HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2002, C3 - COPELANDS PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES council M` °�a X9_0
j Agenda nepout "..b� C3
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directod�rer J M
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner pK
SUBJECT: COPELANDS PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Approve the revised workscope for archaeological and cultural resource services in
connection with the Copeland's Downtown Project.
B. Authorize the CAO to execute a contract with Applied EarthWorks in the amount of
$261,750, contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of
$157,050, with the City responsible for the remaining $104,700 under the terms of the
approved MOU for this project.
C. Appropriate $104,700 from unreserved Parking Fund working capital for the City's share .
of this work.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
On December 11, 2001, the City Council amended a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between itself and Court Street Partners, LLC (Copelands) setting forth the requirements and
commitments necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of Downtown San Luis
Obispo. On December 12, 2001, plans were officially submitted to the Community
Development Department for the revised project. The project, commonly referred to as the
Copelands Project, still includes the same Court Street component that was included in the
original MOU - a mixed-use retail, restaurant, and office building to be developed by the
Copelands on property currently owned by the City. The major difference between the previous
project and the current project is that the Chinatown component has been eliminated, and a new
parking structure with ground floor office space is now proposed at the northeastern corner of
Palm and Morro Streets. The Copelands, on property that they currently own and the City will
later purchase for a fixed price, will also construct the Parking/Office Structure.
Both project sites have a high likelihood of uncovering significant archaeological and cultural
resources. Excavation at the Court Street site has the potential to unearth building features or
archaeological artifacts associated with La Casa Grande, the original County courthouse, as well
as the Obispo Theatre that burned in the 1970s. Excavation at the Palm/Morro Parking
Structure/Office site has a high likelihood of encountering significant archaeological artifacts
associated with mission era Chumash culture, the Chinese culture, and Euro-American culture.
In order to identify the presence and extent of these resources, establish a resource recovery
C3- 1
Council Agenda Report-Copelands Project Archaeological Services
Page 2
program, and perform necessary fieldwork as mitigation, the services of a qualified archaeologist
and a historical consultant will be needed.
On June 20, 2000 as a consent item, the City Council approved a workscope and initiated a
Request for Proposal (RFP) process for archaeological services for the previous version of the
Copelands Project. With that approval, the Council also authorized the CAO to award the
contract to a qualified consultant. The previously selected consultant, Applied EarthWorks of
Fresno, is still available to do the necessary archaeological and cultural resources studies and
work for the project. In fact, Applied EarthWorks is a sub-consultant for Amec Earth &
Environmental of Santa Barbara, the main environmental consultant for the project
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The matter now before the Council is a separate contract
with Applied EarthWorks for the necessary archaeological fieldwork and recovery phase.
Background
As part of their contract with Amec Earth & Environmental, Applied Earthworks; as a sub-
consultant for the EIR, will be doing the following tasks:
1. Background archival research and prefield consultations;
2. Preparation of a detailed work plan for an integrated program of subsurface
archaeological testing, evaluation, and impact mitigation for inclusion on the EIR;
and
3. Completion of Historical Resource Inventory of buildings and structures, and
preparation of a Historical Resources Inventory Report.
Staff is now seeking the Council's approval to pursue a contract with Applied EarthWorks to do
the actual fieldwork to perform'impact mitigation called for in the work plan identified in
Number 2 above, and to complete resource recovery where appropriate.
The Council, in approving the MOU for the revised project, directed staff to make this the
highest priority development project in the City. The terms of the MOU call for an accelerated
project processing time with the ultimate goal of securing building permits by September of
2002. Given these circumstances, staff has worked with Applied EarthWorks to come up with a
work plan that takes a consolidated approach to their needed work.. This means that actual
impact mitigation will be pursued at the same time that subsurface testing is done. The proposed
single field operation will: determine whether archaeological remains are present; evaluate their
significance and integrity; assess potential effects; and perform impact mitigation, where
appropriate, through data recovery excavation. Staff believes that this approach of a single field
operation will be ultimately more efficient, less disruptive, and more cost effective.
The reason that the consolidated approach is more efficient and less disruptive is fairly
straightforward — sites only need to be dug up once, rather than returning at a later time to do
resource recovery.. This ultimately will also save time, which is especially critical given the very
ambitious timeline for this particular project.
C3-2
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project Archaeological Services
Page 3
The proposed consolidated approach to the archaeological work has been employed in other
urban communities including larger cities like Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Barbara.
Closer to home,the approach was utilized with the Avila Beach redevelopment project. The idea
of a consolidated approach is fully in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The City as Lead Agency has already made the determination that there is a high
likelihood that significant historical resources will be unearthed with project development. The
work plan for the consolidated fieldwork will be reviewed as part of the Draft EIR and will allow
for public input, as well as input from the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Planning
Commission, on recommended mitigation.
Costs of Consultant Services
While a direct comparison to previous cost estimates for archaeological services cannot be done
because of a reduced project scope and different sites involved in the revised project, staff
believes that the consolidated approach will save both time and money. A previous estimate for
the archaeological work for the earlier version of the project was $186,639. This amount did not
include any of the actual impact mitigation through resource recovery and laboratory testing.
The additional field and laboratory work with increased labor costs are the main reasons that the
price tag for the consolidated approach is $261,750. One estimate for impact mitigation
involving the earlier project was three to four times that amount. Since the project cannot
proceed without completion of the impact mitigation, staff believes that the consolidated
approach is the appropriate course to keep the project on track and comply with the timelines set
in the MOU.
The consultant costs for the archeological services contract was divided between the City and the
Copelands consistent with the Amended MOU. Specifically Pages 15 & 16 of Exhibit 3, Parking
Structure Proposal, of the MOU requires that the Copelands pay for the costs of the anticipated
archaeological fieldwork, resource recovery, and laboratory testing for the Palm/Morro
Parking/Office Structure site, and that the City pay for the work for the Court Street site. The
60% allocation of the proposed contract amount ($261,750) to the Copelands for the field work
and recovery phases is based on the expectation that there may be richer subsurface resources at
the Palm/Morro site, given other archaeological work done in the very near vicinity. Exhibit "1",
Total Estimated Project Cost, of the workscope shows a total amount of$330,733. The amount
for the separate archeological services contract was reduced to $261,750 by deducting $68,983
from the total shown for costs already included as part of the EIR.
Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC)Review
The workscope for the new consolidated approach will be presented to the CHC on February 25th
for input. The CHC continues to be very interested in the archaeological impacts of the project
and their early input is important. Staff anticipates returning to the CHC in March when the draft
work plan for the fieldwork has been developed.
C3--3
Council Agenda Report—Copeland§Project Archaeological Services
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
As noted above, the project applicant is responsible for 60% of the costs for archeological
services ($157,050) under the approved MOU. The City is responsible for the remaining 40%
($104,700)for the Court Street site.
The funding source for this should ultimately be based on how the proceeds from the sale of the
Court Street site are allocated between the Parking Fund and the General Fund. Our past
research shows that 75% of this site was purchased with parking revenues (before creation of the
Parking Fund) and 25% from the General Fund. If this is how the final proceeds are distributed,
then the Parking Fund should pay $78,500 of this cost and the General Fund should pay$26,200.
However, no decision has been made on this yet, and we recommend deferring it until the final
funding program is developed for the overall project, including the General Fund's share (if any)
of the cost of office and parking space in the Parking/Office structure based on possible tenancy
in this building.
In the interim, given the current use of this site solely for parking purposes, and the likelihood
that most (if not all) of the proceeds from the sale of this site will go to the Parking Fund, we
recommend appropriating the City's share from unreserved Parking Fund working capital. If the
General Fund subsequently receives a share from the proceeds of the sale of the Court Street site
(which in no case should exceed its contribution towards the original purchase of 25%), then the
General Fund should reimburse the Parking Fund at that time on a pro-rata basis.
Adequate resources are available in the Parking Fund to fund this supplemental appropriation
and retain working capital within the City's minimum balance policy.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary
changes.
2. Decide now to allocate 25% of the proceeds from the sale of the Court Street site to the
General Fund. In this case, only $78,500 of the cost should be appropriated from the
Parking Fund, and the balance should be appropriated from the General Fund ($26,000).
However, as discussed above, we recommend waiting until we have developed the
funding program for the overall project before making this decision.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 —Scope of Work
L\Copelands Archaeological Services RFP Council Report.doc
C3 -41
Attachment 1
SCOPE OF WORD
and
COST PROPOSAL
Cultural Resource Services:
Copeland Project
1 January 2002
Prqared By:
�II�OT�
Applied EarthWorks,Inc.
5090 N. Fruit Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, California 93711
Submitted To:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm.Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
C3-s
i.
SCOPE OF WORK
Prior studies in the San Luis Obispo downtown area indicate a high likelihood for archaeological
features to occur within the project footprint. These studies have revealed prehistoric Native
American remains (midden deposits,burials, and special use areas), historic Native American
remains (mission neophyte villages and cemeteries), Spanish Colonial architectural remains, and
mission-related sheet refuse as well as hollow, trash-filled features, sheet refuse, and architectural
and landscape features related to the American and Chinese occupations. AE's brief review of
historical maps also reveals a succession of prior buildings on the subject lots.
The extant built environment also is a key component of the project because the area lies within
the city's Downtown and Chinatown Historical Districts. Several buildings in this area have
been placed on the city's Master List of Historic Resources. Other buildings, structures, and
objects in the area, while not currently listed, may be significant under CEQA due to their age,
design, or association with the local.historic districts.
Both the archaeological (below-ground) and historical (above-ground) cultural resources must-be
considered during the current project. Five basic tasks are therefore required to successfully
complete cultural resource studies for the Copeland Project. In order of their anticipated
completion,these tasks are:
1. Background archival research and prefield consultations;
2. Preparation of a detailed plan for an integrated program of subsurface archaeological
testing,evaluation, and impact mitigation for inclusion in the Environmental Impact
Report;
3. Completion of the Historical Resource Inventory of buildings and structures, and
preparation of a Historical Resources Inventory Report;
4. Implementation of the subsurface archaeological testing and mitigation plan; and
5. Preparation of a final technical report documenting the archaeological testing and impact
mitigation.
In the following paragraphs, )E detail's our approach for accomplishing these tasks. Labor
allocations and anticipated costs associated with each of the tasks are presented below.
1.1
C3-�
BACKGROUND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND PREFIELD CONSULTATIONS
To target the locations of prehistoric and historical archaeological remains, k proposes to
complete basic background research prior to producing the testing and mitigation plan. Several
archival sources will be used for this basic background research. The first step will be a records
search at the Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources
Information System, housed at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This search will
identify previous archaeological studies within or adjacent to the project area. Locations of
known archaeological sites will be recorded and existing reports will be reviewed to determine
the nature of the sites, types of features and artifacts that have been recovered or observed, extent
of prior work, and depth of cultural deposits in proximity to the study area.
In addition to the Information Center; local sources will play a key role in the background
research. E has identified the following local sources of historical data: San Luis Obispo
City/County Library Local History Room; San Luis Obispo County Historical Society and
Museum; San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society; County Recorder's Office; City
Planning Department; City Hall; California Polytechnic State University; Newspaper collections;
and private collections.
These archives contain various primary sources, including city directories, census records, voter
registration records, assessors rolls,building permits, city ordinances, photographs, lithographs,
and drawings. Additional documentary research will focus on these sources to develop a general
neighborhood and lot-by-lot assessment of the immediate project area. Review of these
documents will: (1) allow the identification of the general neighborhood history and historical
activities; (2) illuminate local demographics; (3) give insight into health and sanitation issues;
(4) reveal patterns of residential,commercial, and industrial expansion; and(5)pinpoint
locations where potentially significant resources may have survived later-period development.
Research will focus on:
• Development of an initial lot-specific ownership history;
• Location of additional historical maps depicting the project area;
• Identification of the historic character of the neighborhood through time;
• Determination of when sewer systems were mandated, when they were installed within
the neighborhood, and when routine trash pick-up began;
• Location of utility maps, street plans, and as-built drawings that may provide details of
original site grade and elevation as well as the installation of utility and transportation
corridors; and
• Identification of more recent construction that may have impacted archaeological features
or deposits within the project lots.
Maps prepared by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company also are available for several years,
beginning in 1886 and continuing through the 1950s. Past archaeological work has shown these
scaled maps to be a highly effective tool for locating structural remains that may be preserved
under the current ground surface. When reviewed in series, the Sanborn maps also show the
structural development of the city, sometimes providing substantial detail on building materials,
layout, the nature and functions of the structures (e.g., "saloon," "livery," "stable," or"shed"),
1.2
C3- 7
and the residential character of the neighborhood ("Chinatown" or"female boarding house")..
These maps can be paired with historic street-level or aerial photographs to give a three-
dimensional perspective of the area
In conjunction with the Sanborn maps, city records such as building permits, water permits,
plumbing certificates, city ordinances, and planning documents will be reviewed to further
identify the character of the neighborhood and changes that occurred in the project areas over
time. k researchers also will refer to secondary sources such as local histories to gain a broader
picture of neighborhood events as well as local, regional, and national associations. The
information acquired from these documents will be used to target areas with the greatest potential
to contain subsurface archaeological remains. These areas will be the focus of Phase-2 testing.
Archival research will continue through the testing phase to answer any unforseen questions that
may arise as archaeological deposits are exposed.
During the background research phase,AE's staff geomorphologist will characterize local
stratigraphy, land use, and depositional history to further identify past use of the project area.
These data will be compared with other archaeological research in the vicinity to pinpoint areas
most likely to contain prehistoric remains and predict the depth and conditions under which such
remains are likely to be preserved. Within each area, specific test locations will be targeted for
excavation to determine if prehistoric remains are extant or have a high likelihood of being
extant.
Many important consultations and notifications also must be completed prior to the start of field
work. First and foremost, lines of communication must be established with the various city
agencies and organizations involved or potentially affected by the cultural resources studies.
Among others, these might include city planners,police, and parking personnel. Contacts with
local Native American representatives, the Native American Heritage Commission, and the local
business community also should be initiated early in the process. t also will contact the local
historical society, archaeological society, and other community groups, as appropriate, and will
work with the city to identify any other individuals or groups who should be contacted or
informed about the planned work. AE proposes to convene a project kickoff meeting with these
and other interested parties shortly after the award of contract, so that the results of initial
consultations can be reported in the field work plan (see below).
TESTING, EVALUATION,AND MITIGATION PLAN
Upon conclusion of the basic archival research,,E will assess the results and produce a detailed
subsurface testing, evaluation, and impact mitigation plan. Based on the research results, k will
identify target areas where archaeological testing is most likely to yield intact artifact-filled
features and other potentially significant prehistoric or historical resources. The plan will
identify the location and phasing of all proposed excavation, discuss field methods and logistical
arrangements, identify the various strategies that may be employed to maximize feature
discovery, and provide a field work schedule.
Utilizing a combined strategy based on archival research, geomorphological data, and land-use
history, fE will focus testing in areas with the greatest potential to contain intact subsurface
1.3
C 3-�
remains. Our research also will identify areas where cultural remains are unlikely to occur. This
approach may help to significantly minimize excavation during this phase of work.
The testing and mitigation plan also will establish criteria for the evaluation of archaeological
features uncovered during testing, and will present methods for mitigating project impacts on
features judged to be significant or important historical resources.
HISTORICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
The project area contains three categories of buildings and structures: (1) those previously
inventoried and judged to be significant, (2) those previously inventoried and judged not to be
significant, and (3) those not inventoried. The following sections present details on how 1fi will
treat these resources.
Background Research
Per City guidelines, the Historical Resources Inventory will begin with a review of archival
sources including historical maps, records, and other literature pertinent to the project area.
Many of the same sources of information identified in Section 2.1 will be used in support of the
Historical Resource Inventory. Building permits will be reviewed to help determine the nature
and degree of alterations to the buildings and structures that have not been inventoried, and will
assist in making significance determinations. Aerial photographs and Sanborn maps are an
important tool that k will employ with the previously mentioned resources to understand the
nature of the historic built environment and how the streetscape changed over time. Primary
sources such as historical photographs from the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society also
will be consulted, along with materials at the San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Mission
Santa Barbara, and Mission San Luis Obispo archives. We also will contact long-time members
of the local Chinese community for insights into the resources associated with this ethnic group.
Photographic research also will be key in determining what changes have occurred over time. In-
filling and the cultural viewshed also will be considered.
Lists of significant properties maintained by the city, which contain valuable historical
background information, also will be key to the identification of the historic buildings, structures,
and objects within the project areas. The existing three-volume downtown architectural survey
will be particularly useful. These sources will be utilized to determine which buildings have not
been inventoried and those that previously have been judged significant.
Architectural Survey and Documentation
)E will utilize the data developed during background research to perform the inventory of
buildings, structures, and related objects within the project area. Each building within or
immediately adjacent to the project area will be documented and evaluated. All significant
historical buildings, structures, and objects, as well as any previously undocumented resources,
will be photographed and recorded on the appropriate California Department of Parks and
Recreation forms (DPR 523). lE will assess previously inventoried buildings and structures to
determine if any alterations to their character-defining elements have affected their integrity.
1.4
C3-9
I
Integrity levels for the built environment will be developed and compared to the proposed
development concepts to evaluate project effects and guide mitigation planning.
The field inventory will focus on determining building integrity and identifying the nature of
alterations that may have affected eligibility. )E will consider the project areas and each building
within them as part of a larger historic viewshed. Such an approach allows for consideration of
issues such as in-filling within the urban construct. Historical images will be key in determining
the integrity of the existing built environment and character-defining elements of individual
buildings within the historic district.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY,EVALUATION,AND
EMPACT MITIGATION
Purpose and Scope
Per our discussions, AE proposes to combine and consolidate the Archaeological Resource
Inventory(ARI), Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE), and Archaeological
Resource Impact Mitigation into a single field operation to determine whether archaeological
remains are present, evaluate their significance and integrity, assess potential project effects, and
perform impact mitigation, where appropriate, through data recovery excavation or other means.
fE has used this approach successfully in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, San
Bernardino, and other urban settings throughout California. These goals are accomplished
through a combination of background research, surface survey, and subsurface investigations.
AE proposes to locate,expose, and assess historical and prehistoric archaeological remains using a
combination of efficient and cost-effective methods that we have found to work extremely well
on other archaeological projects in urban settings similar to downtown San Luis Obispo. The
intensive archival research described above is a key component of archaeological testing. This
research will examine local historical and prehistoric settlement patterns, land use, and
previously located sites to forecast the areas with the greatest likelihood to harbor cultural
deposits. Geomorphological analysis will examine landforms and depositional history as another
means of identifying potentials for cultural remains. As described above, our testing, evaluation,
and mitigation plan will identify target areas likely to contain intact historical or prehistoric
deposits. Slightly different strategies then will be employed to assess the potential of prehistoric
and historic resources.
Archaeological Testing Strategies
Historical Remains
Field testing will be carried out in each designated target zone to: (1) determine if prehistoric and
historical ground surfaces are present; (2) estimate the preserved horizontal extent for each area;
and (3) identify features types, variability, and integrity. Test locations will be positioned to
maximize these research topics. To assist in the placement of test excavations, historical lot lines
will be resurveyed and staked over the project area to assist in locating historical remains and in
associating them with historic events, trends, themes, and block occupants.
1.5
C3-ID
The testing program must overcome challenges to conventional archaeological field methods
because urban archaeological deposits are often covered by fill or obscured on the surface by
paving,buildings, or subsequent historical or modern activities. For these reasons, mechanized
equipment will be used to clear each target area. The target areas will be scraped by a hydraulic
backhoe/loader with a 36-inch-wide bucket fixed with a smooth blade. Initial trenches will help
define site stratigraphy and establish the sequence of historical and prehistoric strata in different
portions of the project areas. It is assumed that prehistoric remains, where present, will underlie
the historical strata. Once stratigraphy has been clarified,test locations will be widened with the
backhoe to remove overburden and expose broad areas of the historical deposits at selected
locations. Where historical features are encountered, they will be exposed in plan view in the
scraped trench floor; not cross-sectioned within trench walls.
Recent archaeological work in urban areas has demonstrated that the most productive feature
types for studying the historic past are hollow, refuse-filled backyard features such as privies,
trash pits, wells,cisterns, and sealed deposits such as sheet middens, burned surfaces, and burned
structural remains. Our stripping methods are designed to identify such features without
damaging their integrity. Clearing will be monitored and supervised by the Archaeological Field
Director or other qualified personnel to ensure stratigraphic control and sensitive treatment of
potentially significant deposits. When cultural features and stratification are identified, they will
be exposed in plan view by manual excavation,photographed, and mapped in relation to a
permanent datum.
Feature evaluation involves defining content, structure, stratigraphic integrity, approximate date
of deposition, and range and quantity of artifacts. Because the project areas lie within the city's
designated downtown historical district, archaeological remains within the district can be
presumed to be significant per CEQA statutes and guidelines (CEQA Section 21084.1). Unless a
preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise, all archaeological features in the project area will
be considered significant because of their potential to provide import archaeological data.
Recent deposits (those less than 50 years old) and features or deposits clearly lacking integrity
will be eliminated from further consideration. If a feature's integrity is not evident from the plan
view perspective, an appropriate portion may be hand excavated to assess the feature's content
and data potential. In the case of a refuse-filled pit; for example,the feature could be cross-
sectioned and part of each layer excavated.
Archival research will continue as needed during the field session to aid in feature and artifact
identification, significance evaluation, and historical association. Archival information, physical
data, and material culture will be used in final assessment of feature significance. The
Archaeological Field Director, in consultation with the Senior Historical Archaeologist, will be
responsible for making these judgements.
Prehistoric Remains
Prehistoric testing will employ a slightly different strategy. The most productive prehistoric sites
are artifact- and feature-rich midden deposits, although lithic reduction areas, resource
procurement and processing zones, and other site types also may be significant. Areas targeted
1.6
based on the results of background research and geomorphic analysis will be carefully excavated
with a backhoe in a fashion similar to historical testing. Trenching will extend to the depth
below which prehistoric cultural remains are unlikely to be found. The Archaeological Field
Director or other qualified archaeologist will monitor the trenching for prehistoric remains and
examine the trench with the geomorphologist to investigate for other indications of prehistoric
settlement or use. If prehistoric cultural strata are exposed, minimal hand excavation and artifact
collection will be necessary to evaluate the integrity, content, and data potentials of the remains
and gather the data needed to plan for mitigation. As ageneral rule, AE will perform the
minimum amount of excavation and artifact collection necessary for significance evaluation.
These judgements will be made by the Archaeological Field Director in consultation with the
Principal Archaeologist.
To facilitate the field operations, AE will establish an on-site project office in a temporary trailer
for the duration of field work. We also will provide on-site security and equipment storage.
Artifact Processing
AE will process cultural remains and records collected during the project according to standard
archaeological procedures. Laboratory processing of these remains will involve cleaning by dry-
brushing, basic identification and sorting into artifact classes, and preliminary cataloguing by site
provenience. Artifacts will then be temporarily packaged to ensure conservation of materials and
boxed by feature, stratum, or other provenience.
The nature of final cataloging and artifact preparation is contingent on the facility selected for
final, long-term curation of the collections. t1F will work with the City to identify an
appropriately qualified repository for the collections but will not prepare the collections for final
curation. The current proposal does not include costs for curation preparation, packaging,
delivery of the collections to the repository, or long-term curation fees.
Impact Mitigation Strategies
The Archaeological Field Director will make judgements regarding the integrity and significance
of archaeological features and deposits in consultation with senior project staff and according to
specific criteria established in the testing,evaluation, and mitigation plan. If judged significant,
hollow, artifact-rich historical features will be excavated in their entirety to mitigate project
impacts. Foundations and other structural remnants may be cleared, mapped, photographed, and
documented in other ways.
Similar criteria and judgements will be applied to prehistoric or historic Native American
remains. Midden deposits will be sampled using standard archaeological methods appropriate to
the nature of the remains. Wet screens and various mesh sizes may be employed to recover small
artifacts and faunal remains, if present. If dense midden deposits are exposed, column samples
will be removed to the laboratory for more fine-grained processing and analysis. As detailed
below, we do not anticipate encountering deep midden deposits, human remains, or complex
prehistoric features.
1.7
C '3-1a
DELIVERABLES
Testing,Evaluation,and Mitigation Plan
if,will submit a Testing, Evaluation, and Mitigation Plan to the City for review and approval
before subsurface investigations begin.. This plan will identify the phasing and location of all
anticipated excavations and present a field work schedule. It will outline field methods, identify
the various strategies that may be employed to maximize feature discovery, and discuss logistical
arrangements. We will also discuss parking and traffic control, site security, and public relations.
Historical Resource Inventory Report
To facilitate incorporation into the existing downtown historical inventory, AE will prepare a
separate report on historical buildings, structures, objects, and landscapes. This report will
document the results of archival research and the inventory of above-ground historical resources.
The report will be prepared in accordance with Archaeological Resource Management Reports
(ARMR) guidelines and National Park Service Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for
Preservation Planning (National Register Bulletin 24). While mitigation of project impacts on
above-ground resources is not included in the current proposal, AE will assess potential project
effects on significant historical resources and offer recommendations to assist the City in
planning for any necessary mitigation actions. Mitigation of potential adverse impacts to
historical resources might involve four different approaches: construction design
recommendations, adaptive reuse, alternatives to demolition, and.relocation. Design
recommendations might use the extant built environment to fuse the historic viewshed with the
new construction. Alternatives to demolition might include incorporation of portions of historic
buildings and structures into the project to promote adaptive reuse of these resources. Strategies
for the relocation of buildings and structures (when necessary) must successfully integrate the
moved building into a new environment. In cases where demolition is the only alternative,
documentation to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (NABS) is typically
utilized. Character-defining architectural elements also might be salvaged for display or use in
other buildings.
Archaeological Resource Inventory,Evaluation,and Mitigation Report
Upon completion of archaeological field work,IE will prepare a report documenting the
Archaeological Resource Inventory, Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation, and
Archaeological Resource Impact Mitigation. The report will describe the results of background
research, field methods, and the nature of archaeological remains in the study area. We will
describe and illustrate all artifact and feature types, evaluate their significance, and discuss.
project effects on significant archaeological remains. We also will analyze the remains and
interpret their meanings in the context of local and regional history and prehistory. Any
nonconfidential information regarding traditional cultural properties or sacred sites provided by
the Native American or Chinese communities will be included in the report.
1.9
C3-1_3
Artifact Collections
k will process cultural remains and.records collected during the project according to standard
archaeological procedures. AE also will work with the City to identify an appropriately qualified
repository for the collections but will not prepare the collections for final curation. If an
appropriate institution willing to accept the collections has not been identified by the time the
Impact Mitigation Plan is completed, E will package and deliver the collections to the City for
temporary storage until such time as a curation facility is identified.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Site Security
k will secure the services of a local company to supply temporary chain-link fencing to surround
any portions of the project area containing open archaeological excavations. In addition, a local
firm will be retained to provide part-time site security and prevent unauthorized personnel from
entering the site, greatly reducing the risks of liability or potential site disturbance. We estimate
that a security guard will be on-site from approximately 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. AE has used this
approach successfully on several other similar other projects.
Hazardous Materials
Based on our experience with other archaeological projects in urban settings, we understand that
there is a potential to encounter chemical hazards such as underground storage tanks,residual
petroleum products, or other hazardous materials during excavation: Our preliminary review of
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicates that at least one lot within the project footprint
was used as an auto salvage yard during the twentieth century, and contaminants are likely to be
encountered in this area. )E's urban archaeology team has received safety training in Hazardous
Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and will be alert to this possibility
during field operations. If hazardous materials are encountered during excavation, the area will
be sealed temporarily until such time as the area can be tested, the contaminants identified, and a
safety plan put in place.
Coordination with the City
,E will work to establish clear and effective lines of authority and communication with City of
San Luis Obispo planners, police, parking personnel, and others involved in the project. To
ensure quality communication and coordination between AE staff and the City, k will designate a
single individual to handle coordination and information dissemination among all parties. This
person also will serve as the coordinator for Native American consultations and other aspects of
public relations. k further understands that work within pubic rights-of-way will require an
encroachment permit from the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department.
1.10
G3-lq
Minimization of Parking and Traffic Disruptions
,E is aware that significant disruptions to parking and traffic patterns are occurring in the City of
San Luis Obispo, particularly in the Court Street area. We pledge to work with City staff to
minimize further disruptions to parking throughout the project. AE will work with the city staff to
develop appropriate measures to minimize parking disruptions, and to maintain ingress and
egress to the parking areas at all times. k will remain in constant contact with the City to resolve
any other parking and traffic issues that may arise. We propose to minimize potential problems
with the following strategies:
• k will post message signs around the project areas 1-2 weeks prior to field work
announcing that access to these areas will be restricted during the field work period. We
also propose to place public notices in the local newspaper. The signs shall provide the
name and.local contact number for AE's Public Relations Coordinator, so that citizens
may contact 1E with any questions or concerns. Additional signs explaining the project
will be added while field work is in progress.
• Field personnel will "carpool" to the site to minimize project vehicles in the area.
• Testing within existing parking lots will be phased and coordinated with city parking
personnel to minimize disruption to ongoing parking needs.
• Test excavations in parking areas will be closed as quickly as possible to reestablish
public access.
LNATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION AND TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS
Shortly after the award of contract, k will contact the Native American Heritage Commission to
identify a Most Likely Descendant and an appropriate consultant to represent the local Native
American community. k will select a Native American representative in consultation with the
City and will initiate discussions regarding archaeological monitoring and treatment of any
human remains that might be encountered during the project.
If human remains are encountered during excavation, they will be minimally exposed only as
needed to determine whether they represent intact inhumations or isolated fragments. Intact
burials will be stabilized and work will be redirected to another part of the site; no further
excavation or site disturbance in the area likely to contain human remains will occur. k will
then initiate further consultations with the County Coroner,Native American Heritage
Commission, and the local Native American representative as required by state law and
Section 4.40.33 of the city's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. k assumes there
will be no burial excavation during this phase of work. The required consultations will drive the
ultimatetreatment of the burials.
1.11
C3-lS
COST PROPOSAL
This section sets forth the cost assumptions used by AE in preparing our proposal. Labor
allocation tables and budget spreadsheets also are provided. The labor allocation table shows our
preliminary estimates of the number of hours expected to complete the work, organized by major
task and employee category. QE's budget spreadsheet shows fully loaded labor rates for each
employee assigned to the project, details our estimated costs by category, and provides our
estimated total cost.
Any substantial changes in the assumptions described below, or in work conditions and
requirements, may necessitate revision (increase or decrease) of the work scope,level of effort,
schedule, and/or budget proposed here. Our price proposal is valid through 31 March 2002.
• We assume the project is essentially as defined in our meeting with City staff on
17 December 2001. The attached cost estimates are for performance of the tasks defined
and schedule presented at that meeting and in the attached scope of work.
• We assume that approximately 30 buildings, structures, and/or objects will require
documentation and evaluation during the Historical Resource Inventory. We estimate
that the Architectural Historian can complete field documentation in approximately
40 hours. An additional 60 hours are budgeted for the Architectural Historian to
complete the inventory forms and evaluate the resources. No time or costs are allocated
for mitigation of"impacts to historical buildings, since the extent and nature of any
necessary mitigation cannot be determined at this juncture.
• We assume that the archaeological testing phase of fieldwork can be completed in one
5-day field session by a crew comprised of an Archaeological Field Supervisor, a Crew
Chief, and 5 Field Technicians.
• Based on extant historical maps and other documents, we estimate that approximately
18 hollow, artifact-rich features (e.g., wells, privies) will be exposed during the testing
phase, and that two-thirds of these (12 features) will require mitigative excavation. We
estimate that 6 person-days per feature will be required to excavate and fully mitigate
impacts to these features. We further assume that 2 foundations or other large structural
features will require exposure and documentation, requiring an additional 6 person-days
each.
• Based on the site setting and known distribution of prehistoric and historic Native
American remains in the vicinity, we anticipate that some Native American deposits may
be present, but that they will be relatively shallow midden deposits lacking occupational
features. We have allocated 10 person-days for initial exploration and sampling of any
historical and/or prehistoric midden deposits that may be encountered, and an additional
2.1 /-
ten person days for mitigative excavation. Additional time and funds may be required if
more extensive Native American deposits or features are encountered.
• We assume that no human remains will be encountered during the course of the project.
If human remains are discovered, they will be exposed sufficiently to determine whether
or not they constitute intact burials or isolated items. Intact burials will be stabilized and
left in place while consultations required by state law are initiated. These consultations
will determine the ultimate treatment of human remains.
• Based these estimates,we anticipate that the mitigation phase of the archaeological
fieldwork will require 20 days (two 10-day field sessions) with a crew comprised of an
Archaeological Field Supervisor, a Crew Chief, and 5 Field Technicians. If more features
are encountered, or if the encountered features are larger, deeper, and/or more complex
than anticipated, then additional time and funding may be required to excavate, evaluate,
process, analyze, and report on the remains.
• We estimate that the Project Manager will spend 4 days in the field, the Senior Historical
Archaeologist will spend 4 days in the field, and the Geoarchaeologist will spend 10 days
in the field.
• Backhoe and operator costs are estimated at approximately$100 per hour for 5 days of
testing and 2 days of backfilling.
• We assume that one Native American monitor will be on site for 10 days of field work. If
the monitor is not needed for the entire period, the client may realize cost savings. If
additional Native American monitoring is required,then additional costs may be incurred.
• Our proposal includes the cost of security fencing and gating around excavation areas. A
foot patrol from a local security company also will provide site security from 3:00 p.m. to
7:00 am. daily for 33 days(including weekends between field sessions) at a cost of$14
per hour.
• AE assumes that the City will identify the locations of all underground utilities and be
responsible for any testing or identification of hazardous materials. Costs for the
preparation of safety plans or other responses to hazardous waste conditions are not
included in this proposal. We further assume that the City will make water available at
the project site for wet-screening and washing of excavated remains.
• Our estimate does not include the cost to backfill,compact, repave, and restripe private
or City parking lots or other paved surfaces. Despite repeated attempts, no local paving
contractor would provide lE with an estimate for these tasks without considerable
additional detail on City specifications for each location. Since such details are not
presently available and these tasks may involve considerable additional expense, it was
not feasible to estimate their costs at present.
• Laboratory processing and analysis is proportional to the number of features discovered
and excavated, and the volume of artifacts each feature yields. For budgeting purposes,
we assume that excavation will yield 100 standard archive boxes of artifacts. We
estimate that cleaning, sorting, identifying, and cataloguing these remains will require
approximately 18 hours/box. That time is divided among the Laboratory Director and 2
2.2 C3 -12
? —l2
i
Laboratory Technicians. Additional time has been allocated for special technical analyses
of artifacts and other remains.
• lE assumes that the work will be performed on a time and materials basis, that invoicing
will be monthly, and that AMEC will make payment within 30 days of receipt of an
acceptable invoice from.E.
• Our cost proposal is based upon straight-time rates (i.e., 8 hours per day,40 hours per
week) for nonexempt personnel. We have not budgeted for overtime work and assume it
will not be necessary for the project. If overtime work should become necessary, the rate
adjustments required by law would prevail.
• Any delay or interruption of work caused by factors beyond'Fs control may result in
increased costs. Similarly, any changes by AMSC, the project proponent, or the City of
San Luis Obispo in the work scope, schedule, or deliverables could affect costs.
Scheduling and budgetary revisions may be necessary in the event of any delays,
interruptions, or changes in the work.
• The current proposal does not include costs for curation preparation, packaging, delivery
of the collections to the repository, or long-term curation fees.
Hs labor distribution and cost estimate are detailed in the following tables.
2.3
TABLE 42: TOT, STIMATED PROJECT COST
City of San Luis Obispo
Historical and Archaeological Investigations for the Copeland Project
APPLIED EARTHWORKS,INC.
1 January 2002
Labor Category Hrs Rate Code Rate Cost
Principal Archaeologist BAP 176 003 91.80 $16157
Sr. Prehistoric Archaeologist CGL 009 68.30
Sr. Historical Archaeologist MCH 196 013 61.90 $12132
Georno holo ist DC 329 028 40.60 $13,357
ArchitecturalHistorianP 332 023 49.30 $16,368
Faunal Analyst-Shell CD 40 027 41.50 1,660.
Field Supervisor N 724 028 40.60 $29,394
Historian 192 028 40.60 $7,795
Faunal Analyst-Bone SG 160 028 40.60 $6,496
Public Relations Coordinator CD 344 027 41.50 $14,276
Publications Manager SR 128 061 41.90 $5,363
Field Technician I. 456 035 33.40 $15,230
Field Technician II 848 036 31.801 $26,966
Laboratory Director 600 027 41.501 $24,900
Laborato Technician 1520 035 33.40 $50,768
Draftsperson 172 064 35.30 $6,072
Word Processing/Data Ent CB 182 055 35.50 $6,461
Praiect Administrator RB 40 071 32.80 $1,312
Administrative Support M 44 073 .29.90 $1,316
Total.Hours/$ 6483 $256,024,
EquipmentISupplies
Feld Equipment and Supplies $2,500
Vehicle Rental weeks 12 320 $3,840
Fuel for Rental Vehicle $500
Travel/Transportation Units
Mileage(personal vehicles 5000 $0.33 $1,625
Per Diem (person days) 250 _ $100.00 $25,000
Air Fare $500.00
Lodging(person days) 5 $60.00 $300
Subsistence(person days) 5 $40.00 $200
Outside Services
Information Center Fees erhour 8 120 $960
Native American Monitor er da 10 $450 $4,500
Site Security Guard(per hour) 528 $14 $7,392
Backhoe and Operator(per hour 56 $100 $5,600
Com action/Pavin Striin
Fencing $4.500
Signs/Public Notices $2 500
On-site.Facilities $1,000
Other Direct Costs
Postage/Duplication $1,000
Office Communication/Supplies $1,500
Laboratory Facilities $5,000
TOTAL LABOR and BENEFITS $256,024
TOTAL EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES $6,840
TOTAL TRAVEL MANSPORTATION $27,125
TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES $26,452
TOTAL ODCs $7,500
FEE @ 10°/a non-labor $6,792
TOTAL $330,733 C 3_1 q
W
'C m m O N O -W N O a m m m O N N N O v m
m.
r -W N m O N W m a N U) It O r ' m 7 a o W. Cl) ^ m a m m v
0
c
ao = o
G 7 N O O O 00 O O O 00 O m
_ m m m co �. v m v co
2
a
Z c
Y' O N O O O O Occ
O O) O V m N m m m cm -T N
m P
J a
L
U
W m
LL E W N [N'1 m N N m m w m
M O
W O N m m N fOD N V m n
F L �-
E
Q
to p
W `WN N < O O ITQ m CD N ^ V
Q a a m N .a m m o V'1 0 v
_ 0
O
cl
O GD
Om m ¢ m o v' co 7 O
H U Z N
Q �
cli
V1
m O U
V O1 m w r co N N m N
O
tea¢
N
Y - o co
CD
m v) o '� m m mm m o v v co•
a N
v
CLc
W
W r rn� p
U Q D) m E ? N N N m N co N a m
Q
o`
U
w
c
o n m �-
c CD o co 4 0 0
4
o _
j O y U U Wca
U ' a z cmi N co a w n Cl) a ^ R
O c U U 4 N
aam < = N - a m a o z — = o wrn
m A c a —00 o p ¢ a a LL a 'v y J w a =
J fD L W 0 L W C m LL N O O U U ,Q LL 0
d
^^ a
0 m Q U 12 _w o O m w c ~ ` Q
~ = V L O L U a O = W N cn T g U ow o
U C IA C 2
r N w w N W Q N CWi L C CD = C. C 'O O Z' Z' W U c`0
O
a.� a W m `° a o m Q a m m m m aCD 0 CL a v
M« w a' E c a : 0 2 � m W m > > m m m 0 8 '0 `o
w a iq in C7 a LL ii m LL a a a a - � o` 3 m a F
v i i
W r ^. m r m o O o t7 m of �D r m Yf
m O O O O < O O Q N tD m m N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O
c3-a�