The URL can be used to link to this page

PC - Item 3B - Exhibit F - Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE 8601 MISSION DRIVE PROJECT CITY OF ROSEMEAD, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APNs 5389-009-29, -30, and -31 Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Preparer: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 ___________________ Signature Project Proponent: Borstein Enterprises 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820 Los Angeles, California 90025 May 13, 2022 Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i Archaeological Database Information Authors: Brian F. Smith, M.A. and Elena C. Goralogia, B.A. Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 679-8218 Client/Project Proponent: City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Report Date: May 13, 2022 Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project, City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California (APNs 5389- 009-29, -30, and -31) Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Study USGS Quadrangle: Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 11 West of the El Monte, California (7.5-minute) Acreage: 3.38 acres Key Words: Archaeological study; P-19-190503 relocated; no impacts to recorded cultural resources; monitoring recommended. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii Table of Contents Section Description Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ........................................................................ iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.0–1 1.1 Project Description............................................................................................1.0–1 1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1 1.3 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................1.0–1 1.3.1 Prehistoric Period ....................................................................................1.0–1 1.3.2 Ethnohistoric Period ................................................................................1.0–9 1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search .................................................1.0–12 1.5 Applicable Regulations .....................................................................................1.0–14 1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................1.0–14 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................2.0–1 3.0 FIELD SURVEY .....................................................................................................3.0–1 3.1 Survey Methods ................................................................................................3.0–1 3.2 Results ...............................................................................................................3.0–1 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................4.0–1 4.1 Construction Monitoring Program ....................................................................4.0–1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED .......................5.0–1 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................6.0–1 List of Appendices Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results* Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results* *Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii List of Figures Figure Description Page Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map ...................................................................................1.0–2 Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ......................................................................1.0–3 Figure 1.1–3 Conceptual Site Plan......................................................................................1.0–4 List of Plates Plate Description Page Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project, facing northwest ...................................................3.0–2 Plate 3.2–2 View of the driveway to the circa 1955 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints building, facing east ...................................................................3.0–2 Plate 3.2–3 Overview of the project, facing southeast ....................................................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the project, facing west ...........................................................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–5 View of the driveway to the circa 1955 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints building, facing west .................................................................3.0–4 Plate 3.2–6 View of a driveway/walkway to the circa 1955 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints building, facing south .....................................................3.0–4 List of Tables Table Description Page Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources Located Within One-Half Mile of the 8601 Mission Drive Project ................................................................................................1.0–12 Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT In response to a request from the project applicant, a cultural resources study was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) for the proposed 8601 Mission Drive Project located northeast of the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Mission Drive in the city of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. The 3.38-acre project includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 5389-009-29, -30, and -31 and is situated within Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 11 West, in the USGS El Monte Quadrangle. The project proposes the development of 37 single-family dwelling units with associated parking, landscaping, and infrastructure. The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Rosemead environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An archaeological records search was conducted from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project or in the immediate vicinity. The records search identified 21 resources located within a one-half-mile radius of the current project, one of which (P-19-190503, the Southern California Edison [SCE] Mesa-Ravendale-Rush 66kV Transmission Line) is located within the subject property. The records search also identified 13 cultural resource reports conducted within one-half mile of the current project, none of which include the subject property. In addition, a Sacred Lands Files (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within the project. The cultural resources survey was conducted on February 18, 2022. The transmission line recorded as P-19-190503 is still present running above the property; however, none of the steel lattice towers, steel poles, or wood poles are within the subject property. The property has been previously graded and disturbed by the development of the parcel for a church facility. No additional cultural resources were identified during the survey; however, due to the previous disturbance of the property and the current coverage of the ground surface by grasses and weeds, the potential exists that unidentified significant historic deposits may be present. Because of this potential to encounter buried cultural deposits, monitoring of grading by qualified archaeologists is recommended. As part of this study, a copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The archaeological study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Rosemead environmental guidelines. The project is located within the San Gabriel Valley in the northwestern portion of the city of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The 3.38-acre project, which includes APNs 5389-009-29, - 30, and -31, is located northeast of the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Mission Drive. The project is situated within Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 11 West, in the USGS El Monte Quadrangle (Figure 1.1–2). The project proposes the development of 37 single-family dwelling units with associated parking, landscaping, and infrastructure (Figure 1.1–3). The decision to request this investigation was based upon cultural resource sensitivity of the locality as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns, which in the San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles County were focused around freshwater resources and a food supply. 1.2 Environmental Setting The 8601 Mission Drive Project is generally situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geologic Province of southern California. The range, which lies in a northwest to southeast trend through the county, extends approximately 1,000 miles from the Raymond-Malibu Fault Zone in western Los Angeles County to the southern tip of Baja California. The project is located in the San Gabriel Valley Basin of the larger Los Angeles Basin, a large structural sedimentary basin bounded and cut through by several active fault systems in the Los Angeles metropolitan area (Hillhouse et al. 2002). The concrete-lined Rubio Wash, a tributary to the Rio Hondo, flows southward approximately one-quarter mile east of the project (Wirths 2022). As mapped by Tan (1998), the project is underlain by unconsolidated Holocene sandy and gravelly young alluvial fan and valley deposits. The property is surrounded by residential development. 1.3 Cultural Setting 1.3.1 Prehistoric Period Several prehistoric cultural chronologies have been proposed for the southern California coast and nearby inland areas, such as two of the most frequently cited sequences developed by William Wallace (1955) and Claude Warren (1968). Such chronologies provide a framework to discuss archaeological data in relation to broad cultural changes seen in the archaeological record. The chronological sequence presented herein represents an updated synthesis of these schemes for Los Angeles County and surrounding regions. The prehistoric sequence of the area can be divided into four broad temporal categories. It should be noted that the prehistoric chronology for the region is being refined on a continuing basis, with new discoveries and improvments being made in the accuracy of dating techniques. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–5 Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene: Paleo-Coastal Period (circa 9500 to 7000/6500 B.C.) Although data on early human occupation for the southern California coast is limited, archaeological evidence from the northern Channel Islands suggests initial settlement within the region occurred at least 12,000 years before the present (YBP). At Daisy Cave (SMI-261) on San Miguel Island, radiocarbon dates indicate an early period of use in the terminal Pleistocene, sometime between 9600 and 9000 calibrated (cal) B.C. (Erlandson et al. 1996). Nearby on Santa Rosa Island, human remains from the Arlington Springs Site (SRI-1730) have been dated between 11,000 and 10,000 cal B.C. (Johnson et al. 2002). Archaeological data recovered from these and other coastal Paleo Indian sites indicate a distinctively maritime cultural adaptation, termed the “Paleo-Coastal Tradition” (Moratto 1984), which involved the use of seafaring technology and a subsistence regime focused upon shellfish gathering and fishing (Rick et al. 2001). Relatively few sites have been identified in Los Angeles County that date to the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene. Evidence of possible early human occupation has been found at the sand dune bluff site of Malaga Cove (LAN-138), located between Redondo Beach and Palos Verdes (Walker 1951). Researchers have proposed that archaeological remains recovered from the lowermost cultural stratum at the site, including shell, animal bone, and chipped stone tools, may date to as early as 8000 cal B.C. (Moratto 1984:168; Wallace 1986). Middle Holocene: Milling Stone Period (circa 7000/6500 to 1500/1000 B.C.) The Milling Stone Period or Horizon, also referred to as the “Encinitas Tradition,” is the earliest well-established cultural occupation of the coastal areas of the region (Sutton 2010; Sutton and Gardner 2010). The onset of this period, which began sometime between 7000 and 6500 cal B.C., is marked by the expansion of populations throughout southern California. Regional variations in technology, settlement patterns, and mortuary practices among Milling Stone sites have led researchers to define several local manifestations or “patterns” of the tradition (Sutton and Gardner 2010). Groups that occupied modern-day Los Angeles County are thought to have been relatively small and highly mobile during this time, with a general subsistence economy focused upon the gathering of shellfish and plant foods, particularly hard seeds, with hunting being of less importance (Glassow et al. 2007). Two temporal subdivisions have been defined for the portion of the Topanga Pattern falling within the Milling Stone Period: Topanga I (circa 6500 to 3000 B.C.) and Topanga II (circa 3000 to 1000 B.C.) (Sutton and Gardner 2010). Topanga I assemblages are characterized by abundant manos and metates, core tools and scrapers, charmstones, cogged stone, and discoidals. Projectile points are quite rare, with those present resembling earlier, large, leaf- shaped forms (Glassow et al. 2007). Secondary inhumations with associated cairns are the most common burial form at Milling Stone sites, with small numbers of identified extended inhumations. The subsequent Topanga II phase largely represents a continuation of the Topanga pattern with site assemblages characterized by numerous manos and metates, charmstones, Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–6 cogged stones, discoidals, and some stone balls. A significant technological change in ground stone occurs at this time, with the appearance of mortars and pestles at Topanga II sites suggesting the adoption of balanophagy by coastal populations (Sutton and Gardner 2010). The quantity of projectile points also notably increases in Topanga II site deposits, indicating that the hunting of large game may have played a greater role in the subsistence economy than in earlier times. While secondary burials continue to be quite common, a few flexed inhumations have also been recovered from archaeological contexts dating to the Topanga II phase. A number of Milling Stone sites have been identified in Los Angeles County. The lower component of the Tank Site (LAN-1), located in the Santa Monica Mountains, was excavated in the 1940s and was determined to be Topanga I in age. In the San Fernando Valley, the Encino Site (LAN-111) is thought to have contained a Topanga I component. The artifact assemblage is definitive of the Topanga I period, containing many milling implements, but few projectile points. The presence of mortars and pestles along with stemmed projectile points at the Chatsworth Site (LAN-21), located at the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, suggests a Topanga II presence. The Big Tujunga Wash Site (LAN-167), located at the eastern edge of the San Fernando Valley, may have also contained a Topanga II component (Sutton and Gardner 2010). Late Holocene: Intermediate Period (1500/1000 B.C. to A.D. 750) The Intermediate Period, which encompasses the early portion of the “Del Rey Tradition,” as defined by Sutton (Sutton 2010), begins around 3,500 YBP. At this time, significant changes are seen throughout the coastal areas of southern California in material culture, settlement systems, subsistence strategies, and mortuary practices. These new cultural traits have been attributed to the arrival of Takic-speaking people from the southern San Joaquin Valley (Sutton 2009). Biological, archaeological, and linguistic data indicates that the Takic groups who settled in the Los Angeles Basin were ethnically distinct from the preexisting Hokan-speaking Topanga populations, and are believed to be ancestral to ethnographic Gabrielino groups (Sutton 2009). While archaeological evidence indicates that “relic” Topanga III populations continued to survive in isolation in the Santa Monica Mountains, these indigenous groups appear to have been largely replaced or absorbed by the Gabrielino, or Chumash, by 2,000 YBP (Sutton and Gardner 2010:17). Intermediate Period sites in the region are represented by the “Angeles Pattern” of the Del Rey Tradition (Sutton 2010). Three temporal subdivisions have been defined for the portion of the Angeles Pattern that falls within the Intermediate Period: Angeles I (1500 to 600 B.C.), Angeles II (600 B.C. to A.D. 400), and Angeles III (A.D. 400 to 750) (Sutton and Gardner 2010:8). The onset of the Angeles I phase is characterized by the increase and aggregation of regional populations and the appearance of the first village settlements. The prevalence of projectile points, single-piece shell fishhooks, and bone harpoon points at Angeles I sites suggests a subsistence shift in the Intermediate Period, an increased emphasis on fishing and Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–7 terrestrial hunting, and less reliance upon the gathering of shellfish resources. Regional trade or interaction networks also appeared to develop at this time, with coastal populations in Los Angeles County obtaining small steatite artifacts and Olivella sp. shell beads from the southern Channel Islands and obsidian from the Coso Volcanic Field (Koerper et al. 2002). Finally, marked changes are seen in mortuary practices during the Angeles I phase with flexed primary inhumations and cremations replacing extended inhumations and cairns. The Angeles II phase largely represents a continuation and elaboration of the Angeles I technology, settlement, and subsistence systems. One exception to this pattern is the introduction of a new funerary complex around 2,600 YBP, consisting of large rock cairns or platforms, which contain abundant broken tools, faunal remains, and cremated human bone. These mortuary features have generally been thought to represent the predecessor of the Southern California Mourning Ceremony (Sutton 2010:14). Several important changes in the archaeological record mark the beginning of the Angeles III phase. At this time, larger seasonal villages characterized by well-developed middens and cemeteries were established along the coast or the inland areas. Archaeological data from Angeles III sites indicates that residents of these settlements practiced a fairly diverse subsistence strategy, which included the exploitation of both marine and terrestrial resources (Sutton 2010:16). Notable technological changes at this time included the introduction of the plank canoe and the bow and arrow (Glassow et al. 2007:203-204). The appearance of new Olivella sp. bead types at Angeles III sites indicates a reconfiguration of existing regional exchange networks with increased interaction with populations in the Gulf of California (Koerper et al. 2002). Finally, cremations increase slightly in frequency at this time, with inhumations no longer placed in an extended position (Sutton 2010:18). Intermediate Period sites in Los Angeles County include LAN-2 and LAN-197, which are located in the Santa Monica Mountains. The formal cemeteries at these sites are representative of the increased sedentism that occurred during the Intermediate Period (Glassow et al. 2007:202). Late Holocene: Late Period (A.D. 750 to Spanish Contact) The Late Period dates from approximately A.D. 750 until Spanish contact in 1542. Sutton (2010) has divided this period, which falls within the larger Del Rey Tradition, into two phases: Angeles IV (A.D. 750 to 1200) and Angeles V (A.D. 1200 to 1550). The Angeles IV phase is characterized by the continued growth of regional populations and the development of large, sedentary villages. Although chiefdoms appear to have developed in the northern Channel Islands and the Santa Barbara region after 850 YBP (Arnold 1992; Gamble 2005), little direct evidence has been found to suggest that this level of social complexity existed in the Los Angeles area during the Late Prehistoric Period (Sutton 2010). Several new types of material culture appear during the Angeles IV phase, including Cottonwood series points, birdstone and “spike” effigies, Olivella sp. cupped beads, and Mytilus sp. shell disc beads. The presence of southwestern pottery, Patayan ceramic figurines, and Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–8 Hohokam shell bracelets at Angeles IV sites suggests some interaction between groups in southern California and the Southwest. Notable changes are seen in regional exchange networks after 800 YBP, with an increase in the number and size of steatite artifacts, including large vessels, elaborate effigies, and comals (cooking dishes) recovered from Angeles V sites. The presence of these artifacts suggests a strengthening of trade ties between coastal Los Angeles populations and the southern Channel Islands (Koerper et al. 2002:69). Finally, Late Period mortuary practices remain largely unchanged from the Intermediate Period, with flexed primary inhumations continuing to be the preferred burial method. Late Period sites in Los Angeles County include LAN-227 and LAN-229, which are located in the Santa Monica Mountains. Both sites contain fewer manos and metates than earlier sites, but more mortars, pestles, projectile points, drills, beads, pipes, and bone tools (Moratto 1984:141). Although these sites represent a move toward centralized sedentary villages during this period, it is unclear whether they represent year-round occupation or semi-permanent villages used as base settlements (Glassow et al. 2007:210). Late Holocene / Protohistoric Period / The Gabrieliño (1769 to Present) During the late Holocene, population size and density increased dramatically, calling for an even more diversified economy (Altschul and Grenda 2002). Ethnographic data, the first of which came from Spanish explorers and missionaries, indicates that the Gabrieliño (Tongva) were the major tribe established within the San Gabriel Valley. The Spanish attributed this name to the Native Americans in the area served by the Mission San Gabriel Archángel. Gabrieliño territory included the watersheds of the San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and Los Angeles rivers, portions of the Santa Monica and Santa Ana mountains, the Los Angeles Basin, the coast from Aliso Creek to Topanga Creek, and San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina islands (Moratto 1984). The Gabrieliño spoke a Cupan language that was part of the Shoshonean or Takic family of Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock; these linguistic ties united a dispersed ethnic group occupying 1,500 square miles in the Los Angeles Basin region (Altschul and Grenda 2002). Interestingly, this language stock was different from that of the Chumash to the north in the Santa Barbara region, as well as from the Kumeyaay (Tipai and Ipai) in the San Diego region, both of which spoke languages of the Hokan stock, using different dialects. Ethnographic data states that the Gabrieliño were hunters and gatherers whose food sources included acorns, seeds, marine mollusks, fish, and mammals; archaeological sites support this data, with evidence of hunting, gathering, processing, and storage implements including arrow points, fishhooks, scrapers, grinding stones, and basketry awls (Altschul and Grenda 2002). Santa Catalina Island provided a valuable source of steatite for the Gabrieliño, which they quarried and traded to other groups (Heizer and Treganza 1972; Moratto 1984). About 50 to 100 permanent villages are estimated to have been in existence at the time of European contact, most of which were located along lowland rivers and streams, and along sheltered areas of the coast (Moratto 1984). Smaller satellite villages and resource extraction Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–9 sites were located between larger villages. Village sites contained varying types of structures, including houses, sweathouses, and ceremonial huts (Bean and Smith 1978). Artistic items included shell set in asphaltum, carvings, painting, steatite, and baskets (Moratto 1984). Settlements were often located at the intersection of two or more ecozones, thus increasing the variety of resources that were immediately accessible (Moratto 1984). Offshore fishing and hunting was accomplished with the use of plank boats, while shellfish and birds were collected along the coast. At the time of European contact, the Gabrieliño, second only to the Chumash, were the wealthiest, most populous, and most powerful ethnic group in southern California (Bean and Smith 1978; Moratto 1984). As with other Native American populations in southern California, the arrival of the Spanish drastically changed life for the Gabrieliño. Incorporation into the mission system disrupted their culture and changed their subsistence practices (Altschul and Grenda 2002). Ranchos were established throughout the area, often in major drainages where Native American villages tended to be located. By the early 1800s, Mission San Gabriel had expanded its holdings for grazing to include much of the former Gabrieliño territory (Altschul and Grenda 2002). Eventually, widespread relocation of Native American groups occurred, resulting in further disruption of the native lifeways. Together with the introduction of Euro-American diseases, the Gabrieliño and other groups of southern California experienced drastic population declines; in the early 1860s, a smallpox epidemic nearly wiped out the remaining Gabrieliño population (Moratto 1984). While people of Gabrieliño descent still live in the Los Angeles area, the Gabrieliño were no longer listed as a culturally identifiable group in the 1900 Federal Census (Bean and Smith 1978; Moratto 1984). 1.3.2 Ethnohistoric Period Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to 1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents, oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis. European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track, Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–10 names have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”; 60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey (San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921). Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became more vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County. The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976). On September 8, 1771, Father Pedro Cambón and Father Angel Somera established Mission San Gabriel de Arcángel near the present-day city of Montebello. In 1775, the mission was moved to its current location in San Gabriel due to better agricultural lands. This mission was the first sustained European occupation of the Los Angeles County area. The San Gabriel mission, despite a slow start that was partially due to misconduct by Spanish soldiers, eventually became so prosperous that it was known as “The Queen of the Missions” (Johnson et al. 1972). The pueblo of Los Angeles was established in 1781. During this period, Spain also deeded ranchos to prominent citizens and soldiers (though very few in comparison to the later Mexican Period). One such rancho, Rancho San Pedro, was deeded to soldier Juan Jose Dominguez in 1784 and comprised 75,000 acres, encompassing the modern South Bay region from the Los Angeles River on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Mission San Fernando Rey de España was established in 1797 by Fray Fermin de Lasuén, who brought three families from a different mission. Upon their arrival, Spain granted the land now known as San Fernando Valley to the mission. After construction of the mission, traffic through the valley increased via the “Indian trail,” which led from Mission San Fernando Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–11 to Mission Santa Buenaventura and was part of the El Camino del Santa Susana y Simi trail that stretched over Santa de Susana Pass (Watson 1991). The area that became Los Angeles County saw an increase in European settlement during the Mexican Period, largely due to the many land grants (ranchos) given to Mexican citizens by various governors. The period ended when Mexican forces fought the combined United States Army and Navy forces in the Battle of the San Gabriel River on January 8, 1847, and the Battle of La Mesa on January 9, 1847 (Nevin 1978). On January 10, 1847, leaders of the pueblo of Los Angeles peacefully surrendered after Mexican General Jose Maria Flores withdrew his forces. Shortly thereafter, Andrés Pico, the newly appointed Mexican Military Commander of California, surrendered all of Alta California to United States Army Lieutenant Colonel John C. Fremont in the Treaty of Cahuenga (Nevin 1978). Settlement of the Los Angeles region accelerated during the early American Period. Los Angeles County was established on February 18, 1850. It was one of 27 counties established in the months prior to California becoming a state. Many ranchos in the county were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans, and most were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns. Ranching retained its importance, and by the late 1860s, Los Angeles was one of the top dairy production centers in the country (Rolle 1969). In 1854, the United States Congress agreed to let San Pedro become an official port of entry, and by the 1880s, the railroads had established networks throughout the county. This resulted in fast and affordable shipment of goods and a means to transport new residents to the booming region (Dumke 1944). New residents included many health-seekers that were drawn to the area during the 1870s and the 1880s due to the fabled climate (Baur 1959). In 1876, the county had a population of 30,000 (Dumke 1944:7); by 1900, it had reached 100,000. In the early to mid-1900s, population growth accelerated due to industry associated with both world wars and emigration from the Midwest “dust bowl” states during the Great Depression. Los Angeles County became one of the most densely occupied areas in the United States. The county’s mild climate and successful economy continued to draw new residents in the late 1900s, and as a result, much of the county transformed from ranches and farms into residential subdivisions surrounding commercial and industrial centers. Hollywood’s development into the entertainment capital of the world and southern California’s booming aerospace industry were key factors in the county’s growth. Project Area and Vicinity The city of Rosemead was formed in an area that “was part of the San Gabriel Mission during the Spanish colonial period until the early 1850s” (City of Rosemead 2010). In 1852, John and Harriet Guest settled on “the [100-acre] Savannah Ranch, which is located on the current Savannah School site” in Rosemead (City of Rosemead 2010, 2017). “Leonard J. and Amanda Rose were other early settlers, who established Rose’s Meadows (Rosemead Ranch) as a winery, as well as a breeding and training area for horses” (City of Rosemead 2010). Rose’s Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–12 Meadow eventually gave the city of Rosemead its name (City of Rosemead 2017). Rosemead was historically “known for small farms, as well as chicken and rabbit ranches. The City was incorporated in 1959 with a population of 15,476. Forty-seven years after incorporation, the City of Rosemead had an estimated population of 57,144” (City of Rosemead 2010). 1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a one- half-mile radius was conducted at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. The records search indicates that 21 cultural resources are located within a one-half-mile radius of the project, one of which (P-19-190503, the SCE Mesa-Ravendale-Rush 66kV Transmission Line) is located within the subject property. The remaining 20 cultural resources are all historic and include a railroad, single-family residences, a public utility building, industrial and commercial buildings, engineering structures, and a religious building. Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources Located Within One-Half Mile of the 8601 Mission Drive Project Site(s) Description P-19-186112 Historic railroad P-19-187027, P-19-187030, P-19-188612, P-19-188614, P-19-188615, P-19-188616, P-19-188617, P-19-188618, and P-19-188619 Historic single-family residence P-19-188607 Historic public utility building P-19-188608 and P-19-188610 Historic warehouse P-19-188611 and P-19-188609 Historic commercial/ industrial building(s) P-19-188702 Historic Eagle Rock-Mesa 220kV Transmission Line P-19-188703 Historic Mesa-Ravendale-Rush 66kV Subtransmission Line P-19-188704 Historic Mesa-Vincent 220kV and Goodrich-Laguna Bell 220 kV Transmission Lines P-19-188705 Historic Mesa-Rosemead No.2 Subtransmission Line and Segovia 16 kV Local Distribution Line P-19-190503 SCE Mesa-Ravendale-Rush 66kV Transmission Line P-19-190256 Historic church Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–13 The records search also indicates that 13 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-half-mile radius of the project (Appendix B), none of which include the current project. The following historic sources were also reviewed: • The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Index • The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility • The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) records • The USGS 1968 edition of the 1966 7.5' El Monte topographic quadrangle • Historic aerial photographs dating between 1948 and 2018 According to aerial photographs, a large structure was constructed on the property between 1953 and 1964 but was demolished by 1992. The 1968 edition of the 1966 7.5' El Monte topographic quadrangle shows the structure on the property as being a church. A “new church at 8601 Mission Drive, Rosemead” was listed in the Los Angeles Times in 1955 for “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (Los Angeles Times 1965). The structure is not listed in SCCIC, BERD, NRHP, or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) files. BFSA also requested a NAHC SLF to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within the project. The NAHC results were positive for the presence of sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the search radius. The NAHC recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. As the lead agency, the City of Rosemead is responsible for Native American consultation per the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014). AB 52 established a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process. Tribal consultation is not required as part of the Phase I study and is best served by a government-to-government model. As a result, no additional outreach was conducted by BFSA for the current project nor is it required. However, the NAHC included the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on an email regarding the positive results of the SLF search. All correspondence can be found in Appendix C. The records search and literature review suggest that there is a low potential for prehistoric sites to be contained within the boundaries of the property due to the extensive nature of past ground disturbances and the lack of natural resources often associated with prehistoric sites. No prehistoric sites have been recorded within one-half mile of the project. The records search and literature review suggest that historic buildings and sites associated with the agricultural history of the region are the most likely cultural resources to be encountered within the project. Based upon the previously recorded surrounding resources and the historic aerial photographs, there is a potential for historic resources to be located within the subject property. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–14 1.5 Applicable Regulations Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of Los Angeles County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provides the guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important. 1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following: 1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following: a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies 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; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4) The fact that a resource is not listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–15 CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as: 1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. 2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion on, or eligibility for inclusion on, the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites: 1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–16 3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. Section 15064.5(d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides: (d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from: 1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). 2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2.0–1 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is southeastern Los Angeles County. The scope of work for the cultural resources study conducted for the 8601 Mission Drive Project included the survey of a 3.38-acre property. Given the area involved and the recorded presence of nearby cultural resources, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of a resource to address regional research topics and issues. Although elementary resource evaluation programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research questions take into account the size and location of the project discussed above. Research Questions: • Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual? • Do the types of any located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited? • How do located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area? • How do located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley environments of the region? Data Needs At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with the following primary research goals in mind: Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2.0–2 1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the resource(s), and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural resource identified. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–1 3.0 FIELD SURVEY The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search and an intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 3.38-acre project. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Rosemead environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and CEQA. Statutory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995) and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 3.1 Survey Methods The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the project. Staff archaeologist Allison Reynolds conducted the intensive pedestrian survey on February 18, 2022. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately five to 10 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface. Visibility of the natural ground surface was good throughout the property and was only constrained by small areas of pavement. All potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located were closely inspected. Photographs documenting survey areas and overall survey conditions were taken frequently. 3.2 Results The entire property has been graded and two areas of concrete are present. Vegetation consists of non-native grasses and weeds with palm and other non-native trees scattered across the property (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–4). The concrete remnants on the western and southern project boundaries are driveways/walkways to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church that was present from circa 1955 (Los Angeles Times 1955) to circa 1992 but has since been demolished (see Plates 3.2–2, 3.2–5, and 3.2–6). The transmission line recorded as P-19-190503 is still present running above the property (see Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–6); however, none of the steel lattice towers, steel poles, or wood poles are within the subject property. The resource was recorded as “Approximately 50 steel lattice towers, tubular steel poles, and wood poles … erected along the [11-mile] span” (Becker and Crane 2010). Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–2 Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project, facing northwest. Plate 3.2–2: View of the driveway to the circa 1955 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints building, facing east. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–3 Plate 3.2–3: Overview of the project, facing southeast. Plate 3.2–4: Overview of the project, facing west. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–4 Plate 3.2–5: View of the driveway to the circa 1955 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints building, facing west. Plate 3.2–6: View of a driveway/walkway to the circa 1955 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints building, facing south. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–5 According to the site record form: The Mesa-Ravendale-Rush Transmission Line does not appear to be eligible under National Register / California Register Criterion A / 4. The 11-mile span of low- voltage electrical transmission lines were not installed or constructed to include any innovative or unique features or materials that would constitute further study, and beyond what is discussed in this [Urabana Preservation & Planning, LLC] report, no information was found during the course of contextual or property-specific research to indicate that the line could yield additional information which could be considered important to local, state, or national history. (Becker and Crane 2010) The survey did not result in the identification of any additional cultural resources. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–1 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Phase I archaeological assessment for the 8601 Mission Drive Project was negative for the presence of cultural resources, aside from the power transmission lines that cross above the property. As stated previously, the subject property has been impacted and graded in the past for the development of the church facility circa 1955. Whether or not cultural resources have ever existed on the subject property is unclear. The current status of the property appears to have affected the potential to discover any surface scatters of artifacts or cultural materials that may have been on-site prior to the grading of the property for the church facility. Given that the prior development within the property might mask archaeological deposits, there is a potential that buried archaeological deposits are present within the project boundaries. Therefore, it is recommended that the project be allowed to proceed with the implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist and Native American representative during grading of the property. The cultural resources monitoring recommended as a condition of approval for this property is presented in Section 4.1. 4.1 Construction Monitoring Program Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or trenching, by a qualified archaeologist is recommended to ensure that if buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present, they will be handled in a timely and proper manner. The scope of the monitoring program is provided below: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that a certified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency. 2) The project applicant shall provide Native American monitoring during grading. The Native American monitor shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe ground disturbances and search for cultural materials. 3) The certified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. 4) During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological monitor(s) and tribal representative shall be on-site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist, to perform periodic inspections of the excavations. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the monitoring program if the potential for cultural resources appears to be less than anticipated. 5) Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–2 field so the monitored grading can proceed. 6) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The lead agency must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the lead agency before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the medical examiner- coroner and lead agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. 7) Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The project archaeologist shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. 8) All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. 9) A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the lead agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include Department of Parks and Recreation Primary and Archaeological Site Forms. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED The archaeological survey program for the 8601 Mission Drive Project was directed by Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by staff archaeologist Allison Reynolds. The report text was prepared by Brian F. Smith and Elena C Goralogia. Report graphics were created by Jillian L.H. Conroy. Technical editing and report production were conducted by Elena C. Goralogia. The archaeological records search was provided by the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–1 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Altschul, Jeffery H. and Donn R. Grenda 2002 Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight. SRI Press, Tucson, Arizona. Baur, John E. 1959 The Health Seekers of Southern California. Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California. Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrieliño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie 1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California. Becker, Wendy L. Tinsley and Heather Crane 2010 Site record form for P-19-190503. Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. Brigandi, Phil 1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California. Caughey, John W. 1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Chapman, Charles E. 1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York. City of Rosemead 2010 City of Rosemead General Plan Update. Electronic document, https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10034989/File/Gov/City %20Departments/Community%20Development/Planning/Rosemead.pdf, accessed February 23, 2022. 2017 About Rosemead. Electronic document, https://www.cityofrosemead.org/visitors/ about_rosemead, accessed February 23, 2022. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–2 Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Dumke, Glenn S. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California. Erlandson, J.M., D.J. Kennett, B.L. Ingram, D.A. Guthrie, D.P. Morris, M.A. Tveshov, G.J. West, and P.L. Walker 1996 An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38:355–373. Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell 2007 Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges. In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, pp. 191–213. Altamira Press, New York. Heizer, Robert F. and Adam E. Treganza 1972 Mines and Quarries of the Indians of California. Ballena Press, Ramona, California. Hillhouse, J.W., E.G. Reichard, and D.J. Ponti 2002 Probing the Los Angeles Basin – Insights into ground-water resources and earthquake hazards. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 086-02. Electronic document, https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs086-02/fs086-02.pdf, accessed March 4, 2022. Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford, H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney, pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Johnson, Paul C., Dorothy Krell, John S. Weir, Harry Downie, Adrian Wilson, Joe Seney, Philip Spencer, and France Carpentier 1972 The California Missions: A Pictorial History. Sunset Books, Lane Publishing, Menlo Park, California. Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, pp. 63–81. University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology. Los Angeles Times 1955 Keep Youths Busy. 24 April:46. Los Angeles, California. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–3 1965 Vandals Desecrate Hard-Won Lawn. 28 December:85. Los Angeles, California. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Nevin, David 1978 The Mexican War. Time-Life Books, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia. Pourade, Richard F. 1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. 1963 The Silver Dons. The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. Rick, T.C., J.M. Erlandson, and R.L. Vellanoweth 2001 Paleocoastal Fishing Along the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Evidence from Daisy Cave, San Miguel Island, California. American Antiquity 66:595–614. Rolle, Andrew F. 1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Sutton, Mark Q. 2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):31–93. 2010 The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(2):1–54. Sutton, Mark Q. and Jill K. Gardner 2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1–64. Tan, S.S. 1998 Geologic map of the El Monte 7.5' quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: a digital database. California Division of Mines and Geology Open-file report 98-29. Walker, Edwin Francis 1951 Five Prehistoric Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 6:1–116. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–4 Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230. 1986 Archaeological Research at Malaga Cove. In Symposium: A New Look at Some Old Sites, edited by G.S. Breschini and T. Haversat, pp. 21–27. Coyote Press Archives of California Archaeology, Salinas, California. Warren, Claude N. (editor) 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast, In: Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C.I. Williams ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14. Watson, Virginia 1991 Chatsworth History. The Chatsworth Historical Society, Chatsworth, California. Wirths, Todd A. 2022 Paleontological Assessment for the 8601 Mission Drive Project, City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX A Resumes of Key Personnel Brian F. Smith, MA Owner, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com Education Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982 Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975 Professional Memberships Society for California Archaeology Experience Principal Investigator 1977–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans). Professional Accomplishments These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in the Southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted. Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707 10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007), Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007), Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue (2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003), Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2 Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001). 1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014). San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018). Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area. Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area (2017). The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015). Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017). Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007). 4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and regional prehistoric settlement patterns. Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego. Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3 Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992), Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988). Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study. City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the city and county of San Diego. Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy. Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City. The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews; evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February- September 2002. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13 Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co- authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002. Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County: Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January, February, and July 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4 for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January-March 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. March-April 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. December 1999-January 2000. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5 Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000. Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000. Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor— included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel. September 1999. Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project, Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July 1999. Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report. August 1997- January 2000. Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX B Archaeological Records Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX C NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)