HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1995, 2 - REVIEW OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES. MEETING DATE:
,1191NI1111111AMi�a 11� city of San LUIS OBISPO 0- -qg
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT STEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development D' . ABvy(V Jeff Hoo rssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Review of Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing Archaeological Resource Preservation
Guidelines.
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONS:
At its August 23rd meeting, the Planning Commission confirmed its July 26th action recommending
Council adoption of the guidelines, and forwarded comments to the Council (5-2 vote; commissioners
Senn and Ready dissenting). Planning Commission comments are discussed below.
On June 26th the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)unanimously recommended that the City Council
adopt the June 1995 draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines (minutes attached).
DISCUSSION
Background
Program 6.7.5 of the General Plan Land Use Element calls for the Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC)
to prepare standards concerning when and how to conduct archaeological surveys, and the preferred
methods of preserving artifacts. Policy 6.6.4 outlines specific actions the City should take to protect
archaeological resources. For the past two and one half years and through several public hearings, the
CHC has worked with archaeologists, developers, and staff to develop these guidelines. City efforts
to clarify archaeological preservation policies and procedures began in 1989, when interim guidelines
were approved by the CHC.
As required by the General Plan, the CHC recently completed Archaeological Resource Preservation
Guidelines which clarify how archaeological resources are identified, evaluated and preserved, pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Once adopted as part of the City's Environmental
Guidelines, the archaeological guidelines will be used by applicants, staff, and decision makers to help
determine whether a development project complies with CEQA.
.Purpose and Scope of Guidelines
Archaeological resources must be considered as part of the State-mandated environmental review
process. CEQA applies to all projects carried out by state and local government agencies, special
districts, public institutions, and private individuals or groups. CEQA requires local governments to
determine whether a project may have adverse effects on important archaeological resources, and if so,
what measures are available to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects. These guidelines will bring San
Luis Obispo's archaeological review procedures in line with current CEQA requirements. They also
provide additional procedural details and "tailor" the review procedures to fit local needs and conditions.
The guidelines do several things. Specifically, they:
-Define projects exempt from archaeological review requirements;
city of San LuiS OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
-Define archaeologically "sensitive areas" in San Luis Obispo;
-Describe procedures for evaluating archaeological resources;
-Explain options for mitigating a development project's impact on archaeological resources;
-Define what is a "significant" or an "important" archaeological resource; and
-Describe local requirements and information to be included in archaeological resource reports.
How the Guidelines Work
Under these guidelines, most development projects would not require extensive archaeological review.
Development projects which were normally exempt under CEQA, or which were located on disturbed
sites, or projects located on sites of less than 1 acre would not normally require detailed archaeological
studies. The Community Development Director would need to base an exemption on specific findings,
such as information from previous field studies indicating that no important archaeological resources
were present, documentation of past site disturbance, or on a preliminary site evaluation by the
archaeological data clearinghouse at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Sites of less than
1 acre could still require an archaeological inventory if located in an archaeologically "sensitive area"
as defined in Section 1.30, p. 3, and they did not otherwise qualify for an exemption. Generally,
sensitive areas arethose areas with a high likelihood of containing archaeological resources due to their
location or historical associations. These include areas within 200 feet of creek banks, area adjacent
to known archaeological sites, and area within designated historic districts.
If a project is not exempt from archaeological review, the guidelines set up a series of evaluation steps
by.an archaeologist which the Director uses as the basis for an environmental determination:
1) First, an Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI) is done. The ARI includes a preliminary
literature search and surface field survey to determine the presence of artifacts on the project site.
2) If artifacts are found or are likely to be present, then a subsurface study (SARE) is required to
identify the location, condition, and significance of the artifacts and provide a basis for mitigating
project impacts. If significant artifacts are found and adverse impacts cannot be avoided, the artifacts
should be recovered through a more extensive field study, referred to. as the Archaeological Data
Recovery Excavation;
3) The Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE)or "dig" protects significant artifacts whose
impact cannot be avoided through project changes, capping, or other mitigation. When archaeological
resources are recovered, they must be identified, evaluated and stored or "curated" at an appropriate-
institution
ppropriateinstitution such as a museum or university.
4) If archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, all construction activities which may
disrupt those resources must cease until appropriate measures can be taken to evaluate the resources and
if necessary, mitigate construction impacts.
11101 ll, city of San LaI s OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The Appendix includes requirements for the selection of qualified archaeologists, contents of consultant
proposals, submittal requirements for archaeological reports, instructions for recording historical
resources, flow chart, and definitions. To conserve paper, only the flow chart and definitions were
included with the Council's packet. Other appendicies to the Guidelines are provided in the Council's
Reading File.
Planning Commission Comments
The Planning Commission voted twice in support of Council adoption of the proposed guidelines.
Commissioners Senn and Ready did not support adoption of the guidelines due to concerns that the
guidelines could increase development costs or lengthen development review time, particularly for small
development projects. The Commission forwarded their comments for Council consideration, along
with the recommendation for adoption. Planning Commission comments, along with brief responses,
are summarized in Attachment 3.
FISCAL EMPACT
To the extent that the guidelines implement existing State law, they are fiscally neutral in their impact.
Under CEQA, local governments must evaluate and, where appropriate, mitigate project impacts on
archaeological resources. By clarifying policies and mitigation procedures, the proposed guidelines will
help streamline the archaeological resource preservation process and could avoid additional project costs
or delays resulting from unclear or inadequate archaeological evaluations.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Do not adopt the proposed guidelines.
CEQA requirements require that local governments identify and if necessary, protect archaeological
resources as part of the environmental review process. The City may choose to follow State law
without adopting its own specific guidelines. This approach is not recommended, however, since State
Guidelines are broad and alone, do not provide clear direction to protect archaeological resources at a
local level. If the City does not adopt guidelines, archaeological preservation efforts will be hampered
since staff, developers and citizens will continue to use outdated "interim" guidelines" developed in
1989.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Draft Council Resolution
- Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment 3 - Summary of Planning Commission Comments
I
I
Council Reading File: Background Information
Appendices to Exhibit A of Resolution for Adoption .m�
AT MCHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted Environmental Guidelines
(Resolution No. 5302, 1984 Series) to implement the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and to assist developers, staff, citizens and decisionmakers in understanding a project's
environmental effects prior to approval and to mitigate significant adverse effects; and
WHEREAS, Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code requires local
governments to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on archaeological
resources, and to mitigate any adverse impacts to unique archaeological resources; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed archaeological resource preservation guidelines to
implement CEQA and to promote the preservation of archaeological resources for public benefit,
in conformance with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee, Planning Commission and the City
Council have held public hearings on the proposed Archaeological Resource Preservation
Guidelines, intended to amend and update the City's Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed guidelines amendments come to the Council upon the .
recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee and Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the amendments have been evaluated
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines and the Community Development Director has determined that the proposed
guidelines are categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15307, which exempts actions for the
protection of natural resources;
Resolution No. (1995 Series)
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE rf RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. This Council, after considering public testimony,
the Cultural Heritage Committee and Planning Commission recommendations, and staff reports
thereon hereby affirms the Community Development Director's determination that the proposed
guidelines are categorically exempt (CEQA Section 15307).
SECTION 2. Environmental Guidelines Amended. The City's Environmental Guidelines are
hereby amended to include the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, Exhibit "A",
attached.
SECTION 3. Implementation. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for
amending the Environmental Guidelines and implementing the Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. The newly adopted guidelines shall be effective immediately upop
adoption.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1995.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
L 1 e
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit A
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION
GUIDELINES
August 1995
il'`,;ll
Ill��� II�IIIII �;;;� city of
4� san lues OBISPO
Community Development Department
San Luis Obispo, California
An amendment to the City of San Luis Obispo's-
Environmental Guidelines, Adopted by San Luis Obispo
City Council Resolution No.
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Allen Settle
Bill Roalman
Dave Romero
Dodie Williams
Kathy Smith
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMUTTEE
Garth Kornreich
Dan Krieger
John Edmisten
Alice Loh
Wendy Waldron
Victoria Wood
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Arnold Jonas, Director
John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager
Jeff Hook, Project Planner
city of
San LUIS OBISPO i
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.10 How to Use These Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.20 Exempt Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.30 Sensitive Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.40 Relationship to General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.50 Cultural Heritage Committee Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.0 Archaeological Resource Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.10 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.20 When Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.30 Submittal and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.0 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation . . . . . . . . 5
3.10 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.20 When Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.30 Submittal and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.40 Determination of Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.0 Archaeological Resource Impact Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.10 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.20 When Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.30 Mitigation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.40 Archaeological Data Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.50 Monitoring of Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.60 Archaeological Discoveries During Construction . . . . . . . . . 11
5.0 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Il
5.10 Selection of Qualified Archaeologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.20 Content of Consultant Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.30 Archaeological Resource Inventory: Submittal Requirements . 12
5.40 Subsurface Arch. Resource Evaluation: Submittal Reqmnts . . 13
5.50 Arch. Data Recovery Excavations: Submittal Requirements . . 14
5.60 Archaeological Evaluation Process: Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . 15a
5.70 Checklist - Archaeological Resource Management Reports . . .
5.80 California Environmental Quality Act - Appendix K . . . . . . .
5.90 Instructions For Recording Historical Resources . . . . . . . . .
6.0 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
�t•9
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
This is a guide to the preservation of archaeological resources in the City of San Luis Obispo.
Archaeological resources refer to the remains and sites associated with past human activities,
including:
■ Prehistoric Native American archaeological sites;
s Historic archaeological sites; and
■ Sites or natural landscapes associated with important human events.
The guidelines were developed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), a group of seven
citizens who advise the City Council on cultural resource preservation, including both pre-
historic and historic features. The guidelines are part of the City's Environmental Guidelines.
Citizens, developers, design professionals, city staff, the CHC, and decision makers will use
these guidelines to determine whether a project complies with 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 addressed in the City's HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GUIDELINES.
Archaeological resources are reviewed by City planners 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 of 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 the adverse effects. These guidelines
implement, and are consistent with CEQA requirements and are enforceable through legal action
by the City and by private individuals and groups.
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.
■ To determine if archaeological or historical studies are required for a development
project, check Section 1.20 below.
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 3
■ For a quick overview of the archaeological review process, refer to the flow chart in
Appendix 5.60.
■ For an explanation of what information is required, how to determine what is
"significant", and how to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources, refer to Sections
2.0 through 4.0.
■ For specific requirements for archaeological resource evaluations and for recording
archaeological resources, see Appendix 5.0.
For questions about these guidelines or for help in determining whether your project is
exempt, contact the Community Development Department at (805) 781-7172.
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 do
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 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 6.00.
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 Coast Historical Resource Information Center
at U.C. Santa Barbara.
1.30 Sensitive Areas.
Archaeologically "Sensitive Areas" 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 Central Coast
Historical Information Center.
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 4
B. Areas within 200 feet of top of banks of the San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Old
Garden, Prefumo, Froom Creeks or other perennial creeks;
C. Areas inside a Historical Archaeological District, as shown on archaeological
sensitivity maps on file at the Community Development Department.
D. Sites designated on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, or determined
to be eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical
Resources (PRC Section 5024.1 (a)).
E. Sites designated as being within a historically or archaeologically sensitive area
by the CHC, City Council or other governmental agency.
1.40 Relationship to the General Plan.
These guidelines are based upon and implement policies in the General Plan Land Use Element,
Conservation Element, and Open Space Element.
1.50 Cultural Heritage Committee Role.
The CHC is appointed by the City Council, and its members have special interest or expertise .
in the field of Cultural Resources. The CHC establishes and maintains these guidelines and
provides expertise to resolve questions referred by the Director. The Committee's actions and
recommendations are advisory to the Director, Architectural Review.Commission, Planning
Commission and the City Council.
2.0. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY.
2.10 Purpose.
The purpose of an Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) is to determine 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 determine if more extensive resource evaluation
is necessary. Once accepted, copies of the report must be filed by the archaeologist, pursuant
to Appendix 5.90, with the Historical Resources Information Center.
2.20 When Required.
An Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI, or "inventory") shall be required when the
Director determines that a project is likely to disturb subsurface materials, and when the project
site is vacant or essentially so and is one acre or larger in size, or contains vacant area that is
one acre or larger. A parcel less than 1 acre in size may also require survey if it is located
within a "Sensitive Area."
�oZ-
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 5
2.30 Submittal and Review Process.
2.30.1 When a project requires an ARI, the project applicant shall have prepared and
shall submit an inventory for City review as part of a complete Planning
Application. The inventory shall contain the information described in Appendix
5.30. NOTE: historic resources, such as buildings and historic sites, may
require evaluation methods other than those addressed by these guidelines. Refer
to the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
2.30.2. Upon receiving the ARI, the Director shall determine whether a subsurface
archaeological investigation is necessary, pursuant to Section 3.0.
3.0. SUBSURFACE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION.
3.10 Purpose.
The Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) is the primary method used by the
City to identify significant archaeological resources. The outcome of the SARE determines
which resources are protected or evaluated further. It also forms the basis for mitigating project
impacts and where appropriate, for data excavation and recovery.
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 SARE to
verify the presence of archaeological resources, location of the resources, and to determine the
site's integrity, archaeological significance, and where appropriate, the effects of the proposed
project on the resources.
3.30 Submittal and Review.
After completion of all field work, the SARE shall be prepared as described in the Checklist for
Preparing and Reviewing Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR), Appendix
5.70, and shall be submitted to the Director, who will determine from the SARE report if a
significant effect on significant or unique archaeological resources may occur, or significant
effect on a historical resource. Once the SARE is accepted, the archaeologist shall submit copies
of the report to the Historical Resources Information Center.
3.40 Determination of significance.
3.40.1. Archaeological evaluations must include a determination of significance, including
whether an archaeological resource is "unique" under CEQA.
- 3.40.2. "Significant" or "important" prehistoric or historic archaeological resources
include those sites or features which:
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 6
A. Are designated and/or mapped as significant cultural/historical resources at the
local level, or is eligible for such local listing, or are eligible for listing on the
California Historic Register; or
B. Are located within a geographically definable district with a concentration of site,
buildings, structures, or objected 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. Are directly associated with an event or person of:
(1) recognized scientific significance in San Luis Obispo City or County,
California or United States history; or
(2) recognized scientific significance in prehistory;
E. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful
in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological
research questions; or
F. Have special or unique qualities, such as oldest, best preserved, last example of
its type, or of particular rarity; or
G. Are at least 100 years old and possess substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
H. 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 is required.
3.40.5. If the SARE concludes there is only a remote possibility that cultural resources
may exist within the impact zone, monitoring of construction activities may be
required to protect archaeological resources in accordance with Section 4.50.
3.40.6 If the SARE concludes that the archaeological site is significant and that the
project may have a significant effect on important or unique archaeological
resources, the project sponsor shall either: 1) modify the proposed development
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 7
to avoid impacts; or 2) mitigate the adverse impacts to the archaeological site to
a level of insignificance, as described in Section 4.0. Project sponsor 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.
4.0. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT MITIGATION.
4.10 Purpose.
Impact mitigation seeks to prevent adverse project-related effects on significant archaeological
resources through avoidance, design modification, easements, data recovery or other means.
4.20 When Required.
4.20.1. When a significant or potentially significant archaeological resource may be
adversely affected, the project shall be designed or modified to avoid damaging
the resources, and/or the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures to
protect or excavate and recover the resources.
A. If required by the Director, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to prepare a mitigation plan as described in Appendix 5.50(D). The
Director may refer the mitigation plan to the CHC for review.
B. If, prior to releasing the Negative Declaration for public review, the project
sponsor agrees to revise the project's design to avoid potentially significant
impacts or to incorporate mitigation measures that reduce the impacts to
insignificant levels, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, including
required mitigation measures, may be issued.
C. If a resource has been determined to be significant and impacts cannot not be
reduced to insignificant levels, and avoidance or data recovery of cultural
resources are not feasible, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be
prepared.
4.30 Mitigation Methods - Avoidance.
For archaeological resources found to be significant, the preferred mitigation is protection in-situ
through preservation, avoidance or capping. Preservation may be accomplished in several ways,
including but not limited to:
4.30.1. Locating development and construction activities to avoid archaeological sites;
4.30.2. Planning open space areas to include archaeological sites. Cultural sites and
archaeological sites should be protected as open space wherever possible;
�3
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 8
4.30.3. Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of culturally sterile soil
before building. This layer shall be sufficiently thick to be able to incorporate all
foundation footings, utility trenches, grading, etc. without disturbing the native
soil. Capping may be used where:
A. The soils to be covered will not suffer serious compaction;
B The covering materials are not chemically active;
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.
4.30.4. Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements.
4.30.5. Employing other measures that eliminate the potential for damage to
archaeological resources.
4.30.6. Project design or location changes to avoid significant archaeological resources.
4.30.7. Incorporating significant sites or structures into a development through
restoration, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse where avoidance is not possible.
4.30.8. Dedication of an historic easement or fee title land to preserve significant sites.
4.30.9. Archaeological data recovery excavation.
4.40 Archaeological Data Recovery - Excavation.
4.40.1. Purpose.
The purpose of an Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE) is to recover important
archaeological resources from a site to mitigate project-related adverse impacts. When required
by the Director, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare and submit
a written proposal to conduct an ADRE. The report shall contain the information described in
Appendix 5.20. Once the report is approved, the project sponsor shall implement the ADRE
proposal, to the satisfaction of the Director. Results of the ADRE shall be documented in
writing and submitted to the Historical Resources 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 potentially significant archaeological
resources which can be recovered using commonly applied archaeological methods. An ADRE
may be conducted as the result of an ARI or the SARE, or due to the discovery of
archaeological resources during construction.
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 9
- 4.40.3. Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation: Procedures.
Data recovery may include a variety of methods, including controlled surface collection or
mapping, subsurface excavation, photographs, 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:
4.40.31. The field excavation phase of an approved mitigation plan shall be completed in
90 days from start of excavation. The Director, upon the concurrence of the
project sponsor, may grant an exception to the 90-day limit upon making written
findings that special circumstances apply to the site or the resources which
warrant a time extension.
4.40.32. Excavation as part of a mitigation plan shall be limited to those site areas or
resources that would be damaged, or that the Director determine 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. A qualified archaeologist shall be present
during excavation, and site security shall be maintained by site fencing, resident
caretaker or other comparable method to protect the resources from unauthorized
collection.
4.40.33. A. If human remains are recovered, there shall be no further excavation or site
disturbance in the area likely to contain human remains until:
1. The County Coroner has been informed and determined that no
investigation of cause of death is required; and
2. If remains are likely to be of Native American origin, representatives of
local Native American groups should be consulted as to the appropriate
disposition of the human remains and other associated grave materials, as
provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
B. It shall be the project applicant's responsibility to rebury Native American
human remains and associated grave materials with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further disturbance; or to treat or dispose of
the remains pursuant to a agreement with the Native American Heritage
Commission or other responsible Native American or cultural group.
4.40.34. Materials recovered must be analyzed and reported upon as outlined in Appendix
5.50(C).
4.40.4 Curation of Archaeological Artifacts.
4.40.41. All important archaeological resources removed from a project site shall be
curated at a qualified institution. Qualified institutions are those that have
j-17
Draft Archaeological Resource Presetvation Guidelines
Page 10
facilities and staffing necessary for ensuring security. and research access to
collections, pursuant to Section 5.90. Collections shall be submitted with
pertinent site maps, field records, artifact catalogs and photographs.
4.40.42. It is the project sponsor's responsibility for making arrangements for curation and
paying any necessary curation fees.
4.40.5 Access To Archaeological Records.
4.40.51. The following individuals are qualified to review or receive archaeological
records on file in the Community Development Department and may do so after
approval by the Director or the CHC:
A. Qualified archaeologists and students conducting scientific research.
B. Planners or other personnel employed by government agencies for purposes of
preliminary project investigations.
C. Qualified cultural resource managers employed by government agencies or public
utility companies.
D. Consultants. who are preparing environmental impact reports or other
environmental documents.
E. Owners of identified archaeological sites or their designated representatives.
4.40.52. In order 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.
Monitoring of construction activities may be recommended if, after completion of an ARI,
SARE, or ADRE there is still a remote possibility that significant or potentially significant
archaeological resources are present in the impact zone or it is not reasonable to conduct
additional 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:
A. Be submitted to the Director in writing as part of the ARI, SARE, or ADRE and be
approved by the Director prior to the beginning of construction;
B. Identify the qualified archaeologist, and, as appropriate, the Native American or cultural
community advisor, and field personnel that will conduct the monitoring;
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 11
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 an archaeological monitor, City staff member, the project sponsor
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.
4.60.2. Field Study. Under most circumstances, the project sponsor will be directed to
retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visit the site, evaluate the materials
recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course of
action. The archaeologist's written recommendations shall be filed with the
Director.
4.60.3 Mitigation. If significant archaeological resources are present, the consulting
archaeologist shall propose specific mitigation measures. The Director shall
approve, approve with changes, or reject the mitigation proposal The project
sponsor 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.
5.0. APPENDIX.
5.10 Selection of Qualified Archaeologists.
5.10.1. The Community Development Department shall maintain a list of qualified
archaeological consultants. To ensure that all types of cultural resources (eg.
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, a person or
firm must:
A. Submit a resume and evidence of compliance with the Secretary of Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards to the Community Development Department;
or
B. Submit a resume and evidence of experience to the Director. The Director may
refer the determination of qualifications to the Cultural Heritage Committee or the
Central Coast Historical Information Center at UCSB.
5.10.2. Preparation of Archaeological Inventory: Project applicants are responsible for
selecting a qualified archaeologist from the Community Development
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 12
Department's list, entering into a contract for consultant services, and paying the
full cost of consultant services up to maximum allowed by law.
5.10.3. Subsurface Archaeological Studies: the Director, in coordination with the
CHC, may select a qualified archaeologist and may enter into a contract for
consultant services to conduct a Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation
(SARE) or Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE). If the Director
decides, at his or her option, to administer the contract, the project applicant will
be responsible for paying the costs of consultant services and for department
administration of the consultant contract, up to the maximum allowed by law, to
the satisfaction of the Director.
5.20 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 forcuration of important archaeological resources in a qualified
curatorial facility. The curation fees must be included as a budget item.
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 completing each phase of the research and for submitting progress
reports and the final survey report to the Community Development Department.
5.30 Archaeological Resource Inventory: Submittal Requirements.
The qualified archaeologist will:
A. Review the City's resource files and maps and materials available at the Central
Coast Information Center located at the UCSB Department of Anthropology;
B. Conduct a surface survey of the site; and
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 13
C. Contact a Native American Representative for information regarding sacred sites.
D. Prepare a report, in a format as presented in the ARMR Checklist, Appendix
5.70.
5.40 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluations: Submittal Requirements.
5.40.1. General Requirements.
A. Archaeological evaluations shall be conducted, and all reports prepared by a
qualified archaeologist.
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 monitor must
be offered the opportunity to be present during 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, following the standards described in
ARMR Checklist, Appendix 5.70.
5.40.2. Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluations: Required Content.
Subsurface archaeological resource evaluations (SARE) shall include the information listed in
the ARMR Checklist, Appendix 5.70.
5.40.3. Mitigation and Monitoring.
-Delineate areas recommended for protection.
-Describe specific measures to mitigate potential damage to important archaeological
resources.
-Recommend whether there is a need for an expanded archaeological evaluation or not,
justify this conclusion, and describe a general strategy for conducting such an evaluation,
if necessary (eg. the types of subsurface tests recommended, etc., and the expertise
required to complete such an evaluation).
-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.
5.40.4. Disposition of Archaeological Reports.
Three copies of all archaeological evaluation reports shall be delivered to the Community
Development Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249;
and the required number of copies shall be submitted to the Central Coast Historical
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 14
Resources Information Center. All maps and reports should be signed by the
archaeologist who prepared or reviewed them.
5.50 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations: Submittal Requirements.
In addition to the requirements listed in the ARMR Checklist, the consultant will provide
the following:
A. Project Information.
-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.
-Description of the project's natural and cultural setting.
B. Research Design.
-Research goals and objectives that are pursued by the expanded archaeological
evaluation.
-Maps and descriptions of the portions of the project site were subsurface investigations
occurred.
-Description of the types of subsurface investigations (eg. test pits, auger samples, etc.)
and a description of how they were accomplished.
-Description of the data collection procedures and the cataloging system used. (These
procedures and systems must be consistent those used by the selected curatorial facility.)
-Method of recording evaluation progress (eg. daily records, photographs).
-Identification and qualifications of all project personnel and their role in completing the
evaluation.
C. Evaluation Results.
-Historic, ethnographic and archaeological background.
-Field and laboratory procedures, including total volume excavated, dimensions and
depths of each unit, percentage of soils screened at particular mesh sizes, etc.
-Results of field investigations including descriptions of each type of artifact and
subsistence remains, a discussion of the dispositional history of the site (including
disturbances to the deposits), reconstruction of occupational chronology to the extent that
available data allows, and a discussion of the likely place of the site in regional
settlement patterns.
-Tables and/or graphs presenting weights of artifacts. The data in these tables should be
interpreted with regard to patterns in their distribution and abundance.
-Map showing unit locations tied to a site datum and a permanent landmark or permanent
project feature.
-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.
-Evaluation of the direct and indirect damage that will be caused by the proposed project:
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 15
D. Mitigation Plan.
-Identification of alternative methods for mitigating damage to important archaeological
resources.
-An evaluation of the relative effectiveness of each alternative method --how well each
will reduce the damage to important archaeological resources.
-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. (If data recovery is proposed as a mitigation alternative, a preliminary data
recovery proposal and feasibility assessment of completing adequate mitigation within
CEQA Appendix K funding limitations shall also be submitted.)
E. Bibliography.
-A listing of individuals or institutions consulted in the completion of the Expanded
archaeological evaluation.
-A bibliography following the most recent American Antiquity style guide.
-Maps and documents cited.
��3
Page 15a
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROCESS
PROJECT APPLICATION
(Preliminary Staff Review)
PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA; SENSITIVE SITE:ARCHAELOGICAL
OR SITE NOT"SENSITIVE-: RESOURCE INVENTORY REQUIRED
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE (ARI)
INVENTORY NOT REQUIRED
(ARI Prepared)
PROCEED WITH '
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NO RESOURCES PRESENT,OR ! ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DISTURBANCE UNLIKELY-NO ! PRESENT OR LIKELY '
ADDITIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISTURBANCE POSSIBLE
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
c
.71
SUBSURFACE ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCE EVALUATION REQUIRED
(SARE)
F
Prepared)
NO SIGNIFICANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
RESOURCES FOUND FOUND
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
IMMIGATION REQUIRED
NO ADDITONAL IF POTENTIAL FOR
REQUIREMENTS CULTURAL RESOURCES
STILL EXISTS
MONOTORING REQUIRED MITIGATION PLAW
(during construction) DATA RECOVERY
COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT (monotprocesstlgation
REVIEW/APPROVAL Process) CONSTRUCTION
PROCESS
,,as Appendix
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 16
6.00 DEFINITIONS.
Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE): Activities directed at locating,
recovering, and properly curating important archaeological resources 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 or potentially significant archaeological resources,
as further described in Section 4.40.
Archaeological resources: Physical remains and their associated sites from all periods of
human occupation, from prehistoric into historic times.
Archaeological resource evaluation: An analysis conducted by a qualified archaeologist to
determine the importance of an archaeological resource and to identify the potential project
effects on the important aspects of the resource.
Archaeological Resource Inventory (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. -
Archaeological site: Those areas where archaeological resources are present and may be larger
or smaller than the project site.
Curation: The identification, evaluation, storage, and where appropriate, public display of
artifacts or other archaeological resources at a institution, such as a Museum, College or
University, which has the necessary equipment, staff and expertise to provide such services.
"Director": The Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, or other
designated responsible staff.
Historic archaeological site: An area shown on the city's archaeological resource inventory
maps as having been occupied by a structure more than 75 years ago.
Monitoring: The watchful presence of a qualified archaeologist,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.
Native American monitor: A descendant of local Chumash people, as certified by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The monitor shall have documented experience in
the recognition of prehistoric artifacts and an understanding of state and federal laws concerning
the protection of Native American human remains.
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 17
Parcel or project site: Those areas affected by project activities or the subdivided parcels that
contain the project activities, whatever is larger.
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; or a person whose professional
credentials have been referred to and accepted by the CHC.
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 projects which are normally exempt but which are located on "sensitive sites", submit
archaeological studies and mitigate impacts pursuant to these guidelines.
Significant or Important Archaeological Site or Resources: A significant or important
archaeological site or resource includes .prehistoric or historic archaeological features which:
A. Are designated and/or mapped as' significant cultural/historical resources at the local
level, or is eligible for such local listing, or are eligible for listing on the California
Historic Register; or
B. Are located within a geographically definable district with a concentration of site,
buildings, structures, or objected 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. Are associated with an event or person of:
(1) recognized significance in San Luis Obispo City or County, California or United
States history; or
(2) recognized scientific importance in prehistory; or
E. Can provide information which is of demonstrable public or scientific interest; or
F. Have special or unique qualities, such as oldest, best preserved, last example of its type,
or of particular rarity; or
G. Are at least 100 years old and possess substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
H. Are determined to be significant by the Director based on CEQA standards or other
adopted State or Federal standards.
Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
Page 18
-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.
Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SAKE): 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 SAKE becomes the basis for mitigating project impacts
and where appropriate, for data excavation and recovery, as further described in Section 3.0.
Subsurface Disturbance: Any physical change or disturbance which extends below the natural
or established soil surface.
Unexpected Archaeological Resources: Archaeological resources that are discovered during
the course of construction of a project.
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
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.
ITTACHMENT 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING CONSESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5160-95
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public
hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California,
on August 23, 1995, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
DRAFT GUIDELINES REVIEWED
Draft Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines
DRAFT DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
City-Wide
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made
by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence.of the following
circumstance:
Planning Commission confirmed their previous recommendation that the Council adopt the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines and directed staff to forward specific Commission
concerns expressed during the hearings to the Council for their consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Draft Archaeological Resource
Protection Guidelines be recommended to the City Council for adoption.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Kourakis, seconded by Commr. Cross, and upon the following
roll call vote:
�-all
Resolution.No. 5160-95
.Draft Archaeological Resource Guidelines
Page 2
AYES: Kourakis, Cross, Whitl"esey,.Hoffman, Karleskint
NOES? Ready, Senn
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED::August 23,. 1995
I �
L:5160.95.pc -
ATTACHMENT 3
September 7, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE
PRESERVATION GUIDELINES, AUGUST 23, 1995 MEETING
Following is a summary of some commissioners' comments and staff responses (in italics), where
appropriate.
Paul Ready
-The proposed guidelines are too broad, and not sufficiently limited to avoid substantial cost, expenses
and government involvement in the identification of archaeological resources.
The guidelines exempt most small projects, including single family houses and development projects on
sites of less than 1 acre, except where located on sensitive sites. They also exempt sites which the
Director determines have previously undergone substantial disturbance. The CHC attempted to balance
CEQA requirements and the desire to minimize property owner costs or delay by focusing archaeological
studies on those "sensitive areas" with the greatest likelihood of containing important archaeolpgical
resources. They follow a "tiered" approach, with the quickest, least costly survey method (surface
study/literature search) utilized first to determine if archaeological resources are present.
-The concept of"unique"and "important" architectural resources are confused throughout the document.
CEQA only requires that "unique" resources be protected.
The guidelines reflect language in both the Public Resources Code language and in Appendix K of
CEQA in defining both "unique" and "important" archaeological resources. According to information
from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the "unique" criterion in the Public Resources
Code (Section 21083.1) is narrower and more restrictive than general, professionally accepted criteria
by which the sign f canoe of an archaeological site is usually evaluated. Establishing that a site is or
is not "unique" may involve more analysis, testing and excavation than would be necessary if the
resource were considered "important" and the effects on the resource mitigated. Consequently, the
City's guidelines define both terms, but follow Appendix K in using the "important",criterion for
establishing the need for mitigation.
-If a resource is not "unique" or important, why require monitoring during construction? (Section
3.40.3 and 3.40.4)
If an archaeologist determines, as a result of detailed studies, that no important archaeological
resources are present and these findings are accepted by the Director, the project may proceed without
further archaeological evaluation. However, important archaeological resources sometimes appear
during construction, even though initial evaluations did not indicate their presence. Monitoring of
construction is required when the archaeologist's findings are inconclusive, or when it is determined
that there is a possibility that undetected archaeological resources exist in portion of the site affected
by development.
Page 2
Where in CEQA is the City authorized to require private security on an archaeological site?
CEQA does not specifically authorize or mention private security for archaeological sites. The CHC
felt it important to include this provision as a mitigation measure to prevent the loss of important
artifacts during field studies when the resources are exposed and most susceptible to "pot hunters. "
Where are the CEQA limits on excavation reflected in the Guidelines?
Section 5.10.3, top of page 11, species that the applicant is responsible for paying consultant's cost
"up to the maximum allowed by law. " The maximum costs are specified in Appendix K, which will be
attached to the guidelines.
What gives the City the right to require applicants to curate archaeological artifacts at a qualified
institution?
Archaeological artifacts belong to the property owner, unless the property owner grants ownership to
the City other entity. To ensure that such artifacts are available for public viewing and/or research use,
the CHC recommends that the guidelines require, as environmental mitigation or conditions of project
approvals, that important archaeological resources be curated at a "qualified institution", such as a
college, university, or historical museum at the developer's expense (Section 4.40.4). This is consistent
with State law, and with the intent of the guidelines to protect and preserve cultural resources for public
benefit. CEQA cost limitations would apply to curation as well as to data recovery.
What happens if important archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, and the Director
rejects the proposed mitigation measure?
Under CEQA, important archaeological resources must be protected, even if uncovered during
construction. The developer is responsible for ceasing those construction activities which would disrupt
the resources, and proposing mitigation to the Director. If the Director rejects the plan, the developer
will be notified as to what additional information or changes are needed and asked to revise and
resubmit the mitigation. This is consistent with the City's environmental guidelines which already allow
the Director to require modification of mitigation measures where the measures are determined to be
infeasible or ineffective.
Charles Senn
Commissioner Senn agreed with most of Commissioner Ready's concerns with the guidelines. He felt
that the guidelines were too broad, and may result in unnecessary delays and increased development
costs. He felt the guidelines had a basic presumption that all or most sites are archaeologically
sensitive.
The guidelines are intended to narrow, not broaden, the number of sites and projects needing
archaeological evaluation. For most projects, the only increased cost will be that of a preliminary site
survey. The cost for this service is usually nominal ($500 or less is typical), particularly compared to
,P-ar
Page 3
the cost of starting a development project without a preliminary evaluation and encountering artifacts
during construction. The Guidelines are based on the premise that certain areas, due to their location,
topography or historical association, have a relatively higher than average chance of containing cultural
resources, and that environmental review should focus on those areas. For example, single family
houses on a single lot are exempt from environmental review and would normally not require
archaeological investigation.
Why are the guidelines needed now. CEQA requirements have been in effect for many years and the
City has not had problems with its environmental procedures with regard to archaeological resources.
Do we need to add another layer of regulation if it's not needed?
The guidelines clarify CEQA and replace outdated "interim"guidelines which do not meet current State
law. The Ciry has been fortunate in that few problems have occurred in the environmental
review/mitigation process, although there are some noteworthy examples ofpast where these guidelines
could have resulted in clearer process and improved cultural resource protection had the guidelines been
in effect.
Barry Karlesldnt
Commissioner Karlesldnt felt it was important to clarify that legally, any artifacts belonged to the
property owner. He questioned how the City would require curation of the artifacts.
The property owner owns artifacts (with the exception of human remains)found on his or her property.
To achieve the goals of protecting and preserving important archaeological resources, the guidelines
would require the property to provide for the proper curation of important resources. This could be by
agreement with the City, the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society, or some other appropriate
entity that could preserve and/or display the artifacts for public benefit.
mom
,2.3�
F ROBERTS.
VESSELY MEETING AGENDA
CIVIL & STRUCTURAL PATE o -34-5 ITEM # 02
E N G I N E E R I N G
743 Podfic St.,Suite 8 Son Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805/541.2003.
September 29, 1995 RECEIVED
Mr. Jeff Hook, Project Planner OCT J 1995
Community Development Department CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
City Of San LUIS Obispo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
RE: Proposed "Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines"
Mr. Hook,
This letter is to express my support for the proposed "Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines". I have reviewed the guidelines and I believe that they offer an
improvement over the existing system. I support their adoption.
In recent years, I've seen this issue from more then one position. As a participant in
such projects as the Palm Street Parking Garage and the Bowden Adobe, I understand
the excitement and importance of recovering an archaeological resource that might
otherwise be lost. As a representative of property owners and developers on numerous .
projects around the City and County, I know how frustrating it can be to have an
"unknown" factor in a project such as whether an archaeological survey,be required and
what must be done if something is found. I believe that the proposed guidelines go a
long way towards resolving those unknowns and helping to preserve these important
resources.
Sincerely,
C.�GYWI/
obert S. Ves ely, RCE
❑"COUNCIL 4�CDJDIR
IT CAO, ❑ FlNDIR
IM ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
[-ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
ElCLERK/ORIC ❑ PO ICE CHF
r ❑ MGMT TEAA4 ❑ REC DIA
❑ C R D iLE ❑ UTIL DIR
—" ❑ PERS DIR
10!02!95 11:46 $805 893 8707 UCSB-.ANT1M 2001
R-IL.,.fING AGENDA
UNIVERSITY OF CALJFORNIUI, SANTA BARBARA DATE l®- -7 ITEM #
�=.r.. . -
s nAv� flcvII¢E .LOS ANdFL1E5 RlvER9�k •Swx nntao CAN M&NCZ 0 ;. a, SANTA 13APZAM-SANTA CRVL
l r'
DE•PARTMMfr OF AN BROPoLoGY SANTA BARBARA,CALWORMA 931063210
1Wmnz1:g1usow@&rzhaw.ob.edu
Phone(305)893-2054.FAX 393-8707
2 October 1995
rl, Erse;
P
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Dear Members of the Council:
I would like to add my support to the draft Archaeological Resource. Preservation Guidelines for
the City of San Luis Obispo. The guidelines are clearly written and concise, and they effectively
codify procedures for identifying,evaluating, and managing significant archaeological resources
within your city. In structure and content they resemble closely other California city guidelines with
which I am familiar. However_yours are more clearly written than many,and they should be more
comprehensible to the general public. Your planning staff and the Cultural Heritage Committee
should be commended for the great job they did in drafting the guidelines.
Guidelines such as yours serve to remove much of the ambiguity from the process of dealing with
archaeological resources under CEQA. They give direction to both planning staff and archaeologists,
and they give the developer or property owner a clear idea of what to expect if archaeological
resources will or may be affected by proposed land development. As a consequence, confusion and
disagreement over the treatment of archaeological resources will be minimized..
Furthermore, the guidelines will ensure that important and unique archaeological resources are
given the protection or attention they deserve, not just because CEQA mandates this protection but
because these resources are a significant part of the city's heritage. Archaeological resources
include the vestiges of occupation by the northern Chumash Indians, whose prehistory in the vicinity
of the city extends back 9000-plus years, Spanish colonial settlement beginning with the
establishment of the mission in 1772, and early American occupation beginning in the mid-1800s.
There is still much that can be learned from all of these resources.
In conclusion, I strongly encourage you to adopt the guidelines in order to protect the heritage
values of archaeological resources and to ensure a smooth-running process for dealing with
archaeological resources under CEQA.
Sincerely,
!'� COUNCIL EI'CbD DIR
�' g-CAO ❑ FIN DIR
BCAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Michael A. Glassow Q A70RNEY ❑ PW DIR
Professor and Q�ZLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF.
Coordinator, Central Coast Information Center ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C RED ILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Cr 0 PERS DIR
10/03/1995 15:14 5104568868 HAR�7EETIN AGENDA P❑GE 01
DATE >�=ITEM #�
SALINAN .
NATION
DONNA HARD Aakletse (Tribal Headwomanl
President, Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation Association
P.O. Box 2166 Concord, CA. 94521 510/458-8868 Fax: 510/458-0341
October 3, 1995
G-COUNCIL -6--cD_
U
; @-CAO ❑ FIN DiR
Kim Condon acao ❑ FIRE CHIEF I
City of San Luis Obispo [9 r-,0RNEY ❑ PWDIR
P.O. Box 8100 E3"CLERlcroRIG ❑ POUCE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 " ❑ MGMr TEah, ❑ REC DIR i
❑ CRE D Fi'_r I7 UTIL DIR f`{
f;
Re: Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing P�I�sc}
Dear Ms. Condon:
The Salinan Nation is a Native American Tribe whose southern coastal
aboriginal boundaries begin at Morro Bay. Although the City of San Luis Obispo is not
in our prehistoric territory, we have a concern that other cities in San Luis Obispo
County may adopt your preservation guidelines, so we felt we should give you our
input on the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines.
The Salinan Nation Tribal Council has actively participated in the research and
writing of several preservation plans, including the Ft. Hunter Liggett Historical
Preservation Plan. We, also, received a precedent setting ruling from the NAGPRA
Committee regarding reinterment of human remains, so, therefore, are very much
aware of all of-the research and work that goes into establishing guidelines such as
these.
After reading over your proposed guidelines, we would like to commend
everyone involved in this process for their hard work. That work has paid off, because-
you have put together an excellent proposal. You have structured a very impressive
system of checks and balances in order to protect the valuable Native American
heritage that is so quickly being destroyed in this Country. You have also protected the
individual homeowners, who will be building on less than an acre, from the often costly
and burdensome restrictions placed on them due to these guidelines.
Because of the thoroughness of these proposed guidelines we have very few
comments of our own to add. They are as follows:
OCT 8 A 195
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS 081SPO.CA
10/03/1995 15:14 5104566668 H:;RO PAGE 02
Page -2-
1. 4.40.5 - Access To Archaeological Records
There are no provisions made for review or receipt of documents
by the very persons whose culture is being protected.
Those individuals now listed are: archaeologists, students,
government employees, consultants, and owners and represen-
tatives of sites.
There is no mention of Native American Tribal representatives, or
of individuals of direct descendancy, whose prehistoric families
were known to five in the area of the site.
Recommendation: Include in Section 4.40.51. "F"
Native American Tribal representatives from Tribes known to inhabit
the area during the time before European contact , and, individuals
who are the direct descendants of precontact families who resided
at or near the site, and who have their names listed with the Native
American Heritage Commission.
2. There should be a section regarding appeal rights. Provision should
be made for an appeal of the Director's decision, 0 the situation should
ever occur.
3. Violations of these guidelines should also be addressed.
4. It has come to the attention of the Salinan Council that there are now
monitoring companies being formed with a Native American on the
Board, but who are sending out non-Indians to do the site monitoring.
A section should be added to the guidelines forbidding this practice.
Once again, we would like to commend you for the thoughtful process you have
all obviously gone through in order to put together these guidelines. if we can ever be
of any help in the future please feel free to contact us at the above address and phone
number. .
Donna Haro, Tribal Headwoman Robert Duckworth
President, SNCPA Tribal Council Chair
G�1
_ MEETING AGENDA �
JCOUNCIL CDD DIR San Luis Obispo County DATE /0-d-9 MN #
1 C1 CAO ❑ FIN DIR Archaeological Society
1a ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF P. O, Box 109
t'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR San Luis Obispo,
VCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF, p , CA. 93406
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
C�R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS D!R �
September 27, 1995.
Mayor Allen Settle `
and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Members;
Our Society is recommending that the City Council accept and adopt the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines as submitted by the Cultural
Heritage Committee. Members of our Society have commented on.and made
suggestions to this document at previous public hearings. We feel the document
represents a good balance of various viewpoints.
What does the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines do for the
City?
These Guidelines are a means to communicate to City Staff and Citizens
how to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act regarding Cultural
and Archaeological Resources. These Guidelines will be used to increase
awareness of what Cultural Resources are, how they are managed and evaluated,
how they are found, and where they are most likely to occur.
Why should the City adopt them?
By giving Staff well defined methods to follow, the City decreases the
possibility of Civil Suit regarding inadvertent destruction of significant cultural
resources. In projects that utilize Federal or State funds, oversights in following
proper guidelines could result in the loss of those funds.
Will the adoption of these Guidelines increase costs to single resident
improvement projects?
No. Single resident projects are exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) except where there already is a
known or recorded cultural resource. Again these Guidelines only give directions
and definitions to comply with CEQA and do not add additional restrictions to
CEQA.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 1995
SaNC' COp NCCIL CA
a
We feel that failure to adopt these Guidelines will surely send the signal
to City Staff that the Council prefers to continue planning operations under a more
laissez-faire attitude; the Cultural Heritage Committee will certainly have to re-
evaluate their purpose; and the City will have given credence to continued
controversy of proposed projects as well as widely varied standards from project
to project. Because we feel in this case that standardization will be more fair to
all, we recommend adoption of these Guidelines.
Since ely,
��GL��
Luther Bertrando,
Vice Chairperson
MEETING AGENDA .� COUNCILcoy DIR
DATE STEM #CWOOPAO
❑ FIN DIR
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
"TTORNEY 11PW DIR October l; 1995
CLERKJORIG ❑ POLICE CHF;
Mayor Allen Settle ❑ MGMTTEA64 O REC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo {2,PRE. FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
990 Palm Street . .� ❑ PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Mayor Settle:
I urge you to act favorably in support of the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Guidelines at your October 3, 1995 City
Council meeting.
Adoption of the Guidelines will benefit the community in a very
important way; they provide procedures that stress the early
identification and avoidance of archaeological sites . Current
City practice does not proceed in this manner and it is a very
real disbenefit to both the resource and the project applicant .
Simply .recall the difficulties in construction of the Palm Street
Parking Garage and current problems with the Rosemont project .
By contrast, the Kozak project (which was undertaken using
procedures outlined in the Guidelines) established the early
identification and significance of archaeological resources,
avoided costly conflicts during construction, and spurred
community interest .
The Guidelines have been prepared by the Cultural Heritage
Commission (CHC) , in accordance with Program 6 . 7 . 5 of the City' s
General Plan Land Use Element . The Guidelines do not add
regulations but simply provide a practical procedure for
implementing existing CEQA requirements'. Adoption of the
Guidelines will bring the City up to speed with other communities
(i .e. the cities and counties of Santa Barbara, Monterey, San
Francisco, Santa Cruz, Mendocino and San Diego) and provide
guidance to the community and city staff in treatment of
archaeological resources during development.
I ask that you adopt a resolution establishing the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Guidelines. If you have any questions, I
can be reached at 549-3118 or 543-3643 .
I appreciate your sincere consideration of this matter,
RECEIVED
OCT z 1995
Wendy aldron, CHC Committeemember
CITY COUNCIL
SAN I '" ^01c0n CA
' In addition to formulating the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, the CHC has supported historical
studies which resulted in city-wide maps which identify the potential locations of historical archaeological resources. These maps
are available for use at the City Community Development Department and will save the project applicant the cost of individually-
prepared, project-specific mapping.