Title
REF180041 - REPORT ON THE STATUS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE CARMEL POINT (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 31, 2018)
Update on the impacts to archeological resources on Carmel Point (the Point), in response to Planning Commission Referral No. 18.09.
Project Location: Unincorporated portions of Carmel under Monterey County jurisdiction, Coastal Zone, Carmel Area Land Use Plan.
Proposed CEQA action: N/A
Report
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the additional data on archaeological resources on Carmel Point, consider staff recommendations, and provide staff direction.
PROJECT INFORMATION: N/A
SUMMARY:
In August 2018, the RMA received a referral from the Planning Commission, Referral No. 18.09. The question posed was whether the applied conditions of approval and mitigation measures have protected and preserved the Archaeological Resources at the Point in accordance with existing policies of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and state law. On October 31, 2018, staff presented a comprehensive overview of the Carmel Point area’s archaeological resources and how they have been treated with regard to mitigation and project implementation. During that hearing, clarification was requested regarding the number of projects and the percentage of resources found on site, particularly with projects that contained underground basements.
Staff performed additional review of Carmel Point development files and have synthesized the information (see table, Exhibit A). There are three recorded archaeological sites on Carmel Point: CA-MNT-17, CA-MNT-16, and CA-MNT-1286. Within the recorded archaeological areas there are 512 parcels. According to County records, to date there have been 220 archeological reports prepared for development in the Carmel Point area. The reports were prepared for a variety of projects, and staff reviewed 215 available archaeological reports.
Exhibit B provides additional detail per the request of the Commission at the October 31, 2018 hearing. The original records for each project that required an archaeological assessment and/or proposed a basement were reviewed and summarized in Exhibit B. Exhibit C is a redacted version of the Breschini summary report. Exhibits D and E provide additional examples of redacted archaeological reports.
The archaeological reports with significant resources found were mostly in the CA-MNT-17 registered site. In the cases where midden soil was identified, 3 reports yielded human remains. Other reports showed additional resources such as shell fragments, pigmented cobble stones, fire-cracked rock, bone fragments, and projectile points. All reports stated a preliminary assessment was done, with only 3 of them reporting an official monitoring plan document. However, almost every project that identified resources during excavation had an Initial Study prepared prior to starting construction with a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Two projects did not adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Plan but had found significant resources under the Preliminary Assessment. In several cases, the recommended additional reporting did not occur, and the mitigation did not protect the resource.
Carmel’s key policy on Archaeological Resources is such that when development is proposed for parcels where archaeological or other cultural sites are located, project design shall be required which avoids or substantially minimizes impacts to such cultural sites.
Policy Considerations
Given the documented archaeological importance of the Point, should Monterey County proceed with potentially pursuing a comprehensive Historic Resources (HR) site overlay, and/or consider the larger neighborhood eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources as well as the National Register of Historic Places as an archaeological district? Monterey County has not made a determination on whether the Point, as a whole is an “historic resource” as described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and has not pursued elevated official status of the Point. Instead, the County’s practice has been to analyze the potential effects of proposals on archaeological resources on a case-by-case project basis.
Should other policy issues be considered, such as requiring all projects located on the Point to conduct more intensive Extended Phase 1 archaeological investigations (e.g., Geoprobes), when deeper excavations are proposed?
There are several options available to help protect the resources at the Point, and staff awaits direction from the Commission on how to proceed.
DISCUSSION:
See the attached summary table and spreadsheet and a redacted version of the Breschini and Haversat Report referenced during the October 31st hearing (Exhibits A-C). Exhibits D and E provide additional examples of redacted archaeological reports for individual projects at Carmel Point.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: N/A
Prepared by: Christina McGinnis, Interim Long Range Planning Services Manager, x6733
Reviewed by: Jacqueline R. Onciano, RMA Chief of Planning
Approved by: John M. Dugan, FAICP, RMA Deputy Director of Land Use and Community Development
The following attachments are on file with the RMA:
Exhibit A - Project summary table
Exhibit B - Project review spreadsheet
The following attachments are on file and will be distributed by County Counsel’s Office:
Exhibit C - Redacted Breschini and Haversat Report
Exhibit D - Redacted Doane and Haversat Archaeological Report
Exhibit E - Redacted Breschini and Haversat Archaeological Report
cc: Front Counter Copy; Planning Commission; Brandon Swanson, RMA Services Manager; Christina McGinnis, RMA Services Manager; California Coastal Commission; Carmel Area Land Use Advisory Committee; Luis J. Miranda Ramirez, Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation; Anthony Lombardo, interested party; Chris Adamski, interested party; Monterey County List of Historical/Archaeological Consultants dated 11/24/2018; State Historic Preservation Office, Pietro Family Investments, property owners; Robert Carver, interested party; Barbara Rainer, interested party; The Open Monterey Project (Molly Erickson); LandWatch (Executive Director); John H. Farrow; Janet Brennan; Project File REF 180041.