HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2009, C2 - CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPDATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE P I J
council M.alnaD.hVao oci
ACjenda RV OIZt It.m Numb,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director;
Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO
ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPDATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE
PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES; CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, APPLICANT (CHC 85-08).
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution updating
Archaeological Resource Preservation.Program Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Situation
As part of its work program, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) has updated of the City's
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, originally adopted in 1995.
Working with local archaeologists, Native American Tribal representatives, and others with
expertise in cultural resources, the CHC reviewed the Draft Guidelines at its August 24th meeting
and recommended Council approval. Updating the Archaeological Guidelines has been on the
Committee's work program for several years, in part to address changes in State law regarding
cultural resources and development review. This update brings City standards and procedures
into compliance with State law, updates the Guidelines to reflect current "best practices" in
cultural resource management, and makes minor"clean-up" changes in format, organization, and
definitions. As with the current guidelines, the updated guidelines clarify how archaeological
resources are identified, evaluated and preserved.
Why Update the Guidelines?
The City is updating its Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, primarily to
address changes in Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 was signed into law in 2004 and became
effective in 2005. It requires cities and counties to notify and consult with California Native
American Tribes when adopting or amending general and specific plans, or when designating
land as open space through a general plan change. The purpose of consultation is to protect
Native American cultural places that may be impacted by the proposed action. SB 18 is a
process separate from CEQA. It broadens the focus from the protection and preservation of
archaeological sites and artifacts to also include consultation with California Native American
Tribes in the early stages of local land use considerations, namely general and specific plan
adoption and amendment. The California State Native American Heritage Commission advises
Council Agenda Report—Updated Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines(CHC 85-08)
Page 2
local governments on how to implement the law and identifies "California Native American
Tribes" in the area that must be consulted. Attachment 3 provides details on SB 18 and the
consultation process.
This Draft is intended as an update, not an entirely new document. As such, the CHC's work
focused on revising the document to: 1) ensure compliance with SB 18 and with the City's
General Plan, 2) revise terms or procedures as needed and 3) make other changes for clarity,
organization and format. Overall, the draft's organization and format follow the originally-
adopted version.
The Guidelines serve two main purposes: 1) to establish cultural resource preservation
procedures and requirements and 2) to establish environmental thresholds used in determining
development project impacts and mitigation measures. The Guidelines are adopted by Council
resolution, upon recommendation by the CHC. They are used by the public, developers, Native
American groups, decision-makers and staff in preparing and reviewing development proposals,
environmental impact reports and cultural resource studies. They can be modified at any time by
Council, upon initiation by the Council, public, CHC or staff. As with the current guidelines, the
updated guidelines clarify how archaeological resources are identified, evaluated and preserved,
pursuant to State law. They are used by applicants, staff, and decision-makers to help ensure
projects comply with City standards and with CEQA.
Community Input
The CHC staff developed a preliminary draft in 2008. That draft was routed to cultural resource
professionals, Native American groups and other government agencies for comments. Several
professionals expressed interest in reviewing future drafts of the Archaeological Guidelines
Update, particularly on technical details of archaeological methods and standards. Committee
members welcomed the professionals' input in the update process and directed staff to work with
community representatives to provide technical assistance and to revise the draft to address
public and professional input.
In particular, the CHC and staff want to acknowledge the technical advice and comments
provided by Fred Collins, Tribal Administrator for the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, and
San Luis Obispo archaeologists Barry Price, Ethan Bertrando and Robert Hoover. The Draft
Guidelines have since gone through a series of revisions to address public and professional
comments and suggestions. Staff revised the preliminary draft guidelines as directed by the
CHC, in response to comments. The main changes in the updated draft are:
1. Section 5.0, "Use of Consolidated Approach to Archaeological Investigations", was
added to reflect best archaeological practices in built-up areas like Downtown SLO. This
approach combines the step-by-step approach traditionally practiced in phases 1- 3,
where space and time limitations often require a different approach. Director approval is
required to use this approach.
2. Section 6.0, "SB 18 Tribal Consultation" was expanded with additional detail on
consultation procedures, including a new flow chart, Figure L. .
Council Agenda Report—Updatea r rchaeological Resource Preservation Progravu'Guidelines(CHC 85-08)
Page.3
3. Section 8.0, "Definitions" was expanded to include terms used in SB 18 and not
previously defined, like"cultural place", "significant archaeological site", "sacred place"
and "traditional cultural property."
4. Section 1.50, "Native American Perspective" was added to acknowledge the broad
purposes of Native American consultation and cultural resource preservation.
5. Edited the document format and text for clarity.
6. Reduced the number of technical appendicesby providing a website link to the most
current documents available and in common use for archaeological studies and
documentation.
General Plan Policy
Archaeological resources are a fundamental part of the City's cultural heritage and part of the
living culture of Native Americans who lived on the Central Coast thousands of years before the
arrival of Europeans and who still reside in the County. The General Plan Conservation and
Open Space element seeks to preserve archaeological sites and resources, and to recognize
Native American's important role in preservation. It says the City will:
3.4 Archaeological resources. Expand community understanding, appreciation and support
for archaeological resource preservation.
3.5.1 Archaeological resource protection. Provide for the protection of both known and
potential archaeological resources.. To avoid significant damage to important
archaeological sites...mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
3.5.7 Native American participation. Native American participation shall be included in the
City's guidelines for resource assessment and impact mitigation.... The Native American
community shall be consulted as knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City
considers updates or significant changes to its General Plan.
3.6.5 Archaeological resource preservation standards. The City will maintain standards
concerning when and how to conduct archaeological surveys, and the preferred methods
of preserving artifacts.
The recommended Draft guidelines are consistent with these policies.
CEQA Requirements
Archaeological resources must be considered as part of the State-mandated environmental
review process prescribed by CEQA, part of the California Public Resources Code. CEQA
applies to all projects carried out by state and local government, special districts, public
C� -3
Council Agenda Report—Updated itichaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines(CHC 85-08)
Page 4
institutions and private individuals or groups. CEQA requires local governments to determine
whether a project may have significant adverse effects on important archaeological resources and
if so, what measures should be used to prevent or reduce these effects to less-than-significant
levels. The proposed update will ensure the guidelines stay current with CEQA requirements
and provide additional procedural details and "tailor" the review procedures to fit local needs and
conditions. According to State CEQA guidelines:
"Public agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for administering
their responsibilities under CEQA. Additionally, local governments will often
produce materials for distribution to the public gMlaining the local CEQA process,
The OHP strongly recommends the creation of such documents to further aid the
public in understanding how CEQA is implemented within each local governments
jurisdiction. Often a local historic preservation ordinance will also come into play
in that process. In such instances, the OHP further recommends that the local
ordinance procedures be explained in a straightforward public document. "
The proposed Guidelines were evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines and determined to be Categorically Exempt from further environmental
study, as described in Attachment 2. The Director determined the"project" (adoption of updated
Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines) is exempt because it involves regulatory
actions authorized by state and local ordinance to ensure the maintenance, restoration and
enhancement of the environment.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not approve a resolution adopting updated Archaeological guidelines. Staff doesn't
recommend this approach, since our current guidelines are not in compliance with State law and
do not reflect best practices in conducting archaeological studies.
2. Refer the item back to the CHC for further study or changes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. August 2009 Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
2. CEQA Notice of Exemption
3. July 27, 2009 CHC Agenda Report
4. CHC Minutes
5. Draft Council Resolution
G/CD-PLAN/J HOOK/archaeologicalguidelinesupdate/CAR102009
ca- ��
N N
Attachment 1
city Of
San tins OBIspO
rs.s-s
DRAFT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Adopted , 2009 by the San Luis Obispo City Council,
Resolution No. (2009 Series).
August 2009
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3218
(805) 781-7170
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Dave Romero Attachment
John Ashbaugh
Andrew Carter
Jan Howell Marx
Allen Settle, Vice Mayor
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Barbara Breska
Dan Carpenter
Chuck Crotser, Vice Chairperson
Katy Davis
John Fowler, Chairperson
Dean Miller
Jeff Oliveira
�IIIIIIIIII ����� Illlal
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
John Mandeville, Director
Kim Murry, Long-Range Planning Deputy Director
Jeff Hook, Senior Planner
Edgar Gutierrez and John Kibildis,
Planning Interns
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
(805) 781-7170
Ca -�
N N
TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment 1
Section Page
1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................S
1.10 How to Use These Guidelines.........................................................................................6
1.20 Exempt Projects.. ......::... .....................
..................,.
1.30 Sensitive Areas and Sites .................:..............................................................................7
1.40 Cultural Heritage Committee Role..................................:.................................................8
1.50 Native American Perspective..............................................:......:....................................8
2.0 Archaeological Resource Inventory................................................................................9
2.10 Purpose.............................................................................................................................9
2.20 When Required................................................................................................................9
2.30 Submittal and Review Process........................................................................................9
3.0 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation..........................................................10
3.10 Purpose............................................................................................................................. 10
3.20 When Required................................................................................................................ 10
3.30 Submittal and Review Process..............::........................................................................ 10
3.40 Determination of Significance....................................................:.................................... 10
3.50 Determination of Impact.................................................................................................. 12
4.0 Archaeological Resource Impact Mitigation.........»...»..................................................14
4.10 Purpose............................................................................................................................. 14
4.20 When Required................................................................................................................ 14
4.30 Mitigation Methods-Avoidance.................................................................................... 14
4.40 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation.................................................................... 15
4.50 Monitoring of Construction Activities............................................................................ 17
4.60 Archaeological Discoveries during Construction........................................................... 18
4.70 Violations......................................................................................................................... 18
4.80 Appeals............................................................................................................................ 18
S.0 Use of Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations...............................19
5.10 Purpose.......:..................................................................................................................... 19
5.20 Consolidated Approach Described..............................................
.. ..... ........ .....
5.30 Director approval required.............................................................................................. 19
5.40 Required components...................................................................................................... 19
5.50 Analysis............................................................................................................................21
5.60 Special studies and curation............................................................................................21
6 0 Senate Bill 18-Tribal Consultation..............................................................................22
6.10 General Plan Policy.........................................................................................................23
6.20 SB 18 Implementation.................................................................................................•...23
ea - :7-
as a Attachment
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Figure 6.1 —SB 18 Tribal Consultation Flow Chart...............................................................22
7.0 Selection of Qualified Consultants..................................................................................25
7.10 Procedures........................................................................................................................25
7.20 Content of Consultant Proposals.....................................................................................25
7.30 Archaeological Resource Inventory: Submittal Requirements......................................26
7.40 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluations: Submittal Requirements...............26
7.50 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations: Submittal Requirements........................27
8.0 Definitions.........................................................................................................................29
9.0 References............................»............................»........................»_..._..._..._...__.__.....34
10.0 Appendices
10.1 Archaeological Site Record.............................................................................................35
10.2 Archaeological Resource Management Reports.............................................................36
10.3 Instructions for Recording Historic Resources...............................................................37
.e
7x.24.1
'a.
JA
411
.. h 4 TTii..gq 1,F
}
..............Downtown San Luis Obispo archaeological site uncovered during trenching for utilities, 1005
ca -8'
Draft Archaeological Resouration Program Guidelines
Page 5 Attachment 1
city of san Luis oBispo
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
This update to the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines revises terminology, updates
procedures, improves the document's organization and clarity, and responds to changes and
advances in professional practice that have occurred since adoption of the original Guidelines in
October 1995. It also addresses the requirements of California State Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), signed
into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, and effective in March 1, 2005.
SB 18 requires cities and counties to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the
protection of traditional tribal cultural places through local land use planning. The intent of SB 18
is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use
decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural
places.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This is a guide to the identification, evaluation, and preservation of archaeological and other
cultural resources in the City of San Luis Obispo. Cultural resources refer to the artifacts, human
remains, and sites containing evidence of past human activities, including:
A. Prehistoric Native American archaeological sites;
B. Historic archaeological sites; and
C. Sites or natural landscapes associated with important human events;
D. Native American sacred places and cultural landscapes
These guidelines were developed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), a group of seven
citizens who advise the City Council on cultural resource preservation, including archaeological
sites and historical buildings, structures, objects, and districts. They are based upon and implement
policies in the General Plan Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element, and are
part of the City's environmental review process. Citizens, developers, design professionals, city
staff, the CHC, and decision makers will use these guidelines to determine whether a project
complies with the cultural resource provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and what information is needed to evaluate a project's effects on archaeological sites and artifacts.
The preservation of historical sites and buildings is primarily addressed in another City publication,
the HISTORIC PRESER VA TION PR OGRAM GUIDELINES.
Archaeological resources must be considered as part of the State-mandated environmental review
process. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and implementing guidelines found in
Section 15000 of the California Administrative Code, apply to all projects carried out by state and
local government agencies, special districts, public institutions, and private individuals or groups.
CEQA requires that the reviewing agency determine whether a project may have adverse effects on
important archaeological resources, and if so, what measures are available to reduce or eliminate
c�--q
Draft Archaeological Resour ation Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 6
the adverse effects. These guidelines implement, and are consistent with CEQA and Senate Bill 18
requirements, and are legally enforceable. The California State Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) helps cities and counties implement the law by maintaining a list of
recognized"California Native American Tribes." These tribes,whether federally recognized or not,
are distinct and independent governmental entities with cultural beliefs and traditions closely tied to
those areas of California that are their ancestral homelands. As used in these guidelines, "tribe"
refers to a state-recognized California Native American Tribe.
Specifically,this document addresses the following questions listed in the State CEQA Guidelines,
Appendix G, Section V- Cultural Resources. Would the project:
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Section 15064.5?
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Section15064.5?
C. Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
To determine the "significance" of a potential impact to cultural resources, the importance of the
resource in question must be first be assessed, and then the severity of potential impacts to that
resource must be measured. Guidance for the assessment of resource's importance or"significance"
is provided in Section 3.40, guidance on the evaluation of the severity of impacts is provided in
Section 3.50, and guidance on mitigating cultural resource impacts is provided in Chapter 4.0.
1.10 How to Use These Guidelines.
Archaeological resource preservation starts during the early stages of project planning and design.
Property owners, developers,builders, design professionals and others involved in public or private
development can use these guidelines to anticipate City concerns, protect important cultural
resources, and to design their projects so as to avoid delays during development review and
construction.
A. Most development projects require archaeological or historical studies as part of environmental
review. To determine if your project is exempt,check Section 1.20.
B. For an explanation of what information is required, how to deternzine what is "significant", and
how to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources,refer to Sections 2.0 through 5.0.
C. For specific requirements for recording archaeological resources and for completing
archaeological resource evaluations, see Section 10,Appendices.
D. For General Plans, Specific Plans, and Plan Amendments, refer to the SB 18 consultation
requirements in Section 6.0.
CO-L
Draft Archaeological Resourc4fervation Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 7
For questions about these guidelines or for help in determining whether your project is
exempt,contact the Community Development Department.
1.20 Exempt Projects.
Not all development projects will require archaeological or historical assessment. For example, the
following types of projects are either exempt from CEQA, or are of a size or type which does not
normally raise archaeological resource preservation issues:
1.20.1. Projects which are either categorically exempt or statutorily exempt under CEQA are
usually not subject to these procedures. However, projects that normally are considered
categorically exempt but that are located within Sensitive Areas or on Sensitive Sites as described
in Section 1.30 may require an Archaeological Resource Inventory pursuant to Section 2.0 of these
Guidelines. Sensitive Area maps are on file in the Community Development Department.
1.20.2. Projects on parcels, including those in Sensitive Areas, which have undergone substantial
subsurface disturbance, as determined by the Community Development Director('Director") and as
defined in Section 8.0.
1.20.3. Projects on parcels of less than 1 acre, not in a "sensitive area", which the Director
determines would have little or no potential to adversely affect archaeological resources. This
determination must be based on specific findings, such as information from previous
archaeological studies or a preliminary evaluation of the site by the Central Coastal
Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information System (CLIC),
located on the campus of the University of California,Santa Barbara.
1.20.4. Activities that do not involve any physical changes to the environment are not considered to
be a"project"under CEQA and are therefore deemed exempt.
Development projects that are not exempt under the above criteria will require archaeological
evaluation and possible mitigation through a phased process which describes the order and type of
activities required. The phases are Phase 1 - Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI); Phase 2 -
Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE); and Phase 3 — Archaeological Data
Recovery Excavation (ADRE). These are defined more fully in Sections 2 and 3.
1.30 Sensitive Areas and Sites.
Archaeologically "Sensitive Areas and Sites" shall include:
A. Areas inside or within 200 feet(61 meters)of the boundaries of an archaeological site shown on
U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps on file in the Community Development Department
and/or recorded with the CCIC..
B. Areas within 200 feet of top of banks of San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Brizzolara, Acacia, Old
Garden,Prefumo, and Froom creeks.
Draft Archaeological ResowMervation Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 8
C. Areas inside a Historical District or within an area designated as being archaeologically
sensitive, or within a "burial sensitivity area" as shown on maps on file at the Community
Development Department. Building ground floor and foundation areas in the Downtown
Historic District are also considered sensitive.
D. Sites designated on the Master List of Historic Resources, or determined to be eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources
(PRC Section 5024.1 (a)).
E. Sites within a historically or archaeologically sensitive area designated by the CHC, City
Council,or other governmental agency.
F. Sites identified as being sacred places or Traditional Cultural Properties as defined in National
Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Properties(Parker and King, 1998) by Northern Chumash community members who have been
identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having
ancestral ties to San Luis Obispo County, or by other local tribal representatives similarly
recognized by the NAHC.
1.40 Cultural Heritage Committee Role.
The CHC maintains and interprets these guidelines, and resolves questions regarding the Guidelines
referred by the Director. The Committee's actions and recommendations are advisory to the
Director, Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and the City Council. CHC
members are appointed by the City Council and have special interest or expertise in the field of
Cultural Resources.
1.50 Native American Perspective
By necessity, cultural resource preservation guidelines deal with policies, procedures, and legal
requirements — the mechanics of preserving cultural sites, features and landscapes. Cultural
resource preservation, however, is broad in scope and is not merely an exercise in documenting
cultures long since gone. Local Chumash and Salinan descendents continue these living cultural
traditions through oral history, art, dance, agriculture, crafts and teachings, and cultural resources
are an important part of these traditional ways. Consequently, the City acknowledges that other
perspectives exist as to the purposes and value of these guidelines, beyond meeting local or state
environmental requirements. The Native American perspective is that they have been here from the
beginning, as described by their creation stories. Similarly, they do not necessarily agree with the
distinction that is made between different archaeological cultures or periods. They instead believe
that there is a continuum of ancestry, from the first people to the present Native American
populations of San Luis Obispo County. To acknowledge this perspective, consultation with
affected Native American communities can be an important tool to fully understand the impact of
development on cultural resources. This consultation is typically administered pursuant to Senate
Bill 18, as discussed in Section 6.0.
Draft Archaeological Resour ation Program Guidelines "
Page 9 Attachment 1
2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
210 Purpose.
The Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI), also known as a Phase I archaeological
investigation, is used to detemmine if archaeological resources may be present on a parcel of land.
The ARI involves a check of maps, records and other historical literature, and requires a surface
field survey by a qualified archaeologist. A written report must be submitted to the City to
detemmine if more extensive resource evaluation is necessary. Once accepted, copies of the report
must be filed by the archaeologist with the CCIC,pursuant to Appendix 9.0.
2.20 When Required
An Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI, or "inventory") shall be required when the Director
determines a project has the potential to disturb archaeological remains, when the project site is
vacant or essentially so and is one acre or larger in size, or when a site contains vacant area that is
one acre or larger. A parcel less than 1 acre in size may also require an inventory if it is located
within a "Sensitive Area" (see Sections 1.20 and 1.30). The project developer shall be responsible
for paying the costs of the ARI.
230 Submittal and Review Process.
2.30.1. When a project requires an ARI, the project applicant shall have prepared and shall submit
an archaeological resource inventory for City review as part of a complete Planning Application.
The inventory shall contain the information described in Appendix 10.0. NOTE: historic
resources, such as buildings and historic sites, may require evaluation methods other than those
addressed by these guidelines. Refer to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
2.30.2. The ARI shall be prepared by a qualified professional who meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, or is approved by the Cultural
Heritage Committee based on experience and education. The City maintains a list of consultants
qualified to prepare an ARI and related documents.
2.30.3. Upon receiving the ARI, the Director shall determine whether a subsurface archaeological
resource evaluation is necessary,pursuant to Sections 3.0 and 5.0.
�a -1-3
Draft Archaeological Resourtrvation Program Guidelines 'Attachment 1
Page 10
3.0 SUBSURFACE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION
3.10 Purpose.
The Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE), also known as a Phase 2
archaeological excavation, is the primary method used by the City to identify the locations of
archaeological resources and to evaluate their significance. The outcome of the SARE determines
which resources are protected or studied further. It also provides the basis for mitigating project
impacts, where appropriate, through the Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE) as
described in Section 4.40 — also called a Phase 3 excavation — or by other mitigation measures.
Phases 2 and 3 may be combined into one phase when a site has been previously evaluated or
where the location or extent of the resource is obvious based on the ARI.
3.20 When Required
When the ARI indicates the presence of, or the probable presence of archaeological resources, and
development near those resources cannot be avoided, the Director may require a SAKE. Its
purposes are to verify the presence and location of archaeological resources, to determine the site's
integrity and archaeological significance, and to detemrime the proposed project's potential effects
on the resources. The project applicant shall be responsible for paying the costs of consultant
services and for City administration of consultant contracts to identify and evaluate archaeological
resources. The consultant's proposal shall contain the information described in Section 7.20.
3.30 Submittal and Review Process.
3.30.1. After completion of field work, the SARE report shall be prepared as required by the State
of California, as described in Section 7.40, and shall be submitted to the Director, who will
determine from the SARE report if a significant effect on significant or unique archaeological or
historic resources may occur. Once the SARE is accepted, the archaeologist shall submit copies of
the report to the CCIC.
3.30.2. The SARE report shall be prepared by a qualified professional who meets the Secretary of
the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, or is approved by the Cultural
Heritage Committee based on experience and education. The City maintains a list of consultants
qualified to prepare an ARI and related documents.
3.40 Determination of Significance.
3.40.1. In Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, CEQA equates a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource with a significant effect on the environment.
Thus, determining the significance of an archaeological site is a key element of the archaeological
evaluation. Eligibility criteria in the California Register of Historical Resources are typically used
as the standard for defining significance. A resource may qualify for listing in the California
Register if it retains integrity and:
Cd-
Draft Archaeological ResourAlkrvation Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 11
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
3.40.2. In addition to the California Register criteria, the Director may find prehistoric or historic
archaeological resources significant if they:
A. Are designated and/or mapped as significant culturaUhistorical resources in the City's local
inventory, are associated with a historic resource listed in the local inventory, are eligible for
such local listing,or are eligible for listing on the National or California Register; or
B. Are located within a designated historic district with a concentration of sites, buildings,
structures, or objects which are historically designated and/or associated with an important
historic individual,group,or event;or
C. Exemplify or reflect noteworthy aspects of cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering,or architectural development at the local, state or national level;or
D. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing
scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research questions; or
E. Have special or unique qualities, such as oldest, best preserved, last example of its type, or of
particular rarity;or
F. Are at least 50 years old and possess substantial stratigraphic integrity;or
G. Are determined to be significant or unique by the Director based on CEQA standards or other
adopted State or Federal standards.
3.40.3. If upon completion of the SARE the archaeological consultant's findings are inconclusive,
the Director may require revisions or supplements to the SAKE.
3.40.4. If upon completion of the SARE the archaeological consultant finds that unique or
significant archaeological resources are not present, and these findings are accepted by the Director,
then development review or construction activities may proceed without further delay and no
further evaluation or mitigation is required.
3.40.5. If the SARE concludes there is a possibility that cultural resources exist within the impact
zone, the Director may require monitoring of construction activities to protect archaeological
resources in accordance with Section 4.50. Monitoring is not mitigation. It is intended to identify
CD- -150�
Draft Archaeological Resoervation Program Guidelines r�m P
Page 12 ttach�ent 1
the presence of cultural resources and to ensure required mitigation measures are carried out.
3.40.6 If the SAKE concludes that the archaeological site is significant and that the project may
have a significant effect on important or unique archaeological resources,the project applicant shall
either:
A. modify the proposed development to avoid impacts; or
B. mitigate the adverse impacts to the archaeological site to a level of insignificance, as
described in Section 4.0. The project applicant shall provide site security to prevent looting
and site disturbance until impact mitigation and/or data recovery is completed, to the
approval of the Director.
3.50 Determination of Impact
Significant archaeological resources are non-renewable; they cannot be replaced.The disturbance or
alteration of an archaeological resource may cause an irreversible loss of significant cultural
information. In a broader sense, the loss of cultural resources, including both historic and pre-
historic features, may result in the loss of community identity and our connection with the past.
Specifically, these losses include the demolition,destruction,relocation,or the material alteration of
a cultural resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of that resource would
be materially impaired.
Direct and indirect adverse impacts may occur. Direct impacts are caused by and are immediately
related to a project. Indirect impacts are not immediately related to the project, but they are caused
indirectly by a project. An indirect impact is to be considered only if it is a reasonably foreseeable
impact that may be caused by the project.An example of an indirect impact would be the placement
of trails in an open space area which has the potential to impact cultural resources indirectly
through the surface collection of artifacts by hikers.
3.50.1. Adverse impacts to cultural resources include,but are not limited to:
A. The non-scientific surface collection or subsurface excavation of an archaeological site (e.g. pot
hunting).
B.The destruction of cultural resources through project development (e.g.grading,
clearing, demolition,trenching,road and utility construction, staging areas).
C.The destruction of cultural resources through off-site improvements (e.g. road
construction, utilities expansion,staging areas)associated with project development.
D. An increase in development intensity which adversely affects cultural sites or landscapes (e.g.
placement of a subdivision within a vacant parcel adjacent to/or surrounding a cultural resource
where behavior patterns occur beyond the boundaries of a site).
E. The introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric effects that are out of character with the
cultural resource or alter its setting when the setting contributes to the resources' significance.
F. Damage to cultural resources or landscapes by human encroachment resulting in vandalism or
site destruction (e.g. graffiti).
G.Development within a designated buffer zone of an archaeological site.
� a I�
Draft Archaeological Resourmwervation Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 13
H. The relocation of a historic structure such that its significance is reduced to a level whereby the
resource no longer is considered significant.
I. Development that changes the significance of a cultural resource site or structure, or an adjacent
historic landscape.
J. Deterioration of a cultural resource by neglect.
3.50.2. Guidelines for Determining Project Impacts to Cultural Resources. A project which may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource is deemed to have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. A project will cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a cultural resource if it: (from CEQA Section 15064.5(b)):
A. Causes the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
impaired; or
B. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a cultural
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, or as determined by a lead agency
for purposes of CEQA;or
C. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account
for a cultural resource's inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section
5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey
meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(8) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public
agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the
resource is not historically or culturally significant.
3.50.3. Potentially Significant Impacts. Any of the following will be considered a potentially
significant environmental impact to cultural resources:
A. The project causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This shall include the destruction, disturbance,
or any alteration of characteristics or elements of a resource in a manner not consistent with the
Secretary of Interior Standards.
B. The project causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This shall include the destruction or
disturbance of an important archaeological site or any portion of an important archaeological site
that contains or has the potential to contain information important to history or prehistory.
C. The project disturbs any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
D. The project proposes activities or uses that the Director or the CHC determine could damage
significant cultural resources and that fails to preserve those resources.
ca -i�
Draft Archaeological ResourAWervation Program Guidelinesrachment
Page 14 1
4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACT MITIGATION
4.10 Purpose.
Impact mitigation seeks to prevent adverse project-related effects on significant archaeological
resources through avoidance, design modification, conservation easements, data recovery or other
means.
4.20 When Required.
4.20.1. When a significant archaeological resource may be adversely affected, the project shall be
designed or modified to avoid damaging the resource and/or the project shall include other
appropriate mitigation measures to protect the resource or excavate and recover the important
archaeological or historical information contained within the resource. The project applicant shall
be responsible for paying the costs of archaeological resource impact mitigation.
A. If required by the Director, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare
a mitigation plan as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. The Director may refer the
mitigation plan to the CHC for review.
B. If the project applicant agrees to revise the project's design to avoid potentially significant
project impacts or to incorporate mitigation measures that reduce the impacts to insignificant
levels, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, including required
mitigation measures,may be issued.
C If a resource has been determined to be significant and cultural resources impacts cannot be
reduced to insignificant levels, the project applicant shall be responsible for the cost to prepare
an Environmental Impact Report(EIR).
4.30 Mitigation Methods-Avoidance.
For archaeological resources found to be significant, the preferred mitigation is protection through
preservation in place, avoidance, archaeological data recovery, or capping. Preservation may be
accomplished in several ways,including but not.limited to:
4.30.1. Revising the project design or location of construction activities to avoid archaeological
sites or significant archaeological resources.
4.30.2. Planning open space areas to include archaeological sites. Cultural sites and archaeological
sites should be protected as open space wherever possible.
4.30.3. Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements, or dedicating historic
easements or fee title land to preserve significant sites.
Draft Archaeological Resour ation Program Guidelines Otachment 1
Page 15
4.30.4. Incorporating significant sites, artifacts or prehistoric structures into a development through
restoration,rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse where avoidance is not possible.
4.30.5. Archaeological data recovery excavation.
4.30.6 Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of culturally sterile soil before
building. This is the least preferred method of protecting cultural resources from development
because it alters the setting and typically limits access to the resource. In this method, the new soil
layer shall be sufficiently thick to contain all foundation footings, utility trenches, grading, etc.
without disturbing the native soil. Capping shall be used only when the Director or the CHC
determines that other methods are not physically feasible, and where:
A. The soils to be covered will not suffer serious compaction;and
B. The covering materials are not chemically active; and
C. The site is one in which the natural processes of deterioration have been effectively arrested;
and
D. The site has been recorded and characterized as a result of subsurface testing;and
E. Future access to the resource has been provided for in the project design.
4.40 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation.
4.40.1. Purpose.
The purpose of an Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE), also know as a Phase 3
excavation, is to recover important archaeological information from a site to mitigate project-
related adverse impacts. When required by the Director, the project applicant shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to prepare and submit a written proposal to conduct an ADRE. The
proposal shall contain the information described in Section 7.20. Once approved, the project
applicant shall implement the ADRE proposal, to the satisfaction of the Director. Results of the
ADRE shall be documented in writing and submitted to the Central Coast Information Center.
4.40.2. When Required.
An Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE) shall be conducted when, in the opinion of
the Director, the site cannot be avoided and contains significant archaeological information which
can be recovered using commonly applied archaeological methods. An ADRE may be conducted
in response to findings of an ARI or the SARE, or due to the discovery of archaeological resources
during construction.
4.40.3. Archaeological Data Recovery: Procedures.
Data recovery may include a variety of methods, including controlled surface collection and
mapping, subsurface excavation,photographs, special sampling, and technical drawings to provide
a permanent record of features which may be affected by development. As provided under State
law, special rules apply to archaeological resource excavations:
0a -i9
Draft Archaeological Resom- ervation Program Guidelines
Page 16 "Attachment 1
4.40.3.1. Areas to be excavated. Excavation as part of a mitigation plan shall be limited to those
site areas that would be damaged, or that the Director determines are likely to be damaged by the
proposed project, unless special circumstances require limited excavation of adjoining areas to
develop important information about the part of the resource that would be damaged. Data
recovery excavation shall be directed by a Qualified Professional Archaeologist, and shall include a
Native American site monitor from the appropriate tribal group(s)if required by the approved Phase
3 research design. The archaeologist and monitor shall be onsite at all times during subsurface
disturbance.
4.40.3.2. Site security. Site security shall be maintained by fencing and a resident caretaker or
private professional security personnel, or other appropriate method to protect the resources from
unauthorized collection, to the Director's approval. Site security measures shall be provided at the
project applicant's expense.
4.40.3.3. Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are exposed, there shall be no further
excavation or site disturbance in the area likely to contain human remains until:
A. The County Coroner has been informed and determined that no investigation of cause of
death is required; and
B. If remains are likely to be of Native American origin, the Coroner has contacted the NAHC,
which will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend the most
appropriate disposition of the human remains and associated grave goods to the landowner or
other responsible party, as provided in Health and Safety Code Section 7052 and 7050.5, and
as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
C. Remains and grave goods uncovered must be documented as required by state law, or to the
approval of the Director.
D. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall
rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location not subject further subsurface disturbance:
i. The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC;
ii. The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation; or
iii. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD
and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
4.40.4 Curation of Archaeological Artifacts.
4.40.4.1. All archaeological materials removed from a project site shall be curated at a qualified
institution, to the approval of the Director. In determining the appropriate manner and location of
Ca -aa
Draft Archaeological ResourAWation Program Guidelines "Attachment I
Page 17
curation, the Director may ask the advice of local Salinan and Chumash tribal representatives.
Qualified institutions are those that meet federal guidelines described in 36 CFR 79 and have
facilities and staffing necessary for ensuring security, proper storage, environmental controls, and
research access to collections. Collections to be curated shall be submitted with all pertinent site
maps, field records,artifact catalogs,documentation, and photographs.
4.40.4.2. It is the project applicant's responsibility for making arrangements for curation and paying
any necessary curation fees.
4.40.4.3. To maintain local accessibility, archaeological collections shall be curated within San Luis
Obispo County. Archaeological collections may be curated at an out-of-county facility when the
Director determines that adequate facilities are not available within the County, or that preservation
objectives would be best served by an out-of-county facility.
4.40.5 Access to Archaeological Records.
4.40.5.1. Access to archaeological records on file in the Community Development Department may
be granted to qualified professional archaeologists conducting research or contract work within the
City, as well as the following individuals:
A. Appropriately supervised students conducting academic or scientific research.
B. Planners or other personnel employed by government agencies for purposes of preliminary
project analysis.
C. Professionally qualified cultural resource managers employed by government agencies or
public utility companies.
D. Owners of identified archaeological sites or their designated representatives.
E. Designated representatives of local Native American tribes, or individuals listed with the
Native American Heritage Commission.
F. Cultural Heritage Committee members.
G. Others approved by the Director or the CHC with a legitimate research need.
4.40.5.2. To protect archaeological resources,those receiving site record data must sign a document
of confidentiality prohibiting the distribution of specific site location information in public
documents without prior written consent of the Director.
4.50 Monitoring of Construction Activities.
Construction monitoring may be required by the Director if, after completion of an ARI, SARE, or
ADRE, the Director determines there is still a possibility that significant or potentially significant
archaeological resources are present in the impact zone and that it is not reasonable to conduct.
additional physical investigations prior to construction; and when it is necessary to ensure through
monitoring that the mitigation measures enacted to avoid or otherwise protect significant
archaeological resources located outside the immediate impact zone will be carried out. The
proposal to monitor construction must be prepared by qualified professional archaeologist and:
Draft Archaeological Resouration Program Guidelines attachment 1
Page 18
A. Be submitted to the Director in writing as part of the ARI, SARE, or ADRE and be approved
prior to the beginning of construction; and
B. Identify the qualified professional archaeologist; and where Native American artifacts or human
remains are likely, the Native American tribal representative or qualified site monitor, who will
conduct the monitoring; and
C. Recommend specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archaeological resources
during the construction of the project,per Section 4.60.
4.60 Archaeological Discoveries during Construction.
4.60.1. Notification. If during the course of a project, archaeological materials are identified by the
project archaeologist, archaeological monitor, tribal representative, City staff member, the project
applicant or his/her representative or employee, all construction activities that may disrupt those
materials shall cease. The Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological
materials. Refer to Section 4.40.3.2 on Discovery of Human Remains.
4.60.2. Field Study. Under most circumstances, the project applicant will be directed to retain a
qualified professional archaeologist to immediately visit the site, evaluate the materials recovered,
and provide a written report to the Director recommending the appropriate course of action.
4.60.3. Mitigation. If significant archaeological resources are present, the archaeologist shall
propose specific mitigation measures in writing. The Director may approve, approve with changes;
or reject the mitigation proposal. The project applicant shall implement the proposal, to the
satisfaction of the Director. A copy of the archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's
decision will be forwarded to the CHC.
4.70 Vwlations.
Failure to comply with these guidelines may constitute a violation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 21178.1), and constitute grounds for
legal action by the City or other interested parties. By the authority granted under CEQA Section
21004, the City of San Luis Obispo may, as a charter city, exercise those express or implied powers
granted to it under State law in reviewing and acting upon development permit requests, including
the denial of projects which do not comply with CEQA.
4.80 Appeals.
Any person may appeal a decision by the Director under these guidelines,pursuant to Chapter 17.66
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(SLOMC).
Draft Archaeological Resourcia. rvation Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 19
5.0 USE OF CONSOLIDATED APPROACH FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS
5.10.1 Purpose.
Archaeological studies in downtown settings present several challenges to conventional
archaeological field methods. Because archaeological deposits in densely developed urban
settings are often covered by fill or obscured on the surface by paving, buildings, or subsequent
historical or modern activities, the three-phased approach described in Chapter 4 may not be
feasible or effective for identifying archaeological deposits, evaluating their significance,
assessing potential project impacts, and mitigating impacts to less than significant levels. Under
such cases, a consolidated approach may be wan-anted.
5.20.1 Consolidated Approach Described.
The consolidated approach is most appropriate in the Downtown area (C-D zone), the most
densely developed and historically significant area of the City; however this approach may be
used in other zones where the Director finds that conventional methods are infeasible. A
"consolidated approach" combines the standard Phase 1 Inventory (ARI), Phase 2 Testing and
Evaluation (SARE), and Phase 3 Data Recovery (ADRE) into a single field operation that locates
archaeological remains, evaluates their significance and integrity, and mitigates impacts through
data recovery excavation.
5.30 Director Approval Required.
In all cases, use of the consolidated approach requires written Director approval prior to
construction activities. The project applicant shall submit a report to the Director, prepared by a
qualified professional archaeologist, describing the research design and mitigation, including
methods, testing, sorting and cataloging, public interpretation, and curation. The Director may
require changes or additions to the research design and mitigation prior to approval to meet the
Guidelines, or may deny the request if it is inconsistent with these Guidelines or inappropriate in
the proposed location.
5.40 Required Components.
To ensure compliance with CEQA and to meet City standards, the following steps shall be taken
when the consolidated approach is used:
5.40.1. Intensive archival research and documentation shall be provided to examine local land
use patterns and to identify site areas or interior building floor/foundation areas with the greatest
likelihood to contain artifacts.
5.40.2. Where conditions allow and appropriate protective measures are in place, mechanized
a -a3
Draft Archaeological Resourtion Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 20
equipment (typically a backhoe with a smooth bladed bucket) may be used to clear each target
area of unconsolidated fill and overburden, define site stratigraphy, establish the sequence of
historical and prehistoric strata in different portions of the project site, and expose intact features
and strata. The research design shall specify that for excavations using the consolidated
approach, the project archaeologist shall obtain Director approval before proceeding to the data
recovery phase. Moving forward prematurely (before research, testing or safety precautions are
in place) could pose safety hazards or irreparably harm or destroy archaeological data.
5.40.3. The most likely features to contain historically significant resources are hollow, refuse-
filled backyard features such as privies, trash pits, wells, cisterns, and sealed deposits such as
sheet middens, burned surfaces, and burned structural remains. The most likely features
indicating prehistoric significance .are middens and artifact-rich tool and debris scatters. Soil
stripping methods shall be designed to identify such features without damaging their integrity.
5.40.4. Clearing shall be monitored and supervised by a qualified professional archaeologist
familiar with urban feature types to ensure stratigraphic control and sensitive treatment of
potentially significant deposits.
5.40.5. A local Native American tribal representative shall monitor soil stripping if the Director
determines there is a potential for Native American deposits to be uncovered.
5.40.6. Where cultural features or strata are encountered, they should be exposed by manual
excavation in plan view in the scraped trench floor,not cross-sectioned within trench walls.
5.40.7. All features and strata should be photographed and mapped in relation to a permanent
datum.
5.40.8. Archival research shall continue as needed during the fieldwork to aid in feature and
artifact identification, determination of historical associations, and significance evaluation.
5.40.9. Feature evaluation involves defining the content, structure, stratigraphic integrity,
approximate date of deposition, and range and quantity of artifacts. Recent deposits (those less
than 50 years old) and features or deposits clearly lacking integrity can be eliminated from further
consideration.
5.40.10 If a feature's content, association, integrity, and/or significance is not evident from the
plan view perspective, an appropriate portion must be hand excavated to assess its content and
data potential. In the case of a refuse-filled pit, for example, the feature should be cross-
sectioned and part of each layer excavated.
5.40.11. The project archaeologist may make judgments in the field regarding the integrity and
significance of archaeological features and deposits, in consultation with the Director, according
to specific criteria established in the approved research design describing testing, evaluation, and
mitigations. If judged significant, hollow, artifact-rich historical features(such as privies)will be
excavated in their entirety. Foundations and other structural remnants may be cleared, mapped,
eC� J�
Draft Archaeological Resourtion Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 21
photographed, and documented in other ways. A representative sample sufficient to address
questions identified in the research design shall be recovered from midden deposits and other
strata.
5.50 Analysis.
The consolidated approach requires prompt analysis and evaluation of discovered features and
deposits so that timely decisions about significance can be made in the field. To facilitate that
process, a field laboratory(and, if necessary, water-screening station) should be established at the
project site. Preliminary artifact identification and analysis can occur in the field laboratory.
5.60 Special Studies and Curation.
Following completion of fieldwork, recovered artifacts shall be cleaned, preserved as necessary,
sorted, catalogued, and analyzed. Special studies,such as faunal and botanical analysis may also
be performed, if warranted, and the remains should be described and interpreted within the
historical contexts identified in the research design. All work should be reported in a final
technical report that meets current professional standards, and shall be submitted to the Director.
Artifacts recovered from significant deposits, along with special samples, photographs, field
notes, and other relevant site documentation, shall be curated pursuant to Section 4.40.4.
Draft Archaeological ResourA*ervation Program Guidelines
Page 22 Attachment 1
6.0 SENATE BILL 18— TRIBAL CONSULTATION
Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) created a process separate from CEQA that
expands protection and preservation of Native American sacred sites and traditional tribal
cultural places and increases Native American participation in the land use planning process. SB
18 mandates government-to-government consultation between the tribes and the local agency
prior to the adoption or amendment of general plans and specific plans proposed on or after
March 1, 2005. The law applies to private and public lands and sets a procedure for both
federally and non-federally recognized tribes on the Native American Heritage contact list to
participate in the land use planning process. The consultation process and required City actions
and timeframes are shown in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1
SB 18 Tribal Consultation.Flow Chart
n or amend
Adoption Applies Seal project des- Widm3D days N.9HC protides
mens of nay general deed irk cription to NABC tribal contact fi&r-
plan or wee1fie plan =======NO and rmaest tribal mation to City
proper(prRlect) Contact information
Puot w emitimune=&t tecieer
City prmvides project Within 90 days to Tribes respond to City schedules can-
description to tribes a4aesa consultation City on whether they prior ro ad%=n saltation if requested',
and notify of oppor- wish to consult on or if designating open
toaity to Consult with project andfor pro- space containing
local Government Widow 43 days for tide project corn- Cultural plaze(s)
Dm3ML ce®eaS meats
Na we
d5c deadltae—sr3adale at eadioamhle dare
Cita'holds consnita- Schedule statamty time Schedule public No sooner than Hold public hear-
tion meeting to Iden- ha& hag and provide 10 dans ing(s);approve Fro-
ttfy rn IMSMIEc to per. notice to tribes and MOMMOMOMMMpo- ject with cultural
serve or mW.- im- others requesting resource mitigation,
pacts to Cultural notice as appropriate
places
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines "Attachment
Page 23 °' t
6.10 General Plan Policy.
The General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) addresses SB 18 requirements
with the following policies:
A. General Plan COSE Policy 3.5.2: "All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall
be protected as open space wherever possible."
B. General Plan COSE Policy 3.5.7: The Native American community shall be consulted as
knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City considers updates or significant
changes to the General Plan.
C. General Plan COSE Policy 3.5.8: "The City will ensure the protection of archaeological sites
that may be culturally significant to Native Americans, even if they have lost their scientific or
archaeological integrity through previous disturbance"
6.20 SB 18 Implementation.
SB 18 changes the way in which California local governments process certain types of planning
applications. To implement General Plan policies and comply with SB 18, the City hereby
incorporates the following SB 18 requirements into the development review process:
A. Consultation. Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the
dedication of open space ("project") for the purpose of protecting cultural places, the City will
notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the California State Native
American Heritage Commission) of the opportunity to consult with the agency. The purpose of
consultation is to discuss ways to preserve or mitigate impacts to cultural places located on land
within the local government's jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or
amendment, or open space dedication. After notification, tribes have 90 days from the date on
which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed
to by the tribe.
B. Project referral. In addition, the City will refer the proposed project to those tribes that are on
the NAHC contact list and have traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction. The
purpose is to solicit comments on the project and to identify potential impacts to affected tribal
cultural places and mitigation measures. The referral will allow a 45-day comment period and
may run concurrently with the 90-day notice (or shorter period as agreed by the tribe) of the
opportunity for consultation. Notice must be sent regardless of whether prior consultation has
taken place but does not initiate a new consultation process.
C. Public hearing notice.The City will provide notice of a public hearing, at least 10 days prior to
the hearing, to tribes who have filed a written request for such notice (Government Code Section
65092)
6.30. Conservation easements. SB 18 also added California Native American tribes to the list of
O'�
Draft Archaeological Resourervation Program Guidelines N Attachment 1
Page 24
entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements. Tribes listed by the NAHC have the
ability to acquire conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places. The
NAHC recognizes the Chumash Native American Tribe and Salinan Native American Tribe within
San Luis Obispo County.
Draft Archaeological ResourOmation Program Guidelines ttachment 1
Page 25
7.0 SELECTION OF QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS
7.10 Procedures.
7.10.1. List of Qualified Consultants. The Community Development Department shall maintain
a list of qualified archaeological and historical consultants. To ensure all types of cultural resources
(e.g. prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic structures or traditional cultural
properties) are properly evaluated,consultants must be qualified in the appropriate area of expertise.
To be placed on the department's list for archaeological resources, a person or firm must:
A. Submit a resume to the Community Development Department with evidence that they have
been certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists, or that they meet the Secretary of
the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards; or
B. Submit a resume and evidence of experience to the Director. The Director may refer the request
to the Cultural Heritage Committee or the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) for a final
determination of qualifications.
7.10.2. Consultant Selection: Project applicants are responsible for selecting an archaeologist
from the Community Development Department's list of Qualified Archaeological Consultants,
entering into a contract for consultant services, and paying the full cost of consultant services up to
the maximum allowed by law.
7.10.3. Contract Administration by Director: The Director may, at his or her option, decide to
administer a contract for cultural resource investigation, evaluation or mitigation. In coordination
with the CHC, the Director may select a qualified professional archaeologist and may enter into a
contract for consultant services to conduct an ARI, SARE or ADRE. If the Director administers the
contract, the project applicant will be responsible for paying the costs of consultant services and for
the City's cost to administer the consultant contract,to the satisfaction of the Director.
7.20 Content of Consultant Proposals.
As a minimum,consultant proposals shall include:
A.Research goals and objectives of the proposed archaeological evaluation.
B. Description of the research to be conducted, methods used,and reporting procedures.
C.Qualifications of all personnel that will be involved in conducting the evaluation.
D.Purposes and procedures for digging test pits, taking auger samples or other methods for taking
subsurface samples and methods of recording all data.
E. Arrangement for curation of important archaeological resources in a qualified curatorial facility.
ca -a 9
Draft Archaeological Resouation Program Guidelines Attachment 1
Page 26
F. Procedures for collection and cataloging consistent with that of the curatorial facility where the
collections will eventually be housed.
G.Cost estimate for each major phase of the work to be conducted along with a total cost estimate
for all services rendered.
H.Schedule for completion of each phase of the research and for submittal of progress reports.
I. Statement clarifying the disposition and ownership of curated materials, and estimated cost of
curation, in the final survey report to the Community Development Department.
7.30 Phase 1 -Archaeological Resource Inventory(ARI): Submittal Requirements.
The qualified archaeologist shall:
A. Review the City's resource files and maps and materials available at the CCIC;
B. Conduct a surface survey of the site;and
C. Contact the California Native American Heritage Commission and request a search of their
Sacred Lands Inventory files. Contact all local Native American Tribal Representatives
identified by the Commission for information regarding sacred sites or important cultural
places.
D. Prepare a report,in a format as presented in the ARMR Checklist,Appendix 10.2..
7.40 Phase 2 - Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluations (SARE): Submittal
Requirements.
7.40.1. General Requirements.
A. Archaeological evaluations shall be conducted, and all reports prepared by a qualified
professional archaeologist, listed on the City's list of Qualified Archaeological Consultants for
the San Luis Obispo Area.
B. If the project involves the excavation of a potential aboriginal site, sacred area, or a site of
importance to an identified cultural or ethnic group, a representative of that group must be
offered the opportunity to monitor excavation activities.
C. All archaeological evaluations shall include field investigation and a report of findings. After
the completion of field work, the consultant shall prepare a written report for submittal to the
Director, as required by State law.
7.40.2. Mitigation and Monitoring. The qualified archaeologist shall:
Draft Archaeological Resouriervation Program Guidelines
Page 27 Attachment 1
A.Delineate areas recommended for protection.
B.Describe specific measures to mitigate impacts to important archaeological resources.
C.Recommend whether there is a need for additional archaeological evaluation or not,justify this
conclusion, and describe a general strategy for conducting such an evaluation, if necessary(e.g.
the types of subsurface tests recommended, etc., and the expertise required to complete such an
evaluation).
D.Recommend whether there is a need for monitoring the project during construction or not,
justify this conclusion,and specify the type of monitoring required, if necessary.
E. Recommend security measures to protect the cultural resources during field excavation and
related archaeological activities. Such measures may include, but are not limited to: fencing,
temporary capping,site lighting, and security staffing.
7.40.3. Disposition of Archaeological Reports. Three copies of all archaeological evaluation
reports shall be delivered to the Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93401-3218; and the required number of copies shall be submitted to the CCIC. All
maps and reports should be signed by the archaeologist who prepared or reviewed them.
7.50 Phase 3-Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations(ADRE): Submittal Requirements.
As a minimum,the consultant shall provide the following:
A. Project Information.
1. Description of the project including maps identifying the potential impact area. Maps should be
drawn to scale and should not be smaller in scale than 1"= 100 feet.
2. Description of the project's natural and cultural setting.
B. Research Design.
1. Research goals and objectives that are pursued by the expanded archaeological evaluation.
2. Maps and descriptions of the portions of the project site where subsurface investigations
occurred.
3. Description of the types of subsurface investigations (e.g. test pits, auger samples, etc.) and a
description of how they were accomplished.
4. Description of the data to be collected, data collection procedures and the cataloging system
used. (These procedures and systems must be consistent those used by the selected curatorial
facility.)
5. Method of recording evaluation progress (e.g. daily records,photographs).
6. Identification and qualifications of all project personnel and their role in completing the
evaluation.
C a -3 r
Draft Archaeological Resourervation Program Guidelines t
Page 28 SIRtaccnt
C. Excavation Report.
1. Historic, ethnographic and archaeological background.
2. Field and laboratory procedures, including total volume excavated, dimensions and depths of
each unit,percentage of soils screened at particular mesh sizes,etc.
3. Results of field investigations including descriptions of each type of artifact and subsistence
remains, a discussion of the depositional history of the site (including disturbances to the
deposits), reconstruction of occupational chronology to the extent that available data allow, and
a discussion of the likely place of the site in regional settlement patterns.
4. Tables and/or graphs presenting counts and weights of artifacts and other remains. The data in
these tables should be interpreted with regard to patterns in their vertical and horizontal
distribution and abundance.
5. Map showing unit locations tied to a site datum and a permanent landmark or permanent project
feature.
6. Description and delineation of those portions of the site which contain important data or
features, and the basis for their importance. If collected data are determined to be unimportant,
an explicit argument must be presented that supports this conclusion.
7. Evaluation of the direct and indirect damage that will be caused by the proposed project.
D. Mitigation Plan.
1. Identification of alternative methods for mitigating damage to important archaeological
resources.
2. An evaluation of the relative effectiveness of each alternative method --how well each will
reduce the damage to important archaeological resources.
3. A recommended mitigation strategy including a description of the work to be done, including
qualifications of personnel to do the work,the method of execution, and cost estimates.
E. Bibliography.
1. A listing of individuals or institutions consulted in the completion of the study.
2. A bibliography of references cited in the text, following the most recent American Antiquity
style guide.
3. Maps and documents cited.
� a -3a
Draft Archaeological ResourAervation Program Guidelines
Page 29 attachment 1
8.0 DEFINITIONS.
8.1 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation or Phase 3 (ADRE): Activities directed at
locating,recovering, and properly curating important archaeological materials and information from
a site to mitigate project-related adverse impacts. The ADRE is conducted when an archaeological
site cannot be avoided and when the site contains significant archaeological remains, as further
described in Section 4.40.
8.2 Archaeological resources: Physical remains and their associated sites from all periods of
human occupation, from prehistoric into historic times.
83 Archaeological resource evaluation: An analysis conducted by a qualified archaeologist
to determine the significance or importance of an archaeological resource and to identify the
potential project effects on the important aspects of the resource.
8.4 Archaeological Resource Inventory or Phase 1 (ARI): A preliminary archaeological
study to determine if a parcel contains or is likely to contain archaeological resources. The "ARP'
requires a check of maps, records and other historical literature and a surface field study by a
qualified archaeologist,as further described in Section 2.0.
8.5 Archaeological site: Those areas where archaeological resources are present and may be
larger or smaller than the project site.
8.6 Central Coast Information Center (CCIC): One of several statewide repositories for
cultural resource information and part of the California Historic Resource Information System, the
Center provides archeological and historical resources information, on a fee-for-service basis, to
local governments and individuals, collects and maintains information on historical and
archeological resources and maintains a list of qualified cultural resource consultants.
8.7 Consolidated approach- A "consolidated approach" is an alternative to phased
archaeological investigations for densely urbanized sites in the Downtown (C-D zone) which
combines the standard Phase 1 Inventory (ARI), Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation (SA.RE), and
Phase 3 Data Recovery (ADRE) into a single field operation that locates archaeological remains,
evaluates their significance and integrity, and mitigates impacts through data recovery
excavation.
8.8 Cultural Landscape: A cultural landscape is defined as "a geographic area,including both
cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a
historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values." (Preservation
Brief 36, U.S. Department of the Interior)
8.9 Cultural Place: A Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or
ceremonial site, or other features that are or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historic Resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 et. seq., including
C.a -33
Draft Archaeological ResourAervation Program Guidelines "Attachment 1
Page 30
8.10 Curation: The secure storage, and where appropriate, public display of artifacts or other
archaeological resources under appropriately controlled conditions at a institution, such as a
Museum, College, or University, which has the necessary equipment, staff, and expertise to provide
such services.
8.11 Director: The Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, or other
designated responsible staff person.
8.12 Historic resource: "Historical resources"shall include the following:
A. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission,
for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14
CCR. Section 4850 et seq.).
B. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of
the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the
requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; shall be presumed to be
historically of culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant
unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
C. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural,educational, social,
8.13 Most Likely Descendent (MILD): As determined by the California State Native American
Heritage Commission, the person or persons identified to be the most likely descendent of a
deceased Native American uncovered during construction or archaeological excavations. The
MLD has.responsibility to make recommendations to the property owner or his representative for
the treatment or disposition,with proper dignity,of the human remains and/or grave goods.
8.14 Monitoring: The watchful presence of a qualified archaeologist, qualified, local, Native
American representative or other appropriate monitor during construction on or near an
archaeological site. The monitor is responsible for observing construction activities, notifying
appropriate persons when construction activities threaten archaeological resources, and for
recommending specific procedures for avoiding damage to archaeological resources.
8.15 Native American monitor: A documented descendant of local Chumash or Salinan
people, as certified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The monitor shall
have documented experience and/or training in the recognition of prehistoric artifacts and an
understanding of local, state, and federal laws concerning the protection of Native American human
remains.
8.16 Parcel or project site: Those areas affected by project activities or the subdivided parcels
that contain the project activities,whichever is larger.
Ca- -3�
Draft Archaeological Resourrvation Program Guidelines Ottachment 1
Page 31
8.17 Project: A development project or other activitywhich has the potential for causing a
direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment, as further described in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15378.
8.18 Qualified archaeologist: A person with a graduate degree in Archaeology, Anthropology,
or History and additionally, whose credentials meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards for Historic or Prehistoric Archaeology; a person who is a member in good
standing of the Register of Professional Archaeologists, or a person whose professional credentials
have been referred to and accepted by the CHC.
8.19 Sacred Places: Places, features, and objects identified as a sanctified cemetery, place of
worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine by a Native American group recognized by
the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Physical evidence of
archaeological or historical resources need not be present for a site to qualify for this category.
8.20 Sensitive Site: A parcel or parcels which, due to their location and/or history, are likely to
contain archaeological resources, as further described in Section 1.30. The Director may require
that applicants for development projects located on "sensitive sites" submit archaeological studies
and mitigate impacts pursuant to these guidelines. Ground floor areas within historic buildings or
in buildings in historic districts are also considered"sensitive sites."
8.21 Significant or Important Archaeological Site or Resources: A significant or important
archaeological site or resource is one that retains integrity and meets the criteria of eligibility for the
California Register of Historical Resources,or that the Director finds:
A. Is designated and/or mapped as a significant cultural/historical resources in the City's local
inventory,is associated with a resource listed in the local inventory,is eligible for such local
listing,or is eligible for listing on the National or California Register,or
B. Is located within a defined historic district with a concentration of sites, buildings,
structures, or objects which are historically linked and/or associated with an important
historical event;or
C. Exemplifies or reflects noteworthy aspects of cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering,or architectural development at the local, state or national level;or
D. Can provide information which is of demonstrable public or scientific interest; or
E. Has special or unique qualities, such as oldest,best preserved, last example of its type, or of
particular rarity;or
F. Is at least 50 years old and possess substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
G. Is determined to be significant by the Director based on CEQA standards or other adopted
Ca -35'
Draft Archaeological Resourc'��Servation Program Guidelines
Page 32 Ittachment 1
State or Federal standards.
8.22 Substantial Subsurface Disturbance: Describes a project area where 80 percent or more
of the site surface area has been disturbed to average depth of six feet or deeper.
8.23 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation or Phase 2 (SARE): A subsurface
excavation and evaluation to verify the presence of archaeological resources, location of the
resources, condition of the resources and their archaeological significance, and where appropriate,
the potential project effects on the resources. The SARE becomes the basis of planning to mitigate
project impacts,where appropriate,through data recovery excavation or other means.
8.24 Subsurface Disturbance: Any physical change or disturbance which extends below the
natural or established soil surface.
8.25 Traditional Cultural Property: A traditional cultural property can be defined generally
as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with
cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that(a) are rooted in that community's history,
and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. The
traditional cultural significance of a historic property is significance derived from the role the
property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Examples of
properties possessing such significance include:
A. A location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its
origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world;
B. A rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use
reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents;
C. An urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that
reflects its beliefs and practices;
D. A location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are
known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with
traditional cultural rules of practice; and
E. A location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic or other
cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity.
(National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional
Cultural Properties,U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998)
8.26 Unexpected Archaeological Resources: Archaeological resources that are discovered
during the course of construction of a project.
8.27 Unique Archaeological Resources: Archaeological artifacts, objects, or sites about which
it can be clearly demonstrated that they have a high likelihood of. 1) providing information needed
C a -3�
Draft Archaeological Resouration Program Guidelines "ttachment 1
Page 33
to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that
information; 2) having special or particular qualities such as being the oldest of their type or best
available example of their type; and 3) being directly associated with a scientifically recognized
important prehistoric or historic event or person.
C'a -37-
Draft Archaeological Resouration Program Guidelines
Page 34 Attachment 1
9.0 REFERENCES United States Department of the Interior,National
Park Service. Federal Historic Preservation Laws.
Washington D.C.:National Center for Cultural
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use Resources,National Park Service,2002.
(1994); Conservation and Open Space Elements National Register Bulletin—How to Prepare
(2006). National Historic Landmark Nominations;
1999.
City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Guidelines for Evaluation and Documenting
Preservation Guidelines,October 1995. Traditional Cultural Properties, 1998.
State of California Regulations: United States Federal Regulations
California Supplement to General Plan Guidelines Secretary of the Interior Standards for the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Tribal Treatment of Historic Properties with
Consultation Guidelines,November 2005 Guidelines for Preserving,Rehabilitating,
Restoring,and Reconstructing Historic
California Civil Code Buildings(36 CFR 68), 1995.
Conservation Easements(CC§815-816).
California Health&Safety Code
California.Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act(HSC§8010-8030).
Hazardous Buildings(HSC§17922.2).
Human Remains(HSC§7050.5).
California Penal Code
Destruction of Historical Properties(Title 14,Part 1;
PC§622 %).
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological,Paleontological,and Historic Sites
(PRC§5097-5097.6).
California Environmental Quality Act(PRC
Sec.21000 et seq.),State CEQA Guidelines,
(Calif.Code of Regs. §15000-15387).
California Register of Historical Resources
(PRC§5024.1).
Historical Resources(PRC§5020-5029).
Native American Heritage(PRC§5097.9-
5097.991).
State Landmarks(PRC§5031-5033).
California State Historical Resources
Commission
Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological
Collections,Department of Parks and
Recreation, 1993
Federal Regulations:
�O
Draft Archaeological Resourrvation Program Guidelines so
Page 35 Attachment 1
10.0 APPENDICES
10.1 - Archaeological Site Record
stale d Caww,&-The Resoraoes neena7 Primary s
DEPARnMWOF PARKS AND RECR£ATM KM 4
PRIMARY RECORD Trihuuaniat
N1W saws Code
Omer Lwrvs Reniew Cade Reri n er
Date
Page_ of msaceemame0r&0 VeoeyM=*ff)
Pt. OtterkbRMw.
*P2. rte„ ❑NO for Putufiratiar ❑Unrestricted
•a. Cotady and(P$PX arm Pa ar P=A=aLatamn map as )
*h. USGS 7.5 Quad Date T :R ®of Sof See : ELK
e Addres city — —— — Zip ——
d. UTA" (WarnmelmoneWtupatrn,eareseaoes)Zone—, mFJ n tw—
e. Other t wimuy Data(e3-pmm#wecmm m reemroe,eavm=e!r-asapp ep ime)
'Pmt. Description:Mesume rem am tS=p a emeM. mmm amVL notarla ,amu Mn amenr,ujzp_senmg.add hammnes)
g'dh. ResomoeAttrftiLes (Ustamwesamamdest
%Resources Present❑BuWdng ❑ShudUre o Obpd ❑S2e ❑Maid 0 Benterd off OSS= o d>trerer-)
P5b. Descrip m of Ph=(w w,owe.amesdm v)
2P6 Dale Ca 5t r ctedAge and Sauce: o iiustana o Prehistoric ❑Bdh
77. Owner acrd Address:
P5a. PhdopharDtavOM(RwmgrpnrequmzrtmmngLgnxpseaaMcge=j 'P8. P"wdedhy.(Niumar.9==and
antes$)
•P9. DateRecorded
'P1Q Survey TYAw( )
2P11. Repot Carr(c to ownT
repmtandcatersmums.crerier?tote-) _
'Attachments: ❑NOME cLocadim
Map ❑Cord m2ban Street ❑Butldag.
9auretae,and Chgea Record
❑Ardsaeamg d Pa=d ❑DmMd Record aLmear Featae Re=d ❑Uftg Staniar Record ❑Rm*Ari Remrd
Okuba%e ❑Phcsgrdph Recall ❑Otlw(Lrgt
DPR 522A(1195) gtequced cdormarm
��.-3 `�
Draft Archaeological Resouration Program Guidelines
Page 36 �ttachont
Appendix 10.2 - Archaeological Resource Management Reports
Archaeological reports prepared pursuant to these guidelines should follow the Archaeological
Resource Management Report format described on the State of California, Office of Historic
Preservation website, at:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf
� tom•
!A
Chumash Native American cave painting
C°a -�a
Draft Archaeological Resour ation Program Guidelines 00 Attachment 1
Page 37
Appendix 10.3 - Instructions for Recording Historic Resources
Cultural resources identified and evaluated pursuant to these Guidelines shall be recorded as
provided under State law. Instructions for recording historic resources, including
archaeological sites and features, shall follow instructions and use forms on the California State
Office of Historic Preservation website at:
http://ohp.parks.ca.¢ov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf
g/cd-Plan/jhoo Warchaeologicalguidelinesupdate/chcfinaldrafto82409
C�-�J
_-Attach ent I
Summary of Acronyms Used in the August 2009 Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation or Phase 3 (ADRE): Activities directed at
locating, recovering, and properly curating important archaeological materials and
information from a site to mitigate project-related adverse impacts. The ADRE is conducted
when an archaeological site cannot be avoided and when the site contains significant
archaeological remains, as further described in Section 4.40.
Archaeological Resource Inventory or Phase 1 (ARI): A preliminary archaeological
study to determine if a parcel contains or is likely to contain archaeological resources. The
"ARI" requires a check of maps, records and other historical literature and a surface field
study by a qualified archaeologist, as further described in Section 2.0.
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act, California State Public Resources Code,
Sections 21000-21178.
Central Coast Information Center (CCIC): One of several statewide repositories for
cultural resource information and part of the California Historic Resource Information
System, the Center provides archeological and historical resources information, on a fee-for-
service basis, to local governments and individuals, collects and maintains information on
historical and archeological resources and maintains a list of qualified cultural resource
consultants.
CHC: City of San Luis Obispo's Cultural Heritage Committee
Most Likely Descendent (MLD): As determined by the California State Native American
Heritage Commission, the person or persons identified to be the most likely descendent of a
deceased Native American uncovered during construction or archaeological excavations..
The MLD has responsibility to make recommendations to the property owner or his
representative for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains
and/or grave goods.
NAHC: California State Native American Heritage Commission
Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation or Phase 2 (SARE): A subsurface
excavation and evaluation to verify the presence of archaeological resources, location of the
resources, condition of the resources and their archaeological significance, and where
appropriate, the potential project effects on the resources. The SARE becomes the basis of
planning to mitigate project impacts,where appropriate, through data recovery excavation or
other means.
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of San Luis Obispo
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Community Development Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo Filing Not Required
San
Monterey Street, 408 AftacbmentSan Luis Obispo, CA 93408-3237
Project Title: Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines Update
Project Location -Specific:
Citywide
Project Location -City: San Luis Obispo Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo
Description of Project:
The project updates to the City of San Luis Obispo's Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines, first adopted in
1995. The update will bring the City into compliance with state law regarding tribal consultation (SB 18)and makes minor
changes to sections on identifying, evaluating, protecting and mitigating impacts to archaeological resources. The
Guidelines also define key terms and describe procedures for selecting archaeological consultants, preparing and
submitting archaeological studies, and for public and environmental review.
Name of Public Agency Approving the Project: City of San Luis Obispo
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out the Project: John Mandeville, Director of Community Development
Exempt Status(check one):
Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency(Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec.21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c))
Categorical Exemption. Section 15308. Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment.
Statutory Exemptions. State code number.,
Reasons why project is exempt:
The project involves preparation and adoption of procedures to comply with state law and with city general plan policies for
environmental protection. It is exempt because it involves regulatory actions authorized by state and local ordinance to
ensure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement of the environment.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Jeff Hook, Senior Planner Area Code/Telephone/Ext. 805-781-7176
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes NlNlo
Signature: LW
Date:
;1�igned
Community Development ' ector, DEF Ttq
by Lead Agency Date Received for Filing at OPR:
Signed by Applicant
Revised October 1989
(2�a-L43
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: Jeff Hook, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: July 27, 2009
FROM: Kim Murry,Deputy Director,Long Range Planning
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Review of the updated Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Review the Draft Guidelines, comments received, take public testimony, and continue the item to
the August 24, 2009 meeting.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Staff is re-introducing the draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines at
tonight's meeting, Attachment 1. The Committee should take public testimony, review the
updated draft, section by section, and continue the item to the August CHC meeting to 1) allow
additional public review and 2) further Committee discussion and final CHC action. No
Committee action is anticipated at tonight's meeting.
The Committee reviewed a preliminary draft last year. At the meeting, archaeologists Barry
Price and Ethan Bertrando commented on the draft guidelines and addressed some of the public
comments listed in the staff report. Mr. Price expressed interest in reviewing future drafts of the
Archaeological Guidelines Update, particularly on technical details of archaeological methods
and standards. Committee members welcomed the archaeologists' participation in the update
process and continued the item with direction to revise the draft to address public comments and
to work with community representatives to provide technical assistance.
Staff has since revised the preliminary draft guidelines based on comments received from
professional archaeologists, Native American representatives and CHC members, and re-routed
the revised draft for public comments. Attachment 2 includes comments received on the revised
draft. The main changes in the updated draft are:
1. Section 5.0, "Use of Consolidated Approach to Archaeological Investigations", was
added to reflect best archaeological practices in built-up areas like Downtown SLO. This
approach combines the step-by-step approach traditionally practiced in phases 1- 3, where
space and time limitations often require a different approach. Director approval is
required to use this approach.
d-D -qy
Archaeological Resource PreMon Program Guidelines Update
July 27,2009 ttachmemt 3
Page 2
2. Section 6.0, "SB 18 Tribal Consultation" was expanded with additional detail on
consultation procedures, including a new flow chart, Figure 1.
3. Section 8.0, "Definitions" was expanded to include terms not previously defined, like
"cultural place", "significant archaeological site", "sacred place" and "traditional cultural
property."
4. Section 1.50, "Native American Perspective" was added to acknowledge the broad
purposes of Native American consultation and cultural resource preservation.
5. Edited the document format and text for clarity.
6. Reduced the number of technical appendices by providing a website link to the most
current documents available and in common use for archaeological studies and
documentation.
Overall, the draft's organization and format follow the adopted version. The Guidelines serve
two main purposes: 1)to set out cultural resource preservation procedures and requirements, and
2) to establish environmental thresholds used in determining development project impacts and
mitigation measures. The Guidelines are adopted by Council resolution, upon recommendation
by the CHC. They are used by the public, developers, Native American groups, decision-makers
and staff in preparing and reviewing development proposals, environmental impact reports and
cultural resource studies. They can be modified at any time by Council, upon initiation by the
public, CHC or staff. As described below, this update is needed to meet State law and reflect
current archaeological practice methods.
Why Update the Guidelines?
The City is updating its Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, primarily to
address changes in State law. The Guidelines were originally adopted in 1995. Updating the
Archaeological Guidelines has been on the Committee's workprogram for several years; however
other priorities have delayed the update. SB 18, a State law requiring local governments to
consult California Native American Tribes on certain land use matters, became effective in
March 2005, and our Guidelines do not address or accommodate SB 18's requirements.
This is intended as an update, not a new document. As such, the Committee is revising the
document to: 1) ensure compliance with SB 18 and the updated General Plan, 2) revise terms or
procedures as needed and 3) make other changes for clarity, organization and format.
DISCUSSION
General Plan Policy
Archaeological resources are a fundamental part of the City's cultural heritage and that of Native
Americans who lived on the Central Coast thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans.
Archaeological Resource Pre- Program Guidelines Update _
July 27,2009
Att
Page 3 achment 3
The General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element seeks to preserve archaeological sites
and resources, and to recognize Native Americans' important role in preservation. It says the
City will:
3.4 Archaeological resources. Expand community understanding, appreciation and support
for archaeological resource preservation.
3.5.1 Archaeological resource protection. Provide for the protection of both known and
potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage to important
archaeological sites...mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
3.5.7 Native American participation. Native American participation shall be included in the
City's guidelines for resource assessment and impact mitigation.... The Native American
community shall be consulted as knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City
considers updates or significant changes to its General Plan.
3.6.5 Archaeological resource preservation standards. The City will maintain standards
concerning when and how to conduct archaeological surveys and the preferred methods
of preserving artifacts.
The recommended changes are consistent with these policies.
CEQA Requirements
Archaeological resources must be considered as part of the State-mandated environmental review
process prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (CEQA), part of
the California Public Resources Code. CEQA applies to all projects carried out by state and local
government, special districts, public institutions and private individuals or groups. CEQA
requires local governments to determine whether a project may have significant adverse effects
on important archaeological resources and, if so, what measures should be used to prevent or
reduce these effects to less-than-significant levels. The proposed update will ensure the
guidelines stay current with CEQA requirements and provide additional procedural details and
"tailor" the review procedures to fit local needs and conditions. According to State CEQA
guidelines:
"Public agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for administering
their responsibilities under CEQA. Additionally, local governments will often
Produce materials for distribution to the public explaining the local CEOA process
The OHP strongly recommends the creation of such documents to further aid the
public in understanding how CEQA is implemented within each local government's
jurisdiction. Often a local historic preservation ordinance will also come into play in
that process. /n such instances, the OHP further recommends that the local
ordinance procedures be explained in a straightforward public document."
Archaeological Resource on Program Guidelines Update
July 27,2009 AttachmentPage 4 3
Senate Bill 18
SB 18 was signed into law in 2004 and became effective in 2005. It requires cities and counties
to notify and consult with California Native American Tribes when adopting or amending
general and specific plans or when designating land as open space through a general plan change.
The purpose of consultation is to protect Native American cultural places that may be impacted
by the proposed action. SB 18 is a process separate from CEQA. It broadens the focus from the
protection and preservation of archaeological sites and artifacts to also include consultation with
California Native American Tribes in the early stages of local land use considerations, namely
general and specific plan adoption and amendment.
The law defines cultural places as "places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and
5097.995 of the Public Resources Code."
PRC 5997.9—Native American sanctified cemetery,place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or
sacred shrine.
PRC 5097.995—Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1,
including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or
historic site.
The California State Native American Heritage Commission advises local governments on how
to implement the law and identifies "California Native American Tribes"in the area that must be
consulted. Attachment 2 provides more details on SB 18 and the consultation process.
Comments Received
The Preliminary Draft was distributed last year, to the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, the
Salinan Tribe, the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians (Chumash), cultural resource
preservation professionals, environmental organizations, building and development
representatives, and City departments. The draft has been revised to address most, but not all
comments received, and then recirculated last month to the same respondents. As a refresher,
here's a summary of public comments received and staff responses (in Italics):
2009 Comments Received:
Comments 1 through 5 are from the San Luis Obispo City Engineer, Barbara Lynch:
1. The shifting of Section 4.30.3 covering capping to 4.30.56 recovery doesn't seem to make
sense. The wording is also severe. When we make finds in the street, we won't be doing
something like deeding it to a conservation easement. Perhaps if the right-of-way is typically
going to be capped, we could state as much. Sections 4.30 and 4.40 provide various options to
preserve cultural resources, from preservation in place to excavation. The Director typically
determines which approach is best, based on recommendations by the CHC and the project
archaeologist. Mitigation measures specifying the preservation approach will be incorporated
C )-JYT
Archaeological Resource Pre. &_. ii Program Guidelines Update
July 27,2009 Attachment 3
Page 5
into most public and private development projects to meet CEQA requirements. Preservation
"in situ" is usually preferred, where practical, but is not a strict requirement.
2. Section 4.40.3.1 The addition of a Native American monitor will drive a significant
monitoring bill for projects. This appears to be only for the Phase III work, but we should tie it
down further that what we are excavating is a significant Native American find, versus some
other type of find. Use of a Native American monitor is standard "best practice" wherever
Native American cultural resources or remains may be found, and that applies to most areas of
San Luis Obispo (unless they're exempt, per Section 1.20). We usually don't know at the
beginning of a Phase III investigation exactly what resources will be found. For example, the
Kozak parking lot excavation uncovered artifacts from three different periods, including Native
American, Chinese and late 19th century material. Consequently, the Guidelines require a
Native American monitor for all such excavations; however the Salinan Nation's request that all
Phase III excavations have two Native American monitors (Chumash and Salinan) is not
necessary in most cases and consequently, was not included in the draft.
3. Section 4.40.3.2 Again, the situation of findings in the ROW or anywhere downtown
where property is used to the fullest, will make this reburial directive ("...on the property...")
difficult if not impossible. What happened to the Native American representative taking charge
of the body for reburial at an appropriate site? Procedures for the treatment of human remains
are strictly governed by State and local law. The Guidelines follow those directives. If Native
American remains were unearthed by a project in the ROW, work in the immediate area would
stop and the Coroner and Northern Chumash and Salinan tribal representatives notified. The
Most Likely Descendent (MLD) would recommend the most appropriate disposition of the
remains and any grave goods. If it were a City project, the City would be responsible for
respectfully reburying the remains, or other disposition (e.g. turning the remains over to the
Most Likely Descendent).
4. 4.60 Who decides if it is likely we will find Native American artifacts? As noted above,
the added monitoring can drive a significant budget. I think we paid $250,000 on the downtown
project when we had both an archeologist and a NA. I recognize their desire to be involved, but
the fiscal consequences should be dealt with. Chapters 2.0 and 3.0 describe the steps required in
evaluating a site for cultural resources: resource methods, location, potential finds and
significance, etc. The Director must review the recommendations. It's there that the decision of
whether to use a monitor would typically be made. While the monitor does add cost, it's cost is
relatively modest compared with the expense of a long, drawn-out litigation with Native
American or environmental groups over a violation of State or Federal law.
5. Consultants: Are we going to maintain a list of qualified NA monitors? We do maintain
a list of Qualified Archaeological Professionals, and Site Monitors is one of the categories
included. However the Secretary of the Interior does not set professional standards for site
monitors as it does for archaeologists, historians and others. The only recognized criteria are
listed in 8.13. Beyond that, it's up to the project archaeologist and the City's project manager
on who they're "comfortable" with. Most site monitors are responsible professionals; if they
aren't responsible or do poor quality work, in time they will no longer be hired.
l..J
Archaeological Resource PAW Program Guidelines Update
July 27'2009 Attachment 3
Page 6
Comments 6 and 7 are from Wendy Waldron, Caltrans Archaeologist and former CHC member)
6. Reference section on Discovery of human remains in Section 4.60—Discoveries during
construction. Done.
7. Recommends that the "Consolidated Approach" include specific approval procedures to
confirm when that approach is warranted; otherwise it may be over used; and require Director
approval when Consolidated Approach can move forward to Data Recovery Phase. Done, see
Section 6.0.
8. Comment from Clay Singer& Associates, Inc: Avoid adding acronyms and place "Research
Design" in Phase II. Consultant proposals, including research design, are addressed in Section
7.20.
Comments 9-16 are from Robert Hoover, archaeologist.
9. Clarify use of ARMR guidelines. Done, see Appendix 10.2.
10. Archaeological Qualifications: use Secretary of Interior's Professional Standards rather than
the narrower"Registry of Professional Archaeologists." Done, see Section 7. The recommended
approach allows either standard, however consultants must be on the City's List of Qualified
Archaeological Consultants.
11. Archaeological Monitoring is not mitigation. Agreed, see Section 4.50.
12. Native American consultation: Clarify reference to "tribal representatives." Done, see
Definitions, 8.13.
13. Reports: Consultant should file reports. See Section 3.30. Whether the applicant or
consultant physically submits the reports is not specified, only the preparation.
14. Historic Archaeological Sites: change date from 75 to 50 years. Done, see Definitions, 8.18.
15. Sacred Places: State that "physical evidence of archaeological or historical resources need
not be present for a site to qualify for this category. Done, see Definitions, 8.16.
2008 Comments Received:
1. Need to define the term "Cultural Landscape."A definition of "cultural landscape" was
added, based on a definition in "Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural
Landscapes", issued by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
2. Proposed revisions in some ways conflict with standard archaeological procedures as they
are applied today in the City, particularly in the urban core, where the standard
ARUSAREIARIM has largely been changed to a consolidated approach that combines
identification, evaluation and mitigation into a single process. The comment reflects a
Ca -1 �
Archaeological Resource Pre"n Program Guidelines Update "Attachment
July 27,2009 tach�nent 3
Page 7
research designlmitigation approach used for at least two, large Downtown development
projects. This approach is addressed in Section 5.0 regarding use of a "consolidated
approach" as an acceptable alternative study design in certain locations.
3. Archaeological Guidelines should clearly distinguish between archaeological resources,
artifacts, traditional cultural properties, and other resources of concern to Native
Americans. Definitions were added and expanded to clarify these features.
4. Is Section 1.60 necessary? Once they are implemented, they will no longer be relevant to
specific project planning. The main purpose of this update is to comply with SB 18.
Section 1.60 previously explained how the City intends to comply with State law and
affirmed commitments made to the Northern Chumash Tribal Council. The section
became moot with the update and was deleted, since with adoption of the Guidelines the
City will have complied with SB 18 requirements..
5. There are several references in the Guidelines to the "Appendix K" cost in limitations in
an earlier version of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix K was deleted and key provisions
incorporated into the body of the Guidelines. References to Appendix should be deleted
References to Appendix K were deleted.
6. In several places in the revisions, the Northern Chumash Tribal Council is given a
privileged position with regards to consultation and participation in the process. While
the NCTC does many good things, it is not the only Native American group with an
interest in the process. The Draft Guidelines were amended to clarify this point.
7. The NTCT (or any other Native American organization) should not be listed as certified
archaeological specialists unless they meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards. The Draft Guidelines were amended accordingly.
8. Archaeological Resources, as described in the Draft Guidelines, are more appropriately
referred to as California Native American Chumash or Salinan Cultural Resources. While
these are an important — even a principle part — of the Central Coast's heritage, the
broader term "archaeological resources" encompasses a broader range of resources
that are not directly tied to the above tribal groups. Staff recommends keeping the
broader term with a clarification to reflect the above comment.
9. The Draft Guidelines describe California Native American Culture and History as if these
are something disconnected and in the past; that is not living. That is not correct. Native
American Culture and History are alive and well. Comment acknowledged and addressed
in a new section 1.50.
10. Sacred and Cultural Places need to be more clearly defined (see attached letter from
NCTC, point 1.30. Add the term "Sacred District." The Draft Guidelines include
definitions of Sacred Place, Cultural Place and Cultural Landscape. Sacred District is
not defined separately but can be included as a cultural landscape without adding a new
term that is not recognized in the federal standards and guidelines.
11. The qualified archaeologist must contact the local Native Americans to determine if they
Ca Sb
Archaeological Resource Pre:, ia,..,o Program Guidelines Update Attachment 3
July 27,2009
Page 8
know of any Sacred or Cultural Places in the project footprint. The archaeologist should
consider having a Native American Chumash or Salinan with them during the Phase 1
survey. While these procedures may be desirable in certain situations, they do not
appear to be required under SB 18.
12. A Monitoring Plan should be submitted with an archaeological report. This is addressed
in the Draft Guidelines. See Section 4.50.
13. The California Native American Chumash or Salinan should be compensated for their
time spent in analyzing the proposed project in the appropriate manner. Professionals
providing a service as part of archaeological studies or mitigation are typically
compensated. This is outside the scope of the Draft Guidelines.
14. It's important for all parties to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive documents (e.g.
burial sensitivity maps, site maps and details). Agreed Staff added appropriate
language under Section 4.40.5.
15. What is a "Cultural Community Advisor?" Section 4.50 (B) has been revised. Cultural
community advisor was replaced with "qualified site monitor."
16. On any and all bids for archaeological services, the City must retain the right to discard
the lowest bids and choose the most complete and thorough plan. City bidding
procedures already include a similar provision. The City may legally select the "lowest
responsible bidder" based on the bidder's experience, qualifications, and capability to
satisfactorily complete the job. This is beyond the scope of the Archaeological
Guidelines.
17. When choosing an archaeologist for subsurface excavations, a California Native
American Chumash or Salinan should also be included in the process. Each site must be
respected in accordance with the Freedom of Religion Act; California Native American
should always be on site to give ceremony to our ancestors. SB 18's purpose is to require
local governments to consult with California Native American Tribes to aid in the
protection of traditional tribal cultural places through land use planning. The City's
intent is to respect and protect such resources; however the recommended procedures are
not required by SB 18 or CEQA.
18. The Chumash People's story should be part of the Guidelines' introduction. The
Guidelines contain policies and procedures for implementing cultural resource
preservation measures. They are not intended to identify or describe, individually or
collectively, significant cultural resources. To do that would require a much longer
document and would not be consistent with the Guidelines'purposes.
For comments 19 through 28 are from the Salinan Tribe:
19. Recommendation that on p. 4, section 1.60.2.E, include property owners, contractors, and
developers as well as City staff so they understand their rights and responsibilities. SB 18
applies only to local government. The City could recommend, but not compel these
groups to seek training in "Native American awareness."
�a s��
Archaeological Resource Prefon Program Guidelines Update
July27, 2009
9
Page 9 Attachment 3
20. Recommendation that under Section 4.30 Mitigation Methods — Avoidance, the Salinan
Tribe does not feel capping should be considered mitigation, since it can be intrusive to
cultural resources. Capping, if properly done, is generally considered a form of
"avoidance" and acceptable mitigation. As described in Section 4.30.6, Capping is the
least preferred approach to protecting cultural resources from development.
21. In Section 4.40 Archaeological Data Recovery — Excavation, 4.40.1, recommend that
project sponsors also be required (in addition to an archaeologist) to retain a qualified
consultant from both Salinan and Chumash Tribes, and that tribal representative be
present during excavation. Section 4.40:3.1 addresses site monitors. For most public
and private development, selection of site monitors is the responsibility of the project
archaeologist. It requires that a "Native American site monitor from the appropriate
tribal group(s)" be present, pursuant to a City-approved research design. Under most
circumstances, only one site monitor will be necessary unless it can be clearly shown that
the site is likely to contain both Salinan and Chumash cultural materials.
22. Recommendation to clarify procedures and add language on the Discovery of Human
Remains, Section 4.40.3.3 Staff has added language to address this.
23. Recommendation that Native American groups share the determination, along with the
Director, of the adequacy of curation facilities for preservation of cultural objects. Native
American groups may comment on such facilities; however the responsibility to
determine adequacy should remain with the Director.
24. Recommendation to include a representative of the Salinan and Chumash tribes as part of
Field Study, on p. 12 under Section 4.60.2. Same staff response as under#21.
25. Recommendation of wording change to require that the City "Contact both Salinan and
Chumash tribal representatives for information regarding sacred sites." This is addressed
through tribal consultation procedures, Section 6.0.
26. Recommendation that under Definitions, "Native American Monitor" be described as a
"documented local descendant of the Salinan and Chumash people" and that "Qualified
Archaeologist" be defined as a person approved by the Salinan Tribe. The definition of
Native American Monitor was revised accordingly; however staff is concerned that
requiring Native American approval of project archaeologists is not required by SB 18
and may add uncertainty and delays to the process.
27. Recommendation that the most current information be used to describe cultural settings,
dated 2005 or more recent. Staff agrees that archaeological reports should include the
most recent information available—setting a date may not be workable.
28. Recommendation that on p. 23, under XIII. Appendices H, all Native American observer
or monitor notes should be referred to the Salinan Tribe for review. Field notes are
generally not public information, but are summarized in publicly available reports. As
provided in Section 4.40.5.IE, Native American representatives will have access to
archaeological records, including field notes.
Ca -Sa
Archaeological Resource Pr6_ _✓a..,n Program Guidelines Update
July2009
1 jjj
Page 10 Attachment 3
Comments 29 through 47 are from Ethan Bertrando (note: some comments combined, and
editorial comments not included here):
29. The Native American Heritage Committee (NAHC) identifies the Yokut tribe as being
present in SLO County so they should be included in SB 18 notification to allow
consultation. The City is required to notify Native American groups listed by the NAHC.
Staff contacted the NAHC and no Yokut tribal representatives were listed(Attachment 3).
If and when the NAHC recognizes the Yokuts as a tribal contact for SLO City, staff will
notify that tribe. NAHC is consulted each time for new projects, so the list may change.
30. How is the determination of "substantial subsurface disturbance" made? It is a
determination by the Community Development Director based on grading or construction
plans, and further defined in the Definitions section.
31. How can small parcels be exempt from ARIs, since these types of studies trigger
Information Center searches? The CHC based the exemption on the likelihood of finding
significant cultural resources; with the caveat that if a parcel less than I acre is located
in a "Sensitive Area" as defined in the Guidelines, the Director may require an ARL.
32. The Mission District should be expanded to encompass the extended Mission facilities.
More information is needed on this comment.
33. Recommendation that sensitive locations include: rock outcrops, springs, and locations
along (within 200 feet?) old historic roads. Provided that adequate information exists to
identify these locations, the CHC or the Director may designate these and other locations
as sensitive sites, as provided in Section 1.30E.
34. Clarify meaning of"Project Developer" and"Project Applicant"throughout. Done.
35. Are there Native American criteria that should be included in determinations of
significance? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 establishes the statutory basis for
significance determinations. Adding additional local criteria could add further
complexity, inconsistency and uncertainty to the resource evaluation process.
36. Clarify comment under Section 3.40.4 regarding the need for monitoring if remains are
found not to be significant. Done.
37. Capping can sometimes cause changes in runoff patterns. Does this need to be addressed
in section 4.30.3? Staff believes this can be addressed by requiring drainage information
with proposed mitigation measures calling for capping.
38. NAHC should be contacted to determine appropriate Most Likely Descendant. Cities my
contact Native American groups if required as part of an SB 18 agreement. Agreed. This
is consistent with the Guidelines.
39. How does the Director determine when an ARI is required? Typically, it is based on the
recommendation of the project archaeologist or the CHC for larger projects, as
C� S3-
Archaeological Resource Aon Program Guidelines Update
July 27,
112009
11
Page Attachment 3
described in Section 2.20.
40. On p. 10, section 4.40.3.313, what if reburial at that location is not possible? How are
alternatives determined? The Most Likely Descendant should be consulted. This is
addressed in Section 4.40.3.3.
41. How will curation requirements be built into projects? This is typically a mitigation
measure required under CEQA, including a financial responsibility for curation and the
incorporation of features into the project itself. Other measures are also possible, such
as on-site display.
42. Can 36 CFR 79 be used as a reference for curation facility requirements? Curation
requirements are addressed in Section 4.40.4.
43. Are proposals required for ARIs as well as SAREs and ADREs? Yes, this is addressed
in the Draft.
44. Archaeological Resource Evaluation definition should note that determinations will be
based on excavation data. See Section 3.40, Determination of Significance.
45. Clarify definition of"cultural place" and "sacred site" under Section 5.60. Sacred site is
a synonym for "sacred place." "Cultural Place" is defined according to State
guidelines. Both are defined under definitions.
46.Definitions of monitoring differ between archaeologists and Native Americans; these
should be "separated out." See Section 4.50.
47. Should the Definitions section 5.60 also include "Native American Representative"? No
change needed. The Native American representative is designated by NAHC.
Alternative Ways to Proceed
The Committee should open the public hearing and take comments on the draft; then consider
comments and provide direction to staff on changes. The Committee's direction must reflect the
majority of voting members present. The Committee may then:
1) Continue the item to a date certain, with discussion of the above comments and direction
to revise the Draft, as appropriate (staff recommended approach); or
2) Schedule a special meeting to review the Draft; or
3) Recommend Council approval of the Draft, with direction to staff on changes to be
incorporated prior to Council review. Council could then take final action on the Draft.
For CEQA purposes, the proposed update is deemed Categorically Exempt from environmental
review (Section 15308. Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). It
consists of an action by a regulatory agency, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure
the maintenance, restoration,enhancement, or protection of the environment.
0a -s y
Archaeological Resource Pre, ia.ofi Program Guidelines Update
July 27,2009 AttachmentPage 12 3
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Draft Guidelines, discuss and provide direction to staff as appropriate, and continue
the item to the August 24, 2009 regular CHC meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Updated Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
2. Comments received on 2009 Draft
3. Letter from Native American Heritage Commission
cd-plan/jhook/chc/ArchaeologicalGuidelinesUpdatdDmftarchpracguidelines7-27.09rpt
Draft CHC Minutes �}�etac ��„{,��
August 24,2009 •
Page 4
and provision of an historic farm implement display. The farm implement display shall
be clearly shown on a site plan for review by the Architectural Review Commission.
3. The proposed exterior design of the barn shall be modified for consistency with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Reconstruction. Specifically, no exterior
elements such as aluminum storefronts or other doors or windows that are not a part of
the original barn design shall be allowed. Exterior roof treatment shall match historic
roof treatment and may be shake or corrugated steel. Surviving barn materials shall be
incorporated into the reconstruction. The footprint and orientation of the barn shall
match original, and structural supports shall be consistent with the bam's original
character and period of construction, consistent with the Secretary's standards and
Historic Building Code, to the Director's approval. Revised exterior plans for the barn
shall be completed for review by the Architectural Review Commission.
4. The granary building shall be rehabilitated and integrated into building B, recessed
slightly and oriented west. Plans shall be revised to the approval of the Community
Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission.
5. The reconstruction of the water tower and windmill shall be performed consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Reconstruction and shall replicate original
construction, material, design, placement, and scale. The windmill shall be operational.
The lower portion of the water tower shall be enclosed with siding to replicate the
original design.
6. New buildings shall respect and complement the historic ranch design theme by
utilizing agrarian architecture. Materials such as corrugated steel, wood (or simulated
wood) siding, and related products shall be used as exterior treatment.
7. Plans shall include pervious paving (or gravel and decomposed granite where feasible)
in the ranch area, consistent with its agricultural character, subject to Director's
approval.
AYES: Committee Members Barbara Breska, Dan Carpenter, Katy Davis, Dean Miller,
Jeff Oliveira, Vice-Chair Chuck Crotser, and Chairperson John Fowler
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
2. City-Wide. CHC 85-08; Review of the updated Draft Archaeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook)
Jeff Hook, Senior Planner, presented the staff report which recommended the Committee
forward the Draft Guidelines to the City Council with a recommendation that the Council affirm
the Director's environmental determination and approve the Draft Archaeological Guidelines.
c-Ij_��
Draft CHC Minutes Attachmerrt 4
August 24,2009
Page 5
Committee Member Miller would like to see the report lead with the acronyms associated with
previous terms related to phasing. Mr. Miller provided staff with a list of acronyms he noted.
Mr. Hook noted that acronyms could be listed alphabetically in the Glossary and Committee
members supported this approach.
Committee Member Oliveira requested clarification in reference to the Director as noted on page
9 and throughout the report. Mr. Hook replied that the Guidelines implement California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and that the Community Development
Director is responsible for ensuring CEQA requirements are met. Mr. Oliveira noted that the
language should be refined for Phases 3 and 4 archaeological determinations.
Mr. Hook discussed the proposed eligibility criteria for the List of Qualified Professional
Archaeologists, and Mr. Oliveira supported the approach of including the Registry for
Professional Archaeologists (RPA)as meeting eligibility requirements..
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
On motion by Vice Chair Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Davis, the Committee
recommended the City Council affirm the Director's environmental determination and approve
the Draft Archaeological Guidelines.
AYES: Committee Members Barbara Breska, Dan Carpenter, Katy Davis, Dean Miller,
Jeff Oliveira, Vice-Chair Chuck Crotser, and Chairperson John Fowler
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
CONEWUNICATIONS:
a. Agenda Forecast—Staff
b. Committee
1. Vice Chairperson Crotser would like to see the Committee included in the review
of plans to install fire sprinklers in the historic, City-owned Jack House.
2. Mr. Hook explained that plans for an information gathering trip to the City of
Monterey retreat was in the planning stages.
3. Plans for a CHC retreat on Wednesday, October 20 from 5- 9 pm at the Ludwick
Center had been firmed up. More information would follow soon.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING UPDATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, In October 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8459,
establishing Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines to implement the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to assist developers, staff, citizens and decision-makers
in understanding a project's environmental effects prior to approval and to mitigate significant
adverse effects; and
WHEREAS, Changes to State law regarding cultural resources and tribal consultation
(SB 18) as well as changes in archaeological procedures and practices necessitates an update to
the adopted Guidelines to address these changes; and
WHEREAS, The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) prepared Draft Guidelines based
on General Plan policies, State law and guidelines, and public input received at four public
hearings, including detailed comments received from Native American tribes, cultural resource
professionals, and citizens; and
WHEREAS, The proposed Guidelines are consistent with and implement April 4, 2006
General Plan Conservation and Open Space Polices 3.5.1 through 3.5.9 regarding archaeological
resource protection, Native American sites, non-development activities and cultural resource
protection, archaeologically-sensitive areas, mitigation measures, archeological studies,
protection of Native American cultural sites, and early Native American participation in land use
decision-making; and
WHEREAS, at its August.24, 2009 meeting, endorsed August 2009 Draft Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (City File CHC 85-08) and recommended the City
Council adopt the Draft Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the CRC's recommendation and
Community Development Deputy Director's determination that adoption of updated
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines is categorically exempt from
environmental review because it consists of an action by a regulatory agency, as authorized by
state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. Council concurs with the Director's
determination that the proposed Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines update is Categorically Exempt from environmental review (Section 15308,
Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). It consists of an
action by a regulatory agency, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the
Ca-�a
Resolution No. (2009 Series) Attachment 5
Page 2
maintenance,restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.
SECTION 2. Guidelines Approval. The updated Archaeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines are hereby approved as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee,
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 20th day of October, 2009.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonath well, City Attorney
G/CD-Plan/jhook/Archaeologicalguidehnesupdatc/CCres102009