the packet, the Advisory Council asks the Navy"... we ask you to undertake further efforts to identifY historic properties within the area of potential effect in the Installation Restoration Program prior to the implementation of the project. These efforts should include intensive survey of the areas of potential effect by archaeologists meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. Please report to us your progress at completing such identification efforts and insure that concerned members of the public are also informed". They also said, "Furthermore documentation provided for our review by concerned members of the public indicates archaeological deposits have been recorded in or adjacent to IR project sites". She said they were referring to IR Site 1, the wastewater settling pond. It's on top of and pari of an archaeological site on Case Road identified by two different firms working for the Navy in 1985. What they are doing here is misleading. They are saying although this law applies for these reasons we don't have to address it, and yet there is an archaeological site right there. '-- Member Willey said she noticed in the October 30, 1996, draft in the packet (page All) when it gets down to the bottom, under Historical Resources, it mentions Bissell and his comments. It says "Specifically, however, because surveys were not specific to Site 1 an Archaeological Resources Protection Plan include site-specific surveys will be 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 6 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 15. 1997 '-" implemented prior to response actions at the site. Excavation for purposes of extended excavation or soil remediation will include contingency provisions". Her question was if they put this in, where is their protection plan? Mr. Whittenberg, saying he was unsure he could answer the question for the Navy, noted his understanding of the process is that before they can actually proceed with any removal of soil on that property, in whatever program they ultimately determine is most appropriate with the soil contamination, that the Archaeological Resources Protection Plan has to be prepared. Historically those Protection Plans have come to the Committee for its review and comment. At that point, the Committee would see specifically what they are proposing to do on that site. It was his understanding that has to be done prior to them physically doing the removal action. Regarding Member Hahn's comment on CEQA, the City has another request fi'om the Navy for ARARs review on a number of other sites on the Naval Weapons Station. Staff has reviewed CEQA provisions and staff thinks CEQA does apply. Staff is preparing a letter now to the Navy regarding some of these other sites which have no indication at this point of archaeology concerns. Staff will be responding to them that the City feels CEQA does apply and that they do need to perform some sort of CEQA-related environmental review of this removal action prior to doing any work. He further stated those are the two avenues the Committee would want focus comments on to the Navy. '-" Member Willey said this is a particular concern because of the diagram. It was obvious that one of the archaeological sites abuts it, if it does not actually go in slightly to that wastewater area. In addition, any time there is excavation to remove anything to remove it, it's like cutting out a cancer, you always take a certain amount of area beyond it in order to be sure you've gotten everything. She could not conceive that they could do this project without impacting the already identified archaeological site. Member Hahn said the Navy's letter back to the Advisory Council on December 5, 1994 and a subsequent letter to this Committee, dated July 8, 1996, in both they say they will ensure efforts are made to comply with Section 106. And now they seem to be saying that they don't need to. She felt the Committee should say they had promised both the Federal agency and this Committee that you would be performing a Section 106 compliance and the Committee would want them to be certain they did this. Member WiIIey asked if were possible to draft something that simple? Member Goldberg said she would like to see a letter that is not ten pages long. The letter should say the Navy is part of the Federal Government and the law was set by the Federal Government and they need to follow the law. They know this better than the Committee does. They've got a staff to work with them and they can't ignore doing certain things. ~ Mr. Whittenberg said there's a tine line that the Navy's trying to tread. He explained where the thought the Navy was coming from. The Navy has said they are going to do an Archaeological Resources Protection plan. That is a plan which says we will have 01.15-97 Minutes.doc 7 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 15. J 997 '-" somebody on the property either before to evaluate the site or during the work to watch over what is going on. If something is found then they would have to put a stop to the process. He felt that Member Hahn's concern on Section 106 is that the Navy is saying that that site has never been identified as being potentially eligible for the National Register. This is technically true, but they have said it's a potential site and until you evaluate the site you can't tell that it is or is not eligible. In his mind, this Committee needs to say that site needs to be evaluated for a potential Section 106 National Register status. That has not been done. Member Willey said the very fact that the site has been give a number says something. If sutlicient evidence were found or yet to be accepted by whatever agency records (she believed it is UCLA). Mr. Whittenberg, looking for clarification on this statement, asked what site has been given a number? This area has never been given a Ca-Ora site number. MemberWilley said that according to this map, these two areas represent CA-Ora 260. She was assuming from the way it is drawn it indicated to her Mr. Whittenberg, referencing the map, explained the site was at a certain point. It has not been identified as a site. Member Hahn said those are not sites, they are surveys conducted by James Brock. Member Willey asked what 260 was then? Member Hahn said 260 is on the Hellman Ranch property. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he didn't believe there is a CA-Ora site number for the area in question. Member Willey said nonetheless it is near areas that have had a rough survey and some information was found. '-" Mr. Whittenberg said the 1985 letter t1-om RECON said they noted a site near the project area that they were working on. It said "We have not recorded the site since we plan to go back and do more extensive surveys". Brock said it's outside of our area, we are not going to deal with it either. He didn't think anybody has ever recorded the site. Member Hahn said they both said it looks like a site. Mr. Whittenberg agreed. He indicated the Committee might say to the Navy that the Committee has information from two different archaeologists saying there is a site there, you have not evaluated it to determine if it's eligible for the National Regional status under Section 106 one way or the other. It can't be precluded from being subject to one of those sections until the site is evaluated. Member Hahn said ARPA says they need to do some kind of compliance --- like have an archaeologist on the premises when they do mitigation. Section 106 says before they even turn over one spade of dirt they have to complete a thorough analysis. It's a big difference. Member Goldberg said one of the Committee's former recommendations to the Navy Department was at this point they may need to do a total walk over of the entire base. While the Navy may totally ignore the suggestion that may be one thing to suggest. This would be opposed to digging here and digging there. '-" Mr. Whittenberg said the Navy has a time clock running for their cleanup of certain contaminated sites. This would be a different time schedule than doing a walk over of 5,000 acres. This type of an issue will come to this Committee on a more frequent basis 01-15-97 Mil1l1t~s.duc 8 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes Janllory15,1997 '-' because they are now getting funding to physically clean up sites. They are looking at cleaning up eight to ten sites in the next couple of years. At least this is what he was hearing through the Restoration Advisory Board process. These types of issues will probably come up before the Navy has funding to do a total facility walkover. Member Young said the Committee could walk over that in one year if they have a boundary. Member Goldberg indicated they would need qualified personnel. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said there are two agendas here. He noted one is environmental and the other is archaeological. His wife told him". .. . there is one of those circles..." on the Navy base that's been seen on infrared. He had no knowledge of this and asked staff if the Committee could get those infrared photos. Mr. Whittenberg said he has never heard of infrared photos being taken on the Navy Weapons Station. Member Hahn said Dr. Stickel said that at the City Council meeting in July 1996. Mr. Whittenberg said he was not at that meeting. He did show the City Council infrared photos of stuff on the Hellman property. The photos didn't extend onto the Naval Weapons Station, they stop at Seal Beach Boulevard. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said that was interesting because his wife was quite adamant. Mr. Whittenberg said he would make inquiries at the Weapons Station. '-' Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said Dr. Stickel had presented some photos to the Committee one evening. Mr. Whittenberg said those photos were especially flown for the Hellman site alone. Technically, those photos belong to the City of Seal Beach. Member Hahn indicated she didn't think that was correct, the infrared photos were paid for with City money and Dr. Stickel was reimbursed. The computer enhancements of those were never broached to the City nor paid for by the City and she believed they were still in Dr. Stickel's possession. Mr. Whittenberg said Dr. Stickel has a lot of documents in his possession at this point that need to come back to the City. Member Hahn said they will not be coming back according to him. Mr. Whittenberg said that may be an issue that is resolved in some other way beside what this Committee may be doing. There were aerial and infrared photos taken of one paliicular site on the Hellman property that was distributed to this Committee. Those photos did not lap over onto the Naval Weapons Station. If there is something on the Navy base it's different than what this Committee saw. Such photos may exist but he was not aware of them. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said he had a five second glance at the infrared photos and would like another opportunity to look at them. The resolution was not good. But if there's a circle there or an ellipse, that's not Mother Nature --- that's an intelligent being doing that. Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't think there was any disagreement about that. '-' Member Hahn aid to carry that point a step further, if there's one place you will find multi- spectral and infrared photography it's the Naval Weapons Station. Perhaps a second letter should be written to the Station to ask if the Committee could look at their photographs. 01-15-97 Minutes.duc 9 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 15.1997 \...- Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick agreed, saying that would give the Committee's case more weight. Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee has nothing on this agenda to talk about something other than this particular report. There is nothing agendized regarding aerial photography issues on the entire NWS and that would need to be placed on the next agenda. Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick said these two areas are wed together, they are overlapped and noted Member Willey's comments on taking out a cancer. Mr. Whittenberg, playing the devil's advocate, said if the Committee were looking at one specific area, the Department of the Navy might be willing to share whatever information they have within 500' or 1000' of that particular site but other areas have no relation to this site. Therefore, the Committee may not get a full, complete picture. Member Hahn said the main foclls tonight is to write the letter about the laws and she saw no reason not to add an addendum that this is something which was seen on the Hellman Ranch and the Committee would also like to ask for infrared photos just across the street on the Naval Weapons Stations. "It is the same subject. We're asking about cultural resources in a limited area because of IR Site # I and I don't see it as a separate issue". Member Johnston agreed. \...- Member Willey said she was worried about something Mr. Whittenberg mentioned. If the Committee separates out"... this little thing we're talking about tonight and do it" and write a letter about the laws and about the need for doing an actual survey of Site I and the area immediately surrounding it, and then put on, because Member Goldberg also had a good point. But then as staff pointed out, that's not really appropriate for this letter and may obscure the issues. It may be extremely useful for us in a separate letter to express the Committee's concerns to the Navy that a full walk-over, not just the piecemeal stuff that's being done, needs to be done. And then to request if any aerial photos and any infrared aerial photos do exist that it would be a great kindness to allow the Committee to review those. By separating the two issues the Committee may get further as opposed to taking an issue that in some degree may be sensitive to them and". .. we are trying to step on their corns at this point without question because we feel it's necessary". Member Goldberg said she thought it would be a good idea to put that on the next agenda. Because even if the Navy does or does not do it, the Committee is on record as saying this is what they would like. If at some point something comes up, the Committee can go back and say they had asked for the information. Mr. Whittenberg agreed, noting it would be better not to meld the issues. This is being generated by the State of California --- to deal with what regulations apply to specific removal action at this site. That's really all they are interested in at this site. Yet the broader issue of aerial photography and infrared and walk-over surveys of the entire site -- - the State of California, Depmiment of Toxic Substance Control --- which is going to issue a permit to remove contaminated soil --- is not going to care about those issues. \..- 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 10 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes Jamwry 15. J 997 '-" MOTION by Willey: SECOND by Goldberg to agendize for February 5, 1997, writing a letter to the Navy Weapons Station regarding consideration of a full walk- over and obtaining any aerial photographs, regular of infrared. Before the vote, Mr. Whittenberg asked if it would be helpful for him to draft a letter prior to the next meeting for the Committee to work with or would the Committee wish to deal with that at the meeting? Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said he felt time is of the essence on these issues and he hated to see these issues put back. Member Willey said this site needs to be taken care of tonight. MOTION by Hahn: SECOND by to amend this Motion to request a special meeting be held to complete the letter to the Navy. Member Goldberg felt that was not necessmy. The Committee discussed holding a special meeting for the purpose of drafting a second letter to the Naval Weapons Station. Member Johnston said they need to have time to digest and assimilate what we're trying to do in the beginning. By isolating each point it would have more of an impact. If the issues are lumped together the Navy may not pay that much attention. Other members said the three week time interval was fine with them and they did not think a special meeting would be needed. Member Hahn withdrew her amendment. '-" MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 AYES: Members Goldberg, H~lhn, Johnston, Willey, Young and Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Benjamin, Price, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze The Committee discussed asking staff to prepare a draft letter to the NWS regarding an entire site walk-over and the aerial photography, infrared or regular. Member Hahn said Member Willey has a Ph.D. and she preferred that she prepare this letter. "She knows more about it". Mr. Whittenberg is a professional but he's not an archaeologist. Member Willey said she would be willing to prepare such a letter. The Committee thanked her and agreed it would be best if she prepared it. Mr. Whittenberg said he would speak with her as to when he would need a draft to include in the agenda packet. '-" Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee should next consider preparing a letter to the Navy regarding this particular site, CEQA, the National Historic Preservation Act/Section 106 and the Federal law, Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act. Mr. Whittenberg said the Navy has already said they would apply that. Member Hahn said no, 01-15-97 Minutes.doc I 1 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 15.1997 '-" they had not said that. It's not in the chart. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he was confusing ARP A and NAGPRA, and apologized to the Committee. Member Goldberg asked the Committee if they wanted to get into specific items or do they want to broaden their request to say they should be looking at the laws. Mr. Whittenberg said the letter must cite laws that apply to the proposed removal of contaminated soil. They are looking for applicable laws which apply to evaluating alternatives to remove contaminated soil. Section 106 seems to apply and the City believes CEQA applies. Member Hahn suggested: Dear Commander Kessee: In order to assist the Department of the Navy in its compliance efforts with State and Federal laws, the Archaeological Advisol'Y Committee of Seal Beach believes the following list of laws apply and pertain to the installation restoration program, particularly to lR Site # 1. These laws are: '-' . The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended . The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended . The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 On the basis of this, the Committee would hope that an appropriate survey of the affected area would be done prior to any decision on removal actions, as requested by the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation in its November 16, 1994 letter to the Department of the Navy. Sincerely, Member Willey indicated this states the applicable laws, and therefore a site survey needs to be done prior to any soil removal. Member Goldberg asked if the letter should also indicate the chart which indicated the rules and regulations is incomplete? Mr. Whittenberg suggested that when the legislation is listed, reference be made the U.S. Codes and the Public Resources Code on CEQA. Member Hahn said they should add the verbiage "We appreciate the Department of the Navy's effort to comply with the Archaeological Resource Protection Act but the Advisory Council recommends that an intensive survey, as defined in the Secretary of the Interior's standards be applied". She noted it's a different kind of survey all together. It has formal language and requires a lot of things the ARPA doesn't. If they said intensive survey the Committee should say intensive survey. \..- 01-15-97 Milllltcs.doc 12 Archaeological AdvisOlY Committee Minutes Jam/my 15.1997 '-- Mr. Whittenberg asked if the letter should be signed by the Vice Chairman as the Committee does not have the Chairperson present? Mr. Whittenberg said it would be easier for him to get a letter to Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick to sign as opposed to Chairperson Frietze to sign. In response to a question from Member Hahn, Mr. Whittenberg indicated January 291h is the deadline for comments to the Navy and he could get the letter typed and delivered tomorrow to the Vice-Chairman. Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said he would not be home at all on Thursday evening and asked if the letter could be prepared by 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. He said he would be reluctant to sign a letter without the Committee's having seen it --- unless they trusted his judgment. The Committee said they trusted his judgment. Member Hahn said he could review the audio tape if there's any questions. Mr. Whittenberg said he would appreciate Member Hahn leaving her notes and he would work from that and the audio tape. Mr. Whittenberg said he had nothing on the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act and he would like information on that. Member Young indicated it was provided as part of her initial information packet. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he would locate the reference. ....... Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said he would work at home until he heard from Mr. Whittenberg. Then he would come to City Hall and sign the letter. Mr. Whittenberg said the letter would be done by 7:00 a.m. tomorrow, as soon as City Hall opens. Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick said he would arrive at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that would be fine. MOTION by Hahn; SECOND by Willey to authorize staff to prepare a comment letter to the Department of the Navy at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach in accordance with the determinations of the Committee. The letter is to be signed by the Vice Chairman. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 A YES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Willey, Young and Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Benjamin, Price, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze COMMITTEE CONCERNS ........ Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said this Committee is attracting more people who are interested in what they are doing. Sometimes he has trouble hearing people across the table. He asked if those persons could sit closer to the Committee. People in the audience 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 13 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes January 15.1997 \....- also said it was difficult for them to hear the Committee members. Mr. Whittenberg said staff could bring microphones down to the tables so they could be heard on the public address system. When using the public address system, only one person at a time may talk. The Committee said they would like to do this beginning with the next meeting. '-" Member Johnston apologized for missing the last meeting as she was caring for an Elder who was iII. Regarding the Hellman Ranch, she said she was very concerned about information given to her by Member Hahn that SRS is hired by the City to prepare the Cultural Resources section of the EIR. The devastation felt by the Native Americans at Bolsa Chica with SRS on that property may not be understood by others. When Native American sacred sites are dishonored and desecrated, removed and hauled away like trash and the person who is responsible for that is sitting right here --- "It's real disheartening". Mr. Whittenberg said solace may not be the correct word but when the proposals were sent out to do physical work on the Hellman Ranch for archaeology, their firm contacted us about doing that work. We told them we would not consider a proposal from them because it would be a conflict of interest. Since they are working on the EIR the City will not consider them to do work on the propel1y itself. Member Johnston said even SRS working on the EIR is disturbing and not helpflil. When she spoke with Mayor Forsythe, she was told there were no burials on the site. Then she received information there were burials on the site. She doesn't know ifshe's being lied to. She's new at this and is barely getting all the information. Secondly, Mayor Forsythe told her she didn't want this to become a circus, a media circus. Yet, the City has someone on their staff that is going to create this circus. "We're going to have another Bolsa Chica here on Hellman Ranch and I'm personally having a problem with that". Mr. Whittenberg said the City has heard those concerns and the City Manager and City Attorney have discussed the issue of keeping SRS as pal1 of the EIR preparation process. The determination has been made to not request their removal fl"om the EIR preparation process. Member Johnston asked who made this decision? Mr. Whittenberg said the City has made that determination probably three weeks ago. The Draft EIR, in a screencheck format, a document for internal City review prior to being finalized for public review, is to be in the Planning Department's otlice January 31 st. If SRS is not done with preparing their portion of the document it will be fairly close to finishing. Member Hahn asked Mr. Whittenberg that in his letter to Lillian Robles he said SRS would be working on the DEIR and they would be proposing the mitigation appropriate for the Hellman Ranch. She asked if that was correct? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. She then asked if that meant SRS would be preparing the Research Design? \..... Mr. Whittenberg said no, SRS is preparing mitigation measures for the EIR. Those types of measures generally would state there needs to be further evaluation of the. site by an archaeologist to determine whether or not sites are eligible for the National Register. SRS wiII not be doing site survey work, they will not be preparing a Research Design specifically to the Hellman Ranch property. The City has proposals out to every 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 14 A rchaeologlc,1i Advisory Committee Afinutes January 15.1997 \...- archaeologist on the Orange County list to submit proposals back to the City to perform that work. The City has specifically told SRS that it will not consider a proposal from them to do that work. Member Hahn asked "Why are they involved at all if we have not hired the archaeologist to be doing the work? My understanding is, the whole point is, to have them prepare the sections of the Draft and Final EIRs pertaining to the project. I don't understand why SRS is working for the City at all at this point. I think everything should be done by the archaeologist the City selects". Mr. Whittenberg replied that she was looking at two different levels of work. One is a level to say these are generally the environmental impacts of this development proposals. There's a potential for significant impact to archaeological sites. As mitigation measures to reduce those potential impacts to a level of insignificance they will be recommending either avoidance of those areas from any construction proposed, be recommending site work to be done through a separate archaeologist who will do the Research Design (whatever he feels is necessary). '-' Member Johnston said it sounded to her like the City would use the SRS work as a guideline for the next Research Design. Mr. Whittenberg said he could not speak for the next archaeologist hired by the City. He could not say how that person would evaluate the information in the EIR, they may disagree with the information. Member Johnston said that is not what she was saying. She said the City would use it. Mr. Whittenberg said the City doesn't prepare the Research Design. Member Johnston said the City would approve the Research Design. Member Johnston said if the City approves it, the City must want a guideline and they would use SRS's guideline. Mr. Whittenberg said he understood the concern but suggested the Committee wait until Staff Concerns and the interview process for archaeologist selection for the Hellman project. Member Willey said her concern is that whatever the DEIR says is what the City is going to look at and use as their reference when they look at any archaeological proposal. If the archaeologist recommends intensive mitigation of the property based on the previous research that has taken place and whatever site survey research that is done, and then recommends extensive mitigation in order to ensure that all the cultural remains have been identified, removed, properly preserved, properly taken care of etc. The City, based on the DEIR, can look at that and say the draft says that there's probably not much there so this looks way too expensive. And then out with this archaeologist and the process is started all over again, until they get down to someone who will do a quick, dirty, cheap job. This Committee is concerned that the archaeology be appropriate, complete and scientifically well done. "Since we don't have the final say on that, the City Council does, they can just keep tossing archaeologists off until they get what they want. And I think this is the concern of the Committee". '-" Mr. Whittenberg said "I hear that. And I don't know that I can give you a comfort level that will or will not happen because that happens with five people up here". 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 15 Archaeological Advisory Committee Afinutes JanualJI J 5. J 997 \.." Member Willey said she didn't expect Mr. Whittenberg to give her a comfort level. She said "I'm telling you that I expect to spend a great many months being very uncomfortable". Mr. Whittenberg said he understood but his point is that this Committee is going to have a great deal of involvement in who will do work on that property. HopefuIIy that process will be seen by the City Council in a better light than what happened with the Research Design document last time. He could not say for certain. His hope is that as the Council sees how the Committee works as a group during that interview process it may open some of their eyes. Two City Council members will be on that interview board. There will be several members of this Committee on that interview board and the Committee will have a fair amount of import to making a recommendation to the City Council. The EIR process is open to public comments during the draft time. If this Committee feels the doculllent is totally inadequate it will have a chance to make those comments to the EIR firm. They may say they want to bring in a peer review archaeologist to take a look at the issue as a part of their response. We have already talked about that with the EIR consultant because he knows the concern is there about SRS. They have used the peer review. Once they've seen the comments on the DEIR, those comments are then reviewed by a different archaeologist to prepare the rsponse to comments. '-' Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if there are two City Council members and perhaps five Committee members on the interview panel, does everybody have an equal vote? Mr. Whittenberg said the group will make a recommendation to the City Council and then the Council will make the ultimate choice. Member Hahn stated, "We have no votes, right?" Mr. Whittenberg said, "This is an advisory body, like the Planning Commission is an advisory body." It is his feeling that due to everything which has gone on in the past, the Council will pay a lot of attention to what the members of the interview panel have to say. Whether that will be the ultimate choice of the Council, he can't say. He felt the Committee Members on the interview panel should work closely with the Council members to ensure their concerns are taken up to the full City Council. Member Hahn said she felt it fosters foregone conclusions for the Council to have permitted P&D to use SRS. She agreed with Member Willey's comments that they can create an impression. Then whoever is selected will have to battle that impression. She said "I have talked to a few of the applicants for the position of archaeology both in and out of State and they have let her know that it is highly unusual procedurally for another firm, such as SRS in this case, to be used before the archaeological firm is selected. That's not the way it's normally done and it celiainly raised questions in their minds. Thank you.". \.." Member Young asked if there were any way to get SRS out of this process? Mr. Whittenberg said the issue has already been looked at and the City has made a conscious decision to not remove SRS from the process. Member Young asked if the Native Americans weren't the principal people here? The Native Americans are adamant about not wanting SRS working here. 01-15-97 Minutes.due 16 Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes Januwy 15,1997 \w- Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick said this Committee has certainly made their feelings known about it. Mr. Whittenberg said the Committee needs to keep in mind that whatever SRS is going to perform in that DEIR is subject to public review. Member Young said that wouldn't matter, it's a document. The City is paying for it and they will not just throw it out. Mr. Whittenberg said that when the FEIR is completed, correcting the DEIR based on comments reveived, entire sections can be revised. He cited examples with the Bixby Ranch proposal. Cities have to do this. Whether this is done to the satisfaction of every person who has an issue to the archaeology of this site --- that may never happen unless the property remains at it is and nothing ever happens to it. Even then, that may not solve the concerns of the City, because then you have sites out there which have not been fully analyzed and evaluated to know if they would meet National Register criteria. Member Young asked that if the DEIR if accepted what would the next recourse be? To sue? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, to file a lawsuit. Lawsuits are filed all the time regarding the adequacy of an EIR that fully analyzes the impact of a project. That's the ultimate procedure available. Member Goldberg asked if the Council moved the date for the archaeology interviews? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. '--' Member Hahn said that by law the public is allowed to respond to DE IRs for 45 days after they are presented. Also, under law we don't have to get to see the FEIR. She wondered if the City would allow people to comment on the FEIR or only on the DEIR? Mr. Whittenberg said the DEIR is circulated for a minimum of 45 days or longer. During that 45 days comments are received. Then a FEIR is prepared. Technically the FEIR is not subject to having additional comments made on it. What happens is, the FEIR goes to the Planning Commission as a part of their Public Hearing process. You could still make comments on the FEIR at the Public Hearing process but there is no requirement to formally respond to those comments in writing. Member Hahn asked if they have to respond in any manner? Mr. Whittenberg said technically no. Member Hahn asked if that is what Mr. Whittenberg intended to do with this project? Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't know at this point how those issues will be dealt with? Member Hahn asked who will make those decisions, Mr. Whittenberg or the City Council? Mr. Whittenberg said that would an issue for the Planning Commission and the City Council. Member Hahn asked when'they would make those determinations? Mr. Whittenberg said they would do that during their Public Hearing process. Member Hahn asked when that would be? Mr. Whittenberg said probably May through July 1997. Member Willey said that assuming the Committee has gone through its process and the matter is to the Planning Commission, would this Committee be informed of the Public Hearings? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. It would be pretty much the same process as this Committee went through on the Bixby EIR. He explained the three steps in the process and how the information gets digested by the Planning Commission and the City Council. \..,... 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 17 Ardl<Jeolo.l',lcal Advlsol}' Committee Minutes January 15. 1997 '-' STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg said the City Council determined to push the interview process back to February 25th. The process should last all day. Staff schedules 45 minutes time blocks for each consultant for interviews. Eight or nine interviews are scheduled. Mr. Whittenberg said that for Members Fitzpatrick and Johnston, if they could serve on the interview panel, you have that opportunity and they would need to let him know by January 30th. Member Johnston asked who else would be serving on the interview panel? Mr. Whittenberg said the City Councilmembers would be Gwen Forsythe and George Brown. Members Willey, Young and Goldberg will also serve. After checking her schedule, Member Johnston determined she could serve on the interview panel as did Vice-Chairman Fitzpatrick. Mr. Whittenberg said there are now five members of this Committee serving: Members Young, Willey, Fitzpatrick, Johnston and Goldberg. Staff will give each member a copy of each proposal the City receives. The interviewers will be asked to reach through each proposal and give staff a short list of eight or nine firms which they feel are most qualified. Staff will take each list and whatever firms have the most listings, they will be on the list until the ninth firm and that will end the short list. '--' ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Goldberg to adjourn to the Regular Meeting of February 5, 1997. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 A YES: Members Goldberg, Hahn, Johnston, Willey, Young and Vice- Chairman Fitzpatrick NOES: None ABSENT: Benjamin, Price, Unatin, and Chairperson Frietze '-" 01-15-97 Minutes,duc 18 \.,.. '-' '-' Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes Januaty 15.1997 Vice-Chairperson, Archaeological Advisory e Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological AdvisOIY Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes ofJanuary 15, 1997 were approved on ,..,q-,P fi2. / L-. 5? ' 1997. 01-15-97 Minutes.doc 19