Loading...
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.