Lessons Learned -- bibliography

Works Cited in "Lessons Learned"
“Activating Legal Protections for Archaeological Remains of Historic Chinatown Sites: Lessons Learned from Oakland, California”

Notes

[1] The complete CEQA guidelines can be found on the state’s website, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa. (Any project that draws on federal funds is subject to more stringent review, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.)

[1] Edward W. Chew was the son of Ng Poon Chew (1866-1931), a civil rights crusader who edited and published San Francisco’s major turn-of-the-century Chinese language newspaper, Chung Sai Yat Bo. A resident of Oakland since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Edward Chew’s father—if not Edward Chew himself—was likely to have been in direct communication with the people who had lived in the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown. In 1952, on the occasion of Oakland’s 100^th year anniversary, Edward Chew published a special article in the Oakland Tribune relaying the history of Oakland’s early Chinatowns and preserving important community oral history. Chew’s article provided clues that allowed discovery of further information about the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown. See Willard T. Chow, “The Reemergence of an Inner City: The Pivot of Chinese Settlement in the East Bay Region of the San Francisco Bay Area” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1974); Anna Naruta, Oakland’s San Pablo Avenue Chinatown: A Compilation of Research to Aid the Upcoming Archaeological Sensitivity Study and Treatment Plan to Be Drafted by the Archaeological Contractor for Forest City’s Uptown Redevelopment Project, UptownChinatown.org, January 2005. On file at the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Oakland Public Library, and the Oakland Asian Cultural Center; Anna Naruta, “Creating Whiteness in California: Racialization Processes, Land, and Policy in the Context of California’s Chinese Exclusion Movements, 1850 to 1910” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2006), 139-177.

Archaeological remains that can provide information unavailable from other sources meet CEQA criteria for a legally significant archaeological resource. (See the CEQA code for other significance criteria.) A review of archaeological investigations of California Chinatown sites demonstrates that while archaeological research has made substantial accomplishments, the current archaeological sample is so small, any potential archaeological site associated with Chinese Americans meets the CEQA criteria for a unique and significant (and therefore legally protected) cultural resource. See Naruta, “Creating Whiteness,” 71-77, 136-138, 229-233.

[1] One of the problems of archaeological monitoring is that it frequently produces out-of-context materials, a situation that renders archaeological interpretation impossible. For a discussion of the failure of archaeological monitoring at a site identified as the location of Oakland’s first Chinatown, see Naruta, “Creating Whiteness,” 145-148. The identification of Oakland’s current City Hall location as the site of the earliest Chinatown is given in L. Eve Armentrout Ma and Jeong Huei Ma, The Chinese of Oakland: Unsung Builders, ed. Forrest Gok and the Oakland Chinese History Research Committee (Oakland: Oakland Chinese History Research Committee, 1982), 32; and L. Eve Armentrout Ma, Hometown Chinatown: The History of Oakland’s Chinese Community (New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000), 29.

[1] As an aid to other communities facing threats to potential archaeological resources, the full text of the cultural resource mitigations and public review process Oakland City Council adopted for Forest City’s Uptown Mixed Used Redevelopment Project is provided below, and at http://UptownChinatown.org. This paper discusses some of the areas where the adopted language falls short, such as in specifying curation of archaeological materials, and naming specific staff charged with overseeing the archaeological mitigations measures. We will likely discover additional shortcomings as the mitigation process proceeds.

The following language was adopted by Oakland City Council on July 30, 2004 for inclusion in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP):

New HIST-2a and HIST-2b REFLECTING CITY REVISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 6-30-04

Mitigation Measure

HIST-2a: A pre-construction archaeological testing program shall be implemented to help identify whether historic or unique archaeological resources exist within the Project site. Examples of potential historic or unique archaeological resources that could be identified within the Project site include: back-filled wells; basements of buildings that pre-date Euro-American buildings that were constructed on the Project site; and back-filled privies. For these resources to be considered significant pursuant to CEQA, they would have to have physical integrity and meet at least one of the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a)(3) (for historic resources) and/or CEQA section 21083.2(g) (for unique archaeological resources). These criteria include: association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage; association with the lives or persons important in our past; embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; yield, or may likely yield, information important in prehistory or history; contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and be subject to a demonstrable public interest in that information; have a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or be directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

The testing program shall be guided by a sensitivity study (including a history of previous land uses) and shall use a combination of subsurface investigation methods (including backhoe trenching, augering, and archaeological excavation units, as appropriate). The purpose of the sensitivity study and testing program is to: (1) identify the presence and location of potentially-significant archaeological deposits; (2) determine if such deposits meet the definition of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource under section 21083.2(g) of the CEQA statutes; (3) guide additional archaeological work, if warranted, to recover the information potential of such deposits; and (4) refine the archaeological monitoring plan.

Representatives of established local Chinese American organizations (including the Chinese Historical Society of America and the Oakland Asian Cultural Center) shall be invited to participate in a focused community review of the sensitivity study and plan for the subsequent testing program prior to initiation of subsurface investigation. The City shall consider the community comments in finalizing the sensitivity study and testing program.

If historic or unique archaeological resources associated with the Chinese community are identified within the project site and are further determined to be unique, the City shall consult with representatives of an established local Chinese American organization(s) regarding the potential use of the archaeological findings for interpretive purposes.

Implementation Procedure

(1) Project Sponsor shall retain an archaeologist to implement a pre-construction archaeological testing program, as described in the mitigation measure.

(2) Archaeologist shall provide the sensitivity study and plan for the archaeological testing program for focused community review by representatives of established local Chinese American organizations (including the Chinese Historical Society of America and the Oakland Asian Cultural Center). Community reviewers shall be provided 14 days to review sensitivity study and archaeological testing program and provide written comments. The City shall consider the community comments in finalizing the sensitivity study and archaeological testing program.

(3) Archaeologist shall prepare a plan for additional data recovery of archaeological material, if deemed necessary.

(4) If additional data recovery of archaeological material is deemed necessary, Archaeologist shall submit the plan to focused community review by representatives of established local Chinese American organizations (including the Chinese Historical Society of America and the Oakland Asian Cultural Center). Such community reviewers shall be provided 14 days to review the plan and provide written comments.

(5) Project Sponsor shall consult with representatives of the Chinese American community regarding the potential use of archaeological findings.

Monitoring Responsibility

(1) through (5): City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, Planning Division.

Monitoring and Reporting Action

(1) Receive notice that an archaeologist has been retained.

(2) Verify that appropriate groups have been contacted to review sensitivity study and archaeological testing program. Verify community comments have been collected and reviewed and considered.

(3) Verify that a research design is prepared.

(4) Verify that appropriate groups have been contacted to review research design and plan for additional data recovery. Verify community comments have been collected and reviewed and considered.

(5) Verify that the appropriate groups have been contacted regarding archaeological findings within the Project site.

Monitoring Schedule

(1) through (4): Prior to approval of any permit that authorizes removal of foundations or work below finished grade.

(5) During Project construction.

Non-Compliance Sanction

(1) through (4): No approval of any permit that authorizes removal of foundations or work below finished grade.

(5) City issues corrective action or stop work order.

Mitigation Measure

HIST-2b: Archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing construction in the Project area shall be conducted, as appropriate and if necessary, based on the results of the pre-construction testing program and the potential for encountering unidentified archaeological deposits. Upon completion of the pre-construction testing program specified in Mitigation Measure HIST-2a, the extent of archaeological monitoring during Project construction will be assessed, and the scope and frequency of the monitoring required by this mitigation measure shall be based on the findings of this assessment. Monitoring shall be conducted by a cultural resource professional approved by the City who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology.

Upon completion of such archaeological monitoring, evaluation, or data recovery mitigation, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods, results, and recommendations of the investigation, and submit this report to the NWIC (Northwest Information Center). Public displays of the findings of archaeological recovery excavation(s) of historical or unique resources shall be prepared. As appropriate, brochures, pamphlets, or other media, shall be prepared for distribution to schools, museums, libraries, and—in the case of Chinese or Chinese American archaeological deposits—Chinese American organizations.

Implementation Procedure

(1) Project Sponsor shall retain an archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activity within the Project site, as described in the mitigation measure.

(2) Archaeologist shall halt work in the vicinity of the archaeological resource until findings can be made regarding whether the resource meets the CEQA definition of an archaeological or historic resource.

(3) If identified archaeological resources meet CEQA criteria for archaeological or historic resources, they shall be avoided by demolition or construction activities. If avoidance is not feasible, then effects to the deposit shall be mitigated through a data recovery strategy developed by the evaluating archaeologist, as described in the mitigation measure. This report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

Monitoring Responsibility

(1) through (3): City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, Planning Division.

Monitoring and Reporting Action

(1) Receive notice that an archaeologist has been retained.

(2) Verify that work is suspended if archaeological resources are found.

(3) Review and approve the archaeological resources mitigation plan, if one is prepared.

Monitoring Schedule

(1) Prior to approval of any permit that authorizes removal of foundations or work below finished grade.

(2) During demolition or Project construction.

(3) During Project construction.

Non-Compliance Sanction

(1) No approval of any permit that authorizes removal of foundations or work below finished grade.

(2) City issues corrective action or stop work order.

(3) City issues corrective action.

[1] An Oakland mitigation project obtained a false negative when using soil bores to assess whether significant historical archaeological remains might be present. The estimation that 19^th century historical archaeological remains would have been eliminated through the mid-20^th century construction of buildings with “extensive basements” also proved to be incorrect. For the preconstruction assessment, see Jan M. Hupman and David Chavez, Archaeological Resources Investigation for the Oakland Administration Building Project, Oakland, California (David Chavez & Associates, P.O. Box 52, Mill Valley, CA 94941), submitted to Environmental Science Associates, Inc. (301 Brannan Street, San Francisco, CA); California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center file #S-16863 (June 1994), 22-23, 34-35, 61. During construction, the archaeological monitor found intact historical archaeological deposits and recovered objects dating as early as 1840, as reported in Colin Busby, Archaeology Services, City Administration Building—Project L74021: Final Monitoring Report, letter to City of Oakland Project Manager Jack Young, April 22, 1996 (Basin Research Associates, 1933 Davis Street, Suite 210, San Leandro, CA); California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center file #S-18536 (1996). For a discussion of how these mitigations failed to meet adequate treatment for archaeological remains under the legal protections of CEQA, see Naruta, “Creating Whiteness,” 146-148.

[1] For a discussion of how geomorphological data plays an essential role in archaeological interpretation of Chinatown sites, see Naruta, “Creating Whiteness,” 71-138, 214-216. One resource for archaeologists is Stewart Reed, Nathan Bailey, and Oghenekome Onokpise, Soil Science for Archeologists, ed. Michael Russo and Virginia Horak, vol. 1, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, June 2000, http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/soils-index.htm.

[1] This was the case for the above-mentioned archaeological mitigations reported in Hupman and Chavez, Oakland Administration Building Project and Busby, Final Monitoring Report, and also an archaeological mitigation for the Upper Chinatown that formed after the dislocation of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown, Archeo-Tec, Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Broadway-West Grand Project, submitted by Allen Pastron, Archeo-Tec, to Patrick Van Ness, Signature Properties, for City of Oakland, Case File Numbers ER03-0022, PUD03552, PUDF03553, September 15, 2004. For the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown, a compilation of basic research was prepared and donated to the project to give the archaeological contractors a better starting point for their research. See Naruta, Oakland’s San Pablo Avenue Chinatown.

[1] While we prepared a list of Bay Area historical archaeologists who met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with regards to previous work on Chinatown sites (see http://UptownChinatown.org), the developer apparently did not seek bids from any of them.

It’s worth stipulating that the archaeological contractor must complete the full preliminary analysis and cataloguing of artifacts, including determining minimum number of specimens represented by the fragmented artifacts and checking ceramic fragments for “crossmends” with fragments from other deposits from the same site. If fragments from different deposits show themselves to have been part of the same item, this provides data about the relationship between the different deposits. Analyzing ceramics through determining crossmends is therefore part of the basic reporting of a site. See Naruta, “Creating Whiteness,” 208-217.

[1] Community review helped redirect the archaeological contractor to areas primary source documents indicated where areas likely to contain archaeological remains of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown. See Allen G. Pastron and Allison Vanderslice, DRAFT Archaeological Sensitivity Study and Testing Program for the Uptown Mixed-Use Project, City Of Oakland, Alameda County, California, submitted to Forest City Residential West Inc. (785 Market Street, 14^th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103), by Archeo-Tec (5283 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94618), http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/ceda/revised/planningzoning/MajorProjectsSection/environmentaldocuments.html, 2005); Anna Naruta, letter to Claudia Cappio, Development Director, City of Oakland, on behalf of the Chinese Historical Society of America Re: Uptown Redevelopment Project MMRP Hist 2a and 2b, Initial Review of Draft Archaeological Plan Dated January 2005, Prepared by Archeo-Tec (available at the City of Oakland, Community and Economic Development Agency and http://UptownChinatown.org, May 19, 2005).

[1] Naruta, “Creating Whiteness,” 150.

[1] City of Oakland, Panning Commission, Staff Report, Broadway-West Grand Project, City of Oakland Case File Numbers ER03-0022, PUD03552, PUDF03553, December 1, 2004, 28-31; Naruta, Oakland’s San Pablo Avenue Chinatown; Naruta, “Creating Whiteness,” 148-151; Doug Park, Project Manager, Signature Properties, Signature Properties community meeting to discuss the Broadway-West Grand Project, May 25, 2005; Naruta, letter to Claudia Cappio, Development Director, City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, on behalf of the Chinese Historical Society of America, Re: Broadway-West Grand Mixed-Use Project, Case File Numbers PUD03552, PUDF03553, ER030022, April 20, 2005.

[1] State Historical Resources Commission, Department of Parks and Recreation, “State of Calfornia Resources Agency Guidelines for the Curation of Archeological Collections,” (Sacramento, Office of Historic Preservation, 1993). For a typical cost of archaeological curation, see Museum of Anthropology and Repository for Archaeological Collections, California State University, Bakersfield, “Storage Guidelines,” http://www.csub.edu/musanth/GdlnsRep.htm (9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93311). Part of the expense associated with archaeological curation is that in order for such facilities to meet their long-term curation goals, they must use only the interest on the curation fee to cover operating costs. “The San Francisco Bay Area currently suffers from a shortage of acceptable curation facilities,” note Allen G. Pastron and Allison Vanderslice, Archaeological Sensitivity Study and Testing Program for the Uptown Chinatown Project, City of Oakland, Alameda County, California, submitted to Forest City Residential West Inc. (785 Market Street, 14^th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103), by Archeo-Tec (5283 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94618), November 2005, 133, see also 132-134.

[1] Kelly Fong, “Nineteenth-Century Oakland Chinese Businesses,” report with maps prepared for Anthropology 197 (Independent Research in Oakland Cultural Resources and Cultural Heritage), instructor Anna Naruta, supervisory professor Kent Lightfoot, University of California, Berkeley, Spring 2005 (Oakland: UptownChinatown.org, June 2005); on file at the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, Oakland Public Library, Oakland Asian Cultural Center, and the Chinese Historical Society of America. For more on the Chinese merchant partnership files, see Bill Greene, Bob Glass, and Daniel Nealand, A Guide to Records of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders at the National Archives and Records Administration Pacific Region-San Bruno, National Archives and Records Administration, Reference Information Paper 111, January 2004.

Fong’s research also discovered the additional significance of the 1880s Victorian Italianate falsefront stores, part of the 19^th century redevelopment of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown, that still stood on the site of Chinatown. Following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, they became home to merchant tailoring firm Hing Chong & Company, and part of a thriving early 20^th century Chinese garment district. The story of the rediscovered additional historic significance of buildings and resilience of community presence in that area is recounted in Rick DelVecchio, “Oakland: New Twist in Roots of Chinatown/Effort Under Way to Save Historical Buildings,” San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay ed., August 5, 2005; Momo Chang, “Digging Up Old Chinatown’s Roots—Downtown Oakland Buildings Marked for Demolition May Hold Key to Hidden Past,” Oakland Tribune, November 6, 2005; and Momo Chang, “History Amid Old Chinatown Demolition—Storefronts Slated for Uptown Wrecking Ball Reveal Past Culture,” Oakland Tribune, December 6, 2005. Articles are archived at http://UptownChinatown.org.