City of Ojai Ad Hoc Committee on Cultural Resources August 1, 2016 Meeting Summary AGENDA: Resume July 11, 2016 agenda (review discovery procedures and 6/13/16 Ad Hoc Meeting Summary); Q&A ATTENDEES: Craig Beam, John Foster, Randy Haney, Severo Lara, Steve McClary, Dawn Thieding, Patrick Tumamait, Julie Tumamait-Stenslie, General Public (6 persons including Alasdair Coyne ; contractor Kerri Miller; plumber Alan Connell; contractor William Ulrich; realtor Rosalie Zabilla) DISCUSSION: 1) HOUSEKEEPING: a) PRESIDER–Point of clarification was asked: Which Chair is presiding over meeting and will co-chairs rotate presiding? Co-chairs stated they want an “organic feel” and would both facilitate and make sure committee stays on track. Questions may be directed to either chair. b) MEETING STRUCTURE/PUBLIC COMMUNICATION— Ms. Tumamait stated need to get through agenda and requested public comment be limited to 3 minutes per speaker per agenda item. Mr. Lara stated want to gauge how the meeting is going and did not want to limit input that may be beneficial to discussion. Mr. Foster protested and stated that because committee didn’t get to main points at last meeting, limits are needed for committee to fulfill its (committee) function and get through agenda. Co-chairs stated council directed more public input and that they did not want to limit public comment; co-chairs would dictate how much information to take from community; most important thing is to have community input; and, PAA was discussed at last meeting, committee is moving forward and will not go back. Ms. Thieding expressed concern that the City is required to protect resources; no written policy/ordinance exists; there is an urgency to get policy in place in a timely manner; council directive to bring something back (to council) is not going to be met because of meeting structure; clearer structure is needed. Mr. Haney stated that input will be taken equally from public and ad hoc members. Mr. Foster stated that the primary goal of the committee is to protect resources and recommend policy to council and did not understand how public input was equal to that (accomplishing committee goal) though acknowledged importance of input which could be gathered in other ways; equal time may delay recommendations and committee needs to move forward. Mr. Lara stated council directed more public input and that committee change its process (to include public input). Mr. Tumamait stated this is a special circumstance; resources are important to the Chumash culture and community. c) CITY WEBPAGE QUICK LINK FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES – Webpage update is needed to include information posts from previous meetings (i.e., Cultural Resources General Plan provisions, past minutes, 5/24/16 Administrative Report) to allow public to get up to speed. d) MEETING SUMMARY of July 11, 2016 – Comment/approval needed from Mr. Beam, Mr. Lara, Mr. McClary, Mr. Tumamait, and Ms. Wold to finalize minutes. e) GENERAL COMMENT: Mr. Beam noted concern over mixing regulatory structures (City’s General Plan versus CEQA). 2) ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES a) “Types of City of Ojai Permits” handout was distributed by Mr. Haney at meeting onset. b) Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) website link was added to agenda at Mr. Haney’s request to reference state law on discovery of human remains per Ms. Wold. NAHC is trustee agency for resource. c) Proposal and Background documents developed by cultural resources experts were posted with agenda and hard copy made available at meeting. Background (state law; Ojai’s current language as of August 25, 2015; and language from other agencies) was presented. Proposal (premise/recitals, resolution/ordinance/policy, procedures and questions to address) was reviewed. d) Detailed procedures are provided to fully inform everyone up front. Time limits are included to ensure work is completed effectively and quickly to reduce likelihood of disturbances to resource, i.e., rain. City is decision maker. Evaluation Plan may include subsurface investigation to determine significance and integrity of resource. Details of specified plans are dependent on resource encountered and circumstances. Monitoring may be required even in backfill dirt to catch, collect and document what is found because there is no way of knowing where dirt came from. e) Confidentiality of archaeological sites is a matter of state law. Information can be released to applicant. If resource is found on property, owner needs to know how to manage the resource to prevent damage. f) RECOMMENDED CHANGES: i) Change time limits from hours to working days. ii) City may consider adding time limit to development of Archaeological Evaluation Plan (procedure #5). Existing City language cites 10 days. Flexibility in process is recommended to allow for response times. g) PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY: i) William Ulrich, Gridley Water Group, offered several observations. No questions were asked.

d Hoc Committee on Cultural Resources, August 1, 2016 Meeting Summary

Page 2

(1) Mr. Ulrich’s comments were summarized by Mr. Haney as: (a) Differentiate between “development” and repair. (b) Identify responsible party in event city department head is absent. (c) Disparity exists between what Council communicated and Community Development Department (CDD) and Public Works actions. (2) Committee Response: (a) Speaker was encouraged to submit comments in writing for review and view May 24 and May 31, 2016 Special City Council meetings for council discussion of General Plan interpretation and term “development”. Public discussions on cultural resource provisions have been ongoing. (b) Ms. Tumamait stated, for the record, that she had requested consultation on Mr. Ulrich’s project; city staff understood response as wanting a Phase 1 and monitoring (and did not initiate consultation). For the past 30 years, the city has been out of compliance (with its General Plan) and resources have been destroyed. Mr. McClary has not had a chance to check with staff; implementation has been challenging; prior to current processes, city placed conditions on projects using CHRIS information or map, better tools now allow for better decision-making. ii) What are Ventura County Procedures? (1) Committee Response: Ventura County Coastal Zoning Ordinance Draft Article 8, Section 8178-3 was cited: “The project will be conditioned that in the event of an unanticipated discovery, construction shall be halted in the area of the find and the permittee shall contact the Planning Director, the qualified archaeological consultant and the State Historic Preservation Officer to assess the significance and treatment options.” Council directed not to distinguish between ministerial and discretionary activities; therefore, background document presents language from two lead agencies that apply to both ministerial and discretionary activities. Ojai’s General Plan imposes an affirmative requirement to protect the resource. h) Proposal “Questions To Address” were discussed: i) Clarification of policy versus resolution versus ordinance was requested. Need to be inclusive of community and create environment where people want to participate was stated. It was noted that Ojai’s tree ordinance applies regardless of activity or permit type and council makes policy decisions without full community support. Resolution allows for flexibility before implementing as ordinance. ii) Regarding Questions to Address: #1—Provide council options “a” (apply to city-permitted earth-disturbing activity only) and “c” (apply to all archaeological/cultural resources); #2—Yes, include Discovery of Human remains language; #3—Council to determine resolution or ordinance. iii) DECISION: Move proposal forward for council discussion; final decisions will be left to council. iv) ACTION: Mr. McClary to add update Proposal document per above comments in Item 3f above and attach documents to staff report for council discussion at next meeting. 3) ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: a) Review of staff report was discussed. Mr. McClary stated staff report is distinct from committee report; suggested that council may need to look at (cultural resources) issues holistically (in context of the whole); and, an open floor may be needed for members of the public to address concern(s) outside of agenda. b) PUBLIC COMMENT: Communication is limited to agenda. When does that (Q & A) happen? Committee discussed a separate forum for public questions and General Plan discussion as same questions keep coming up. Workshop was proposed. As Discovery Proposal is moving forward, General Plan review will be added to next ad hoc meeting agenda. Public was encouraged to watch May 24 and 31 Special City Council meeting videos for council discussion of General Plan and its interpretation related to cultural resources. c) REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS were tabled to next meeting. Discussion of June 13, 2016 ad hoc committee meeting summary will focus on clarification of May 31 council direction. Ms. Thieding commented that resource protections for ministerial activities is high priority as Tribe was recently informed that nothing can be done on a property with known cultural materials in highly sensitive area because activity is ministerial. ACTION ITEMS: (1) Mr. McClary to add documents to City Cultural Resources Quick Link webpage. (2) Finalize July 11, 2016 Meeting Minutes - Comment/ approval needed from Mr. Beam, Mr. Lara, Mr. McClary, Mr. Tumamait, Ms. Wold. (3) Mr. McClary to modify Discovery Proposal per discussion, attach to staff report and forward for Council consideration. NEXT MEETING: Monday, August 29 at 6pm, Council Chambers AGENDA: Discuss 6/13/16 Ad Hoc Summary; Review General Plan