CULTURAL/TRIBAL RESOURCE RECORDS SEARCH AND

HISTORIC BUILDING PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 432-270-012

PREPARED FOR:City of San Jacinto

595 S. San Jacinto Ave.San Jacinto, CA. 92583

ON BEHALF OF:DSW CORP

c/o Douglas Whitney5524 Rich Hill Way

Yorba Linda, CA 92886

PREPARED BY:SRSINC At Riverwalk11810 Pierce St. #209Riverside, CA 92505

Nancy Anastasia Wiley, PhD, RPAPrincipal Investigator, Author

Michelle Garcia, BA(s)Graphic Production

SRS Project No. 1804January 2019

Keywords: Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search, Historic Building Preliminary Assessment, Riverside CountyAPN 432-270-012, 2451 West Seventh Street, San Jacinto, T4S, R1W, Section 32 SBBM, 1947 Concrete BlockVernacular Farmhouse, Hipped Composition Roof, Gabled Addition with Porch, Garage, Farm Complex Outbuildings.

ETHNOGRAPHY

35109 Highway 79 SouthStoneridge Estates Spc. 22Warner Springs, CA 92806

11810 Pierce St. Riverwalk Executive Suites #209

Riverside, CA 92505

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 2

INTRODUCTION AND NATURAL SETTING 6

PREHISTORIC SETTING 9

HISTORIC SETTING 12

HISTORIC CONTEXT AND PROPERTY HISTORY 17

RESEARCH DESIGN AND REGULATIONS 22

RESEARCH METHODS 28

RESEARCH RESULTS 29

ANALYSIS OF STUDY RESULTS 43

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 46

REPORT CONCLUSIONS 47

REPORT CERTIFICATION 47

REFERENCES CITED 48

APPENDICES

APPENIDX A: PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONSAPPENDIX B: CONFIDENTIAL NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH & TRIBAL RESPONSESAPPENDIX C: CONFIDENTIAL EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER RECORD SEARCH RESULTSAPPENDIX D: PRIMARY SITE RECORD- #33-17928: 1947 CONCRETE FARMHOUSE

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Chronological Template for Native Occupation in the Region.

Table 2. List of California Ranchos and their Location.

Table 3. Newspaper Articles Referencing Sale of Cawston Ostrich Farms & Removal of Birds (1911-1914).

Table 4. Dominant Plants in Typical Local Plant Communities and their Uses by Resident Native Americans.

Table 5. Scoping Letters Tribal Recipient Chart Based on NAHC Contacts List.

Table 6. Historic Structures Located on or Within a Mile-Radius of the Subject Property

1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. General Location of Proposed Project Area USGS 1979 Santa Ana 1:250,000 Map.

Figure 2. Location of APN 432-270-012 (11.5 acres) at Seventh & Sanderson in San Jacinto, CA.

Figure 3. Tentative Tract Map for the Project Area (11.5 acres).

Figure 4. Map of Southern California Ecoregion.

Figure 5. Map of the Ancestral Territories and Location of the Project Area.

Figure 6. Map of the California Ranchos.

Figure 7. Showing plucking Ostrich Plumes, Plumes made into an Ostrich Fan, and different forms of Ridingwith Ostriches.

Figure 8. 1867 Plat Map for Township T4S, R1W, San Bernardino Meridian.

Figure 9. Project Area as Shown on Respective Historic Aerial Photographs.

Figure 10. 1967 Historic USGS Map and 1967 Aerial Photograph Showing Location of the Project Area.

Figure 11. Entrance to the Residential Complex Surrounded by Mature Stand of Trees.

Figure 12. Eastern Side of Building Complex Showing Gabled Addition Attached to the Southern Side (Front)of 1947 Concrete Block House.

Figure 13. Views of Eastern Side of 1947 House and Highlights of Concrete Brick Construction.

Figure 14. View of Back of Concrete Structure looking South and Very Old Willow Tree.

Figure 15. Repair Seams on East Side and South or Back Wall of the Main Structure.

Figure 16. View of Back of Concrete Structure Showing Attached Wooden Converted Garage LookingSouthwest.

Figure 17. Closeup of Old Shiplap Construction on Part of the Attached Garage and Views Looking East atthe Complex.

Figure 18. View of Front of Building Complex Looking Northwest Showing Attached Garage and GabledWooden Addition to the 1947 Concrete House.

Figure 19. Entrance to Ranch Looking North Showing Fence Complexes Bordering 7th St.

Figure 20. Examples of Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Products on the Ranch.

Figure 21. Goats, Turkeys, Egg Laying Chickens and Cock Pens on the Ranch Near the ResidentialStructures.

2

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

In September 2018, SRSINC was contacted by Pam Weatherly, Blaine A. Wormer Civil Engineering, to conduct aCultural/ Tribal Records Search and preliminary Historic Building Assessment for a 11.5-acre property lot situated inthe San Jacinto area in southwestern Riverside County. The project area is located at Seventh and Sanderson Streets;it is in Township 4S, Range 1W, Section 32 of the San Bernardino Meridian; can be found on the USGS 7.5’ LakeviewQuadrangle and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 432-270-012 (see Figures 1 and 2). The propertyowner, Mr. Mr. Douglas Whitney of DSW Corp, is seeking approval of 41-lot single family residential subdivision asshown on the Tentative Tract Map No. 37495 (Figure 3). The City is requiring a Cultural/ Tribal Records Check andevaluation of Historic Structure(s) on the Project Area/Area of Potential Effect (APE) as part of the Land UseApplication.

A record search was requested by SRSINC Principal Investigator, Dr. Nancy Anastasia Wiley (see resume: AppendixA) on October 10, 2018, from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside.The results were mailed to SRSINC on November 2, 2018.The EIC is the official cultural resource records repositoryfor Riverside County and is part of the California Historical Resource Information System, established and maintainedunder the auspices of the Office of Historic Preservation. The record search identified 30 previous cultural resourcesstudies/surveys within one mile of the project area; none included the subject property (see Appendix C). Further, theEIC records show that a total of 13 cultural resources have been recorded within one mile of the project area. One ofthe thirteen resources was located within the project area: 33-17928: a 1947 Concrete Farmhouse (see Appendix D).

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on October 19, 2018 by Michelle Garcia to requesta Sacred Lands File record search to serve as a preliminary method to locate areas of potential adverse impact withinthe area of potential effect (APE) (see Appendix B). The NAHC response was received on October 26, 2018. TheNAHC record search did not produce any record of Native American cultural resources or sacred lands within a one-mile radius of the proposed project. SRSINC contacted thirty-eight (38) entities representing nearby Native groups.SRSINC received comments back from 8 tribal groups including: Agua Caliente and Augustine Bands of CahuillaIndians, Cabazon, Morongo, San Manuel and 29 Palms Bands of Mission Indians, and the Pauma and Soboba Bandsof Luiseno Indians. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians is the only tribal group requesting formal consultation; theothers either deferred to Soboba or stated that the project area was outside their traditional territorial boundaries.

An in-field survey of buildings within the project area was conducted on November 23rd, 2018 by the SRSINC historicalcrew under the direction of Dr. Wiley. A 1940s simple vernacular concrete block house had been identified by therecords check as a building of potential historic interest within the project area. This structure was examined in detail;given its altered and damaged state it does not meet the criteria for significance. Aside from the residence, noprehistoric or potential historic cultural resources were identified within the project area.

As all other known recorded resources located within one mile from the project are outside of the project’s view shedand would not derive any potential significance based on the project area, the project will not have any impact onneighboring resources. In order to mitigate any negative impacts on potential subsurface cultural resources, specificallyas related to the historic building complex within the project area, and as is customary within the City of San Jacinto,we recommend monitoring of all ground-breaking activities by both a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitorand a Native American monitor. In the event that any evidence of cultural resources is discovered, all work within thevicinity of the find should stop until the qualified consultant can assess the find and make recommendations.

3

Figure 1. General Location of Proposed Project Area USGS 1979 Santa Ana 1:250,000 Map.

4

Figure 2. Location of APN 432-270-012 (11.5 acres) at Seventh & Sanderson in San Jacinto, CA. Note HouseDepicted by Square at the North End of the Dashed Driveway.

5

Figure 3. Tentative Tract Map for the Project Area (11.5 acres). Historic Concrete House is Situated Top Center inthe Residential Area at the North End of the Entrance Driveway (grey underlayer).

6

INTRODUCTION AND NATURAL SETTING

Project Goals

The goals for this research and survey are to locate and record the presence of any cultural resources as defined byCEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.) within the proposed project area. If identified,resources are to be recorded and put into archaeological and/or historical context. All cultural resources discoveredwill be documented utilizing State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Site Forms(DPR523 series). As a general guideline, historic and/or archaeological sites will be evaluated based on the presenceof three or more historically significant artifacts within a 100-meter radius, or one or more historical or archaeologicalfeatures. Using the California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Site Forms in conjunction with acareful surface survey and examination of all built structures on the property, all isolates and sites will be assessedusing the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria for significance determination, the California Register ofHistoric Resources (CRHR) significance criteria under CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.),and City of San Jacinto General Plan. If any cultural or historical resources are identified, SRSINC will providerecommendations on how to mitigate any negative effects that may be caused by the proposed project.

Additionally, this research attempts to assess whether the proposed residential development will negatively affect anycultural resources found on or near the property. The development will impact approximately 11.5 acres in the City ofSan Jacinto, California. The project aims to create a subdivision which includes 41 residential lots. Ground disturbingactivities are expected to include trenching for utilities and grading of a foot or less of over excavation for building pads,parking areas, streets and cul-de-sacs (see Figure 3).

Environment: Climate, Topography, and Geology

Today, Southern California coasts and inland deserts experience warm and dry summers, cool and wet winters, andmean temperatures that rarely deviate outside of 59°-100° Fahrenheit. California has experienced a moderateMediterranean climate since the Late Pleistocene (Johnson 1977). Although California has been experiencing cool,moist winters and dry summers for an upward of 10,000 years, the Pleistocene environment looked very different fromthe arid inlands and the high-sea coastal shores that are present today. 15,000 years ago, the high sierras werecovered in glaciers, the foothills contained pine forests, the California coasts were extended farther west, and numerouslakes existed in the now arid regions of the lowland deserts (Moratto 1984). As temperatures warmed during the LatePleistocene (circa 11,000 B.P.), the deep desert lakes reduced to small marshes. The formation of shallow lakes andmarshes in the inlands created ideal locales for human occupation because they provided access to several resources:water, plants and seeds, fish, turtles, birds and their eggs, and large and small mammals (Moratto 1984).

The Project Area is located southeast of the San Jacinto City Center within the San Jacinto Valley in Riverside County.The San Jacinto Valley is surrounded by the Santa Rosa Hills and the San Jacinto Mountains. The San Jacinto Riveris formed at the western base of the San Jacinto Mountains; a section of the San Jacinto River passes near the SantaRosa Summit leading to Lake Hemet. Although the area is dry with low precipitation, the San Jacinto River providedan invaluable resource that facilitated prehistoric occupation and encouraged regional development.

Although a residence is present on the property area, it does not currently appear to be occupied, but it has historicallybeen used for farming. The property is characterized by the flat terrain with an averaged elevation of 1577 ft. AMSL(Max: 1580 ft. Min: 1575 ft. AMSL). Vegetation on the parcels at the time of survey was dense in a few spots, butotherwise, visibility was moderate (Figure 4). Due to the historic agricultural practices, as well as increasedurbanization, a majority of the original plant life surrounding the project area has been either destroyed or reduced toa bare minimum. The surrounding undeveloped lands contain a sage scrub environment interspersed with oaks.

7

Prior to the introduction of agriculture and ranching in the area, the low-lying valleys and foothills would have supportedcoastal sage scrub, dense grassland habitats, and oak woodland communities, all of which are visible in varyingdegrees in the surrounding area (Munz 1974:4). Large riparian habitats along the nearby San Jacinto River wouldhave included several plant resources such as black, golden, and arroyo willow trees, cottonwoods, and elderberry, allof which would have been utilized by Native Americans. The prominence of bedrock milling features combined withthese floral resources in the surrounding hillsides and valleys would have provided all the necessary implements togather and process foods. In addition, the nearby San Jacinto River combined with these other natural resourceswould have made the general area highly suitable for both semi-permanent settlements as well as temporary activityareas.

Geology

The area of San Jacinto is interrupted by consistent fault activity from the San Andreas Fault and two parallel adjacentfaults, the San Jacinto and Elsinore Faults (Harden 1998: 349). Since the early 1800s, the area has been subject toat least ten 6-6.9 magnitude earthquakes (Norris and Webb 1990: 285). The seismic activity within the San JacintoValley may be responsible for compromising archaeological sites and historic structures. The entire project areaappears to be situated on a loose alluvial plain caused by the flooding of the San Jacinto flood plain from the intermittenthillside drainages. Although the river is currently dry, flooding may occur during the wet and rainy months. Sites mayhave been covered with sediment as the water levels fluctuated. The surrounding morphology of the hillsides iscomposed of predominantly non-marine granitic rocks which have been exposed over time from intermittent drainages(Norris and Webb 1990:288). The basins of these valleys contain loose sandy silt, while the surrounding hillsidescontain outcroppings of non-decomposed bedrock.

Prehistoric sites in the general area tend to cluster near sources of water close to large granitic outcrops, utilized bythe native inhabitants for food processing, rock art, and/or shelter. The current project area does not contain any ofthese outcrops. However, the APE is situated near the San Jacinto River. Lithic material found in the general area ismostly granitic ranging from granite to gabbro. Stone cobbles used prehistorically as manos and hammerstones areobtainable throughout the region, although none are readily available on the project area. Further, sources of finegrained homogeneous material for flaked stone tools are sparse in the region, being composed of mostly finer grainedquartzite, undifferentiated metasedimentary material, quartz, and greywacke; nevertheless, no loose lithic materialsuitable for the creation of flaked tools is found within the project area.

8

Figure 4. Map of Southern California Ecoregion. From: National Park Service Terrestrial Data Service Layer.

9

PREHISTORIC SETTING

The Peopling of California

During the Pleistocene, a number of glacial oscillations caused reduced sea levels, which exposed land massesconducive to land migration by both people and animals. Although genetic (Schurr 2004a; Schurr 2004b) andarchaeological data (Adovasio, et al. 1998; Goodyear 1999; Dillehay 1999; Goebel, et al. 2001) suggests that thepeopling of the Americas occurred in multiple migrations through both land and water migration, the exact timing isunder disagreement. However, it is widely accepted that people inhabited the Americas by the Late Pleistocene, circa12,000-10,000 B.P. This period is referred to as the Paleo-Indian period and is characterized by Clovis technology.During the Paleo-Indian/Paleo-coastal period, small bands of people practiced big game hunting strategies using flutedlithic points and coastal groups cultivated water technology, including fishing hooks, nets, and boats (Jones and Klar2007).

The earliest undisputed California site is located in the Northern Channel Islands at Daisy Island (Sutton 2015; Jonesand Klar 2007). Daisy Island provides evidence of a fishing subsistence strategy and boat manufacturing technologyby 12,000 B.P. The site at Cross Creek (dated to around 10,000 B.P.) contained the oldest shell midden found on themainland coast. By 9,000 B.P., California sites contain evidence of year-round consumption of fish and shellfishresources (Sutton 2011b; Jones and Klar 2007).

Fluted Clovis points are rarely found on the coast during the Late Pleistocene, but there is a limited amount of evidencethat suggests they were used in the inland desert areas near lakes (Sutton 2011b). Although most Clovis evidence isrecovered from surface surveys, there are two major inland sites with Clovis technology. In Northern California, a seriesof Clovis points and crescents were found at Borax Lake. Additionally, one of the largest collections of North AmericanClovis points was found at Tulare Lake located in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Despite the impressive number offluted lithics found at these two locations, the sites are heavily disturbed and dilapidated; no other contextual informationcould be ascertained (Sutton 2011b).

Local Archaeology

The project area is susceptible to an array of cultural resources due to the close proximity to known tribal territories.Stone tools, worked shell, shell middens, and food processing technologies are some of the specific indicators ofprehistoric occupation. The following sections will review the types of material culture that has been recovered fromprehistoric archaeological sites.

Late Pleistocene

Cultural occupations are archaeologically assessed through the presence or absence of time sensitive culturalresources. Although foraging peoples used the San Jacinto region to hunt and gather resources by the Late Pleistocene(16,000-10,000 B.P.), there is little archaeological evidence to elucidate the lifeways of these early hunter andgatherers. People living in the inland deserts during the Late Pleistocene exploited the many resources provided bylocal lakes and marshes. However, many of these lakes disappeared when the climate became warmer and drier. Thetransition into the Early Holocene required people to adapt to the changing environment. Instead of hunting large game,people started to exploit the small animal fauna near the marshes. This tradition is often referred to as the WesternStemmed Tradition (also referred to as the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition or the Lake Mojave Period) and ischaracterized by the crescents and large stemmed lithic points found in the archaeological record (Sutton 2015; Sutton2011b).

10

Early Holocene

The development of the earliest cultural tradition, known as the San Dieguito culture, arises around 8,000 B.P. (Warren1967). The San Dieguito culture is characterized by flaked volcanic stone tool industry; specifically, the San Dieguitoculture is the time period when hunter and gatherers used stemmed projectile points, chipped lunates (crescents),knives, domed scrapers, and hammerstones to process food (Keller and McCarthy 1989; Padon 2010; Sutton 2015;Sutton 2011b). Middle Horizon archaeological sites are usually found around or near ancient lake terraces (Padon2010) and can be further divided into one of three categorical phases: San Dieguito I represent sites that are locatedin the desert, whereas San Dieguito II and III sites are found on both sides of the peninsular mountain ranges (Sutton2015).

Middle Holocene

The subsequent cultural tradition, La Jolla Complex, added the use of bifacial lithic projectile points, shell middens, andmillingstone technologies into coastal and eastern cultural resources. The transition from San Dieguito to La Jolla isstill vague, but Sutton (2011a) presents two possible scenarios. First, the San Dieguito people could have ventured tothe coast from the desert areas, only to be subsequently replaced by the southern migration of the La Jolla (Encinitas)culture. In this situation, millingstone technology pervaded into the region via the Northern La Jolla peoples. Thealternative theory proposes that people originated from the desert and moved west to occupy the coast at an earlydate. The adaptation of La Jolla culture occurred at a later date when the climate shifted to hotter and drier conditionsaround 6,000 B.P. In this scenario, the use of millingstone technology is perceived as an adaptive response to warmerclimatic conditions and a shift to a seed economy.

The shifts in food processing technologies indicate a change in subsistence strategies; although people were stillhunting for large game, plant based foods and marine resources became the primary dietary resource (Sutton 2011a).The La Jolla Complex is divided into two sub-categories: La Jolla Pattern (La Jolla I, II, III, and IV) represents theshellfish subsistence strategies used by coastal people and The Pauma Pattern, a contemporary eastern variant whichrelied on small game hunting and seed gathering, such as acorns, as their main subsistence (Sutton 2015; Sutton2011b). Sutton’s (2011b) argument posits that the development of mortars and pestles during the Middle Holoceneare attributed to the year-round exploitation of acorns as a main dietary provision. Additionally, the warmer and drierclimate may have been responsible for moving eastern cultural groups toward coastal populations, which isarchaeologically represented by the interchange of coastal and eastern cultural traits (Sutton 2011a).

The Late Holocene

Significant social and political changes occurred in all Californian groups during the Late Holocene. In addition to anintensified reliance on acorns throughout California, many groups underwent population spikes and an increase insociopolitical complexity (Sutton 2011a). Coastal groups, such as the Chumash located on the Santa Barbara coast,developed large sedentary chiefdoms. The inland deserts of Southern California contain less archaeological datadating to the Late Holocene, but the Takic language groups enter the coastal region around 3,500 B.P. (Sutton 2010).Sutton (2011a) argues that the diffusion of cultural traits and the expansion of the Takic language into SouthernCalifornia may have sparked changes in social complexity, such as the development of Chumash Chiefdoms. Evidenceof these changes, such as the shifts found in Gabrielino burial practices and subsistence strategies, are found in thearchaeological record (Sutton 2011a). The introduction of the Takic linguistic groups into Southern California marksthe end of the coastal Encinitas tradition and the beginning of the Del Rey Tradition on the Southern California mainlandand Channel Islands.

A period of population movement occurred in the Late Holocene bringing the Takic people into Southern California anddisplacing existing groups to the south (Morrato 1984). Around 1,250 B.P., the proto-Cupan linguistic group, derivedfrom the proto-Gabrielino language, entered Orange and San Diego Counties near the ancestral lands of the Juaneño

11

to launch the San Luis Rey tradition (Sutton 2010; Sutton 2011a). The Initial San Luis Rey (1,250-1,000 B.P.) traditionrefers to the integration of Takic people into Southern California which, in turn, initiated the development of newtechnologies aimed at facilitating hunting subsistence strategies. New settlement patterns are found in the Initial SanLuis Rey period, such as the abandonment of La Jolla and Pauma localities and the establishment of new temporaryforaging settlements. The Initial San Luis Rey economy relied more on terrestrial resources throughout the year, butseasonally exploited coastal resources. The Initial San Luis Rey tradition was contained to the Juaneño territory anddid not move south until around 1,000 B.P. (Sutton 2015).

At around 1,000 B.P., the neighboring regions surrounding the Juaneño territory began to adopt the Initial San LuisRey tradition. The expansion of the Initial San Luis Rey tradition into Luiseño territory marks the transition into San LuisRey I (Sutton 2010; Sutton 2011a; Sutton 2015). The San Luis Rey I tradition is, quintessentially, the cultural diffusionof Initial San Luis Rey traditions into the Encinitas Culture. In other words, the San Luis Rey I changes were sparkedby a diffusion of cultural practices rather than population movement. In addition to adopting new subsistence andsettlement patterns, people began to create Rancho Bernardo/ Riverside Maze-styled rock art (Sutton 2011a); althoughthe exact meaning of these maze images is unknown (McCarthy and Mouriquand 2003), the integration of rock art maybe associated with the spread of the Gabrielino religion, Chingichngish (Sutton 2015). The San Luis Rey I traditionlasted until 500 B.P., when pottery was added into the coastal and inland Southern California material culture.

At 500 B.P., new forms of technology and settlement patterns occurred in both Initial San Luis Rey and San Luis ReyI; the combined cultural changes formed the subsequent cultural tradition, San Luis Rey II, which lasted from 500 B.P.up until European contact. The foraging settlements found in previous traditions shifted towards large, sedentaryseasonal villages to facilitate a collection subsistence strategy and pottery, ceramic figurines, and pipes emerged inSan Luis Rey II (Sutton 2010). The importance of acorns and large game hunting were emphasized, while theexploitation of marine resources waned.

Table 1. Chronological Template for Native Occupation in the Region.

PERIOD TIMEPaleo-Indian/ ClovisCulture

Late Pleistocene/EarlyHolocene

9600 to 5600 cal BC 11600-5800 BP

La Jolla/ PaumaMiddle Holocene 5600 to 1650 cal BC 5800-1850 BP

Late Holocene 1,650 cal BC to A.D. 1,650 1850-300 BP

San Luis Rey Protohistoric, Mythic Period A.D. 1650 to A.D. 1769 300BP-181 BPSpain Mission Period A.D. 1770s-1830s 230-120 BP

Mexico Rancho Period A.D. 1830s-1850s 120-100 BP

American

American Migration to California A.D. 1850s-1880s 100-70 BPReservation Period A.D. 1880s -1920s 70-30 BP

Modern Period A.D. 1920s - Present 30 BP- Present Day

Cultural Context

The City of San Jacinto lies within the ancestral territory of the Luiseño Indians within Riverside County. The ancestralterritories for the Luiseño, Juaneño, and the Cahuilla Indians are located around the modern City of San Jacinto, butthe ancient territorial borders remain vague for two reasons: first, territorial boundaries were probably more flexiblethan rigid (Kroeber 1925) and, secondly, indigenous borders and land use was not recorded until after Europeancontact destroyed native lifeways (Padon 2010). Although firm and defining borders cannot be known, there isarchaeological, ethnographic, and historic evidence to support prehistoric use by both groups. Following Europeancontact, members of the Luiseño and Cahuilla tribes coalesced into the Soboba band (of the Luiseño Indians) PostContact (The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 2015).

12

The land surrounding and encompassing the present-day city of San Jacinto was initially inhabited by the LuiseñoIndians. European contact within the region was probably first made in 1774 when The Anza Expedition passed throughthe San Jacinto Valley on their way to the San Gabriel Mission. At the time of European contact, the Luiseño Indianswere inhabiting the region and organized in patrilocal villages consisting of several patrilineal related families (SobobaBand of Luiseño Indians 2013). Pre-contact population estimates suggest the Luiseño population consisted of 10,000people among at least fifty (50) villages (White 1963). The village site of “Savabo” was an important prehistoric villagesite because it was used as an exchange site between the surrounding tribes of Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano(CRM TECH 2014).

Luiseño Indians inhabited the San Jacinto region prior to European contact. Before the arrival of Spanish missions,the Luiseño Indians sustained themselves by cultivating small crops and utilizing the local natural resources, such asthe San Jacinto River. After the establishment of the Mission San Luis Rey, Luiseño and Cahuilla Indians worked atthe mission as ranch labor. After the secularization of the missions, the native people continued to live on their ancestralland. In 1842, the land encompassing the Mission San Luis Rey was granted to José Antonio Estudillo and turned intothe Rancho San Jacinto Viejo with the stipulation that he continued to allow the Native population to live and inhabitthe land. When the United States took control of California, the Estudillo family began to sell off portions of their landto private parties. The division and dispersal of the Rancho left native peoples without land or resources. After a lengthylegal battle, the United States reserved 3,172 acres of the old Rancho to the Soboba people and the Soboba IndianReservation was finally established in 1911. The Soboba Reservation has since expanded to 7,000 acres, but theresidents have had to mitigate the loss of several natural resources which they once relied upon.

HISTORIC SETTING

The California historic periods can be divided into three periods based upon the controlling political administration:Spain, Mexico, and the United States. The Spanish and Mexican Rancho periods were especially influential in thedevelopment of the regional history. The delegation of land to specific individuals not only spearheaded Californiaregional development, but also impacted many Native American tribes that inhabited the land. The following sectionswill briefly discuss the historic events that led to regional development and the effect they had on the indigenouspopulations.

Spain

Native Californians may have first coalesced with Europeans around 1769 when the first Spanish mission wasestablished in San Diego. In 1771, Friar Francisco Graces first searched the Californian desert for potential missionsites. Interactions between local tribes and Franciscan priests definitely occurred by 1774 when Juan Bautista De Anzamade an exploration of Alta California. The eighteenth Mission San Luis Rey de Francia was founded in 1798 by PadreFermin Francisco de Lasuen. Three thousand Luiseño Indians lived and worked at Mission San Luis Rey. In additionto missions, Spain established a series of asistencias (sub-mission ranch settlements intended for farming and/orraising livestock) in the San Diego region. These asistencias typically contained several structures, including a churchand living accommodations for Indians, but lacked a resident priest. The nearest asistencia to the San Luis Rey Missionwas the asistencia de Pala (also referred to as Rancho de Pala), which was established 30 miles east of Mission SanLuis Rey in 1816 (Pentacle Press, LLC 2015).

Spain encouraged settlement in California by issuing a number of land grants, which provided individuals the right touse Spanish-owned property. The first Spanish land grant was issued to Juan José Domínguez in 1784. In total,Spainissued twenty-two (22) land grants out between the years of 1784-1821. When Mexico gained independence,the Mexican government gained control of Baja and Alta California. The Mexican government reclaimed the land Spaingranted to the Missions and continued to issue land grants to individuals.

13

Figure 5. Map of the Ancestral Territories and Location of the Project Area.From: A.L. Kroeber, Handbook of the Indians of California, 1925..

14

Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1822 which began the Mexican period in Alta California. In 1825, JoséMaria de Echeandía was appointed as the Governor of Baja and Alta California and initiated the secularization of theMissions. Echeandía emancipated all Native Americans from the missionary imperatives and provided all indigenouspopulations the option to apply for Mexican citizenship. Mexico continued to grant large tracts of land to soldiers,civil servants, and other settlers by bequeathing complete ownership of the land to the grantees. The closest landgrant to the proposed project site was the Rancho San Jacinto, which was located across the present-day cities ofSan Jacinto and Hemet. (indicated with a star).

The Rancho PeriodThe Rancho period refers to the period when Spain and Mexico allocated property rights to specific individualsthroughout the Spanish and Mexican historic periods. The Hemet/San Jacinto region was specifically influenced bythe Rancho San Jacinto land grant to the Estudillo family. The Estudillo family was a prominent Californian family withties to several California land grants (Table 2), controlling over 100,000 acres within Southern California. José MaríaEstudillo was a military man who was well known for exploring the northern inlands. Based out of the Monterey area,José María Estudillo gained social and political advancement through his service in the military. In 1827, José Maríawas relocated to San Diego as the captain of the San Diego presidio. José María’s two sons were particularly influentialin the development of California. José Joaquín, José María’s first son, influenced the development of NorthernCalifornia near the San Francisco bay. José María’s second son, José Antonio Estudillo, followed in his father’sfootsteps in Southern California. José Antonio gained political and social prominence through his military service andpolitical endeavors as mayor, judge, and treasurer.

In 1822, Mexico approved Juan José Dominguez’s Spanish land grant under Mexican law making him the first personto receive a Mexican land grant. Two years later, José Antonio married Dominguez’s daughter, María VictoriaDominguez. Jose Antonio’s accumulation of land quickly followed the Dominguez family. In 1829, the Esdudillo familywere granted two plots of land east of present day Chula Vista. José Antonio was the grantee of Rancho Janal andhis sister, Magdelena, was the grantee of Rancho Otay. José Antonio’s children were also granted several plots of landin 1845. The Estudillo family had ties to several Spanish land grants, either as the grantee of large plots of land orthrough marriage.

The Rancho San Jacinto Viejo

Originally, the land that encompassed the Rancho San Jacinto was owned and managed by the San Luis Rey Missionas an operating cattle farm (City of Hemet 2015). The Luiseño Indians began working at the Ranch at approximately1815 (The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 2015). José Antonio was granted the land in 1842 after he was appointedas the administrator of the San Luis Rey Mission (McShane 1969). Following the secularization of the Rancho,legislation was written into the property deed to ensure the Luiseño, Chauilla, and Soboba Indians maintained accessto the land they inhabited (The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 2015). However, the Estudillo family started to sellportions of their properties in 1868, which left local Indians without access to their land and water by the 1880s (TheSoboba Band of Luiseño Indians 2015).

15

Figure 6. Map of the California Ranchos including San Rancho Jacinto Viejo which included Modern-day Hemet and San Jacinto.Compiled by Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.

16

Table 2. List of California Ranchos and their Location.

Rancho Locations

Rancho San LeandroLocated in present-day Alameda County, California and extended along the east San FranciscoBay from San Leandro Creek south to San Lorenzo Creek, and encompassed present-day SanLeandro

Rancho El PinoleLocated in present day Contra Costa County and extended over the cities of Franklin Ridge,

Crockett, Hercules, Martinez, Oleum, Pinole, Rodeo, Selby and Tormey.

Rancho San Pedro

Located in the Los Angeles, South Bay area: San Pedro, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Torrance,Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach, and east to the Los Angeles River,including the present-day cities of Lomita, Gardena, Harbor City, Wilmington, Carson, Compton,and western portions of Long Beach and Paramount.

Rancho Janal

The grant was located near present day Otay Mesa. A large portion of the grant is now coveredby the waters of the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. Rancho Janal and the adjoining RanchoOtay were granted to members of the Estudillo family, and they are often considered as onerancho.

Rancho Jacinto ViejoLocated in Riverside County, California encompassing the present-day cities of Hemet and San

Jacinto.

Rancho OtayLocated in San Diego County, California in the present-day Otay Mesa area, extending alongthe Otay River west of Lower Otay Reservoir.

Rancho El RinconLocated in San Bernardino County and Riverside County, CA within present-day Chino. Theland was bordered by Rancho Jurupa on the east and the Santa Ana River on the south, and

Rancho Cañón de Santa Ana on the West.

Rancho Jacinto Neuvo y Potrero Located in Riverside County, California in the present-day city of Lake Perris.

Rancho El TejonLocated in the Tehachapi Mountains and northeastern San Emigdio Mountains, in presentday Kern County, California.

Rancho San Jacinto Sobrante Located in present-day Lake Mathews.

Rancho JurupaLocated in the present-day city of Jurupa Valley and extends into downtown city of Riversideand is situated between both banks of the Santa Ana River

United States

The 1846 annexation of Texas exacerbated existing conflict over territory between the United States and Mexico. TheUnited States took possession of California after the end of the Mexican-American War in 1847. The following year,California received a spike in population as people flocked in from around the world in search for gold (Padon 2010).As the non-native population increased through immigration, the indigenous population rapidly declined from the highmorbidity of European diseases, low birth rates, and conflict and violence. California became a state in 1850 and wasdivided into twenty-one (21) counties. The dwindling native populations were eventually displaced into reservationsafter California became a state.

17

HISTORIC CONTEXT AND PROPERTY HISTORY

Since Spanish settlement in California was motivated by the dissemination of Christianity rather than the developmentof Spanish territories, European settlement did not reach the San Jacinto regions until after Mexican Independence(Applied Earth Works, Inc. 2003). In the early 1880s, Helen Hunt Jackson visited the San Jacinto Valley to conductresearch for her upcoming book entitled Ramona. Although Ramona is a fictional dramatization of Native Americanmaltreatment, the book sparked tourism within the San Jacinto Valley.

During the early 1880s, the Estudillo family started to sell portions of their Rancho to wealthy entrepreneurs hoping tocapitalize on the local water resources. Edward Mayberry, William Whitter, Albert HH. Judson, Hancock M. Johnston,and Peter Potts formed the Lake Hemet Water Company and the Hemet Land Company after acquiring portions of theRancho San Jacinto. By 1895, the Lake Hemet Water Company had constructed a dam (Lake Hemet) that they plannedto use to irrigate the holdings of the Hemet Land Company. The formation of the Lake Hemet Dam led to the foundationof the city of Hemet in 1887 (City of Hemet 2015).

The newly founded irrigation capabilities facilitated agriculture within the region and created a demand for railwaytransportation. By the 1870s, the local economy shifted from cattle ranching to agriculture (The City of San Jacinto2015). The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) created a railroad which operated through Hemetbetween the years of 1888-1987. AT&SF railroad was popularized for their long- distance passenger transportationroutes throughout the late 1800s. In 1883, AT&SF serviced the Southern California region when they initiated a railwaybetween Barstow and San Diego (Orange Empire Railway Museum 2015). The railway surrounding Hemet was utilizedto transport passengers until 1967 (Orange Empire Railroad Museum 2002), but the railroad was used to transportproduce until it was discontinued in 1987.

Farming continued as an integral part of San Jacinto and Hemet as settlement increased with the help of the SanJacinto Land Association. The San Jacinto Land Association created a city plan for the City of San Jacinto in 1883 andbegan selling land between 10 and 15 dollars an acre. The San Jacinto Land Association originally wanted the regionto be a Methodist temperance colony and had even gone as far as to state that deeds to land sold by the Associationwould contain a clause prohibiting the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages upon land sold by the company.Nevertheless, it appeared as though such clauses were never integrated into the deeds (Los Angeles Times 1883aand 1883b).

The open acres of the former Estudillo lands provided an excellent opportunity for a farmer to create their own familyagricultural business. With the increase of small farms, widespread cattle ranching grew less prominent and small-scale horticulture increased. Many different crops were grown as the San Jacinto Valley enjoyed a relatively high-watertable at 10 to 15 feet below surface and warm year-round climate. (Pitman 1976). Citrus, alfalfa, corn, potatoes, oathay, and walnut orchards all prospered in the early twentieth century (Los Angeles Times 1908). Food crops and stockfarming characterized the immediate area as Louis Stricklen recalls:

“In fact, as far west as Lyon Street there were orchards of walnuts, apricots, pears and peaches. This greatspread of farming was due to the Mutual Water Company which started about 1919, supplying water to thenorth side the valley. Pears and peaches fell to disease. Finally, that area became mostly “row crop”farming. This means that crops such as corn, sugar beets, alfalfa, grain and melons were the suitable cropsfor that area.” (1971:72)

Onions, cabbage, squash and pumpkins were also prolific in the valley. Roses and a wide range of container plantswere popular cash crops. Along with dry farming came an increase in stock farms, raising amongst other things cattle,hogs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, ostriches, horses, and cows, although, the first dairy in San Jacinto dates to as earlyas 1894 (Stricklen 1971; Ballou 1971, Warnecke et al. 2008).

18

FRUITVALE

The subject property is located at the northwestern edge of an area known as ‘Fruitvale’ which affected the use of theproperty. Traditionally Fruitvale transcended the boundaries of San Jacinto and Hemet, including sections of both cities,as described by Bob Vieten in “Historic Homes of Hemet: Park Hill, Fruitvale, and South Hemet Areas”:

“The NW area of Hemet used to be called Fruitvale. Historically, it stretched north and south from 7th Streetin San Jacinto to Hemet’s Devonshire Ave., and east and west from Sanderson to Lyon Ave. In this book,however, the Fruitvale area’s pre-1950 historic homes covered will be from Esplanade Ave. to Devonshireand from San Jacinto Street west to Cawston Ave. Originally the area was called “The Mesa”, for most of itwas located up on an elevated plateau. Fruitvale was a name used to indicate the region’s many flourishingfruit orchards.” (Vieten 197-: II. Fruitvale Area, History of Fruitvale, pg.59).

Apricot Growers and Dry Yards

The most prolific fruit crop in the San Jacinto Valley from the 1920s to the 1960s was apricots. According to ApricotMemories based on oral interviews, in the Fruitvale area 15 dry yards for apricot processing and major apricotgrowers were operational mainly south and east of the subject property (Andrews 2001: Appendix- Dry Yards):

Borst, Chester Kirby & FruitvaleBrockie, Melvin Lyon & PalmBrubaker, Owen NW corner Florida & LyonBruce, Roger Palm AvenueCain, Everett N side Menlo & PalmMiller, S.C. Palm South of MenloMoore, Dorothy N side Menlo East of LyonParsons, Lloyd W side Lyon North of FloridaRocky Ranch Palm & EsplanadeStraw, George N side of Devonshire West of LyonSwain N side of Devonshire between Yale & ColumbiaTaschner, Sherman SE corner Palm & MenloTate, Lonnie NE corner Kirby & MenloVenable Palm near Huckaby’s Turkey FarmWixom, Bud N side Menlo East of Stanford

The heyday of the apricot industry in the Valley was between 1930 to 1960; in 1935 there were approximately 3,427acres in apricots and by 1944 the corps had increased to covering about 5,500 acres (Andrews 2001:12). Around1960 the agricultural industry changed in Fruitvale:

“Time and weather have taken their toll of the orchards, the principal offender being Jack Frost himself! Aftermany years of killing frosts and the use of oil smudge pots, there seemed to be no balancing of the farmer’sbudget. Alfalfa, dairies and seed growing were substituted for fruit orchards. The abundance of water furnishedby the Citizens Water Company and its successor, the Fruitvale Water Company, led to many years of alfalfaseed production.” (Perry 1971:82).

Turkeys were raised in this region such as at Huckaby’s Turkey Farm near Venable’s apricot dry yard. Prize turkeyswere displayed at the ‘Turkey Show’ which eventually turned into the annual ‘Farmer’s Fair’. In addition, Leila Perry’sarticle “The Fruitvale Area” in The Friendliest Valley also describes a unique poultry early industry in this same region:

“An unusual venture came into being in the early years. When fashion decreed that ladies should use ostrichplumes on their hats and for dress decoration, there was an increase in the demand for these plumes. TheCawston Ostrich Farm started business near Seventh and Sanderson Streets. They thrived wonderfully untilfickle fashion took away the demand for the ostrich plumes.” (Perry 1971:82).

19

The Cawston Ostrich Farm

In 1885 Edwin Cawston chartered a ship to take 50 of some of the best obtainable ostriches in the world from SouthAfrica to Galveston, Texas. From there, the ostriches endured a treacherous train journey to South Pasadena, CA. Outof the original 50, only 18 survived. Cawston bounced back from the loss of over half of his stock and eventuallyboasted over 100 ostriches from the original batch. Cawston established two ostrich farms, one in Pasadena and theother in Fruitvale, San Jacinto. Both Cawston Ostrich Farms became premier tourist attractions for many years. Guestswere able to ride on the backs of ostriches, be taken for ostrich drawn carriage rides and buy ostrich feathered hats,boas, capes and fans at the Ostrich Farm store that was connected to each factory. Ostrich farm feather products wereshipped and sold throughout the world.

Figure 7. Showing plucking Ostrich Plumes, Plumes made into an Ostrich Fan, and different forms of Ridingwith Ostriches. Courtesy: South Pasadena Public Library (card), Staten Island Historical Society (fan), Omaha PublicLibrary (rides).

20

In 1886 the Pasadena farm was established followed by the San Jacinto farm in 1909. Edwin Cawston purchased 360acres at ‘Seventh and Sanderson’ Streets for the San Jacinto farm which lasted 5 years (Hemet Area MuseumAssociation 2008:25). The location has also been described as at ‘Cawston and Cottonwood’ Avenues (Warnecke etal 2008:103).

The sale of both farms and disposal of the birds made news worthy print as presented below with the Pasdena farmselling in 1911 and the San Jacinto Farm holding on until 1914. Although the exact boundaries of the San JacintoOstrich Farm are not common knowledge (Dunham 2018; Warnecke 2018) research suggests that the 360-acre farmat least included the large block from Cottonwood on the north to 7th on the south and Cawston on the west toSanderson on the east The subject property located at 7th and Sanderson would have been included within that blockand evidently would have been used for growing alfalfa crops after 1914 and sale of the Ostrich farm:

Table 3. Newspaper Articles Referencing Sale of Cawston Ostrich Farms & Removal of Birds (1911-1914).

Lompoc Journal, Number 28, 2 December 1911 — Page 3

Cawston Ostrich Farm Sold.Los Angeles.—For an approximate consideration of $1,250,000, a syndicate of Los Angeles bankers has bought the CawstonOstrich Farm from Edwin Cawston, originator of the enterprise of breeding ostriches in this country. The South Pasadena andSan Jacinto establishments contain over 1200 birds, and the farm was twenty-five years old on the day of sale. So successfulwas Cawston that twenty-one other farms have been established in the United States, all modeled after his South Pasadenaplace.

Riverside Daily Press, Number 154, 29 June 1914 — Page 3

SAN JACINTO. June 29.—San Jacinto is unfortunate in the fact that the Cawston ostrich farm will be moved from here in allprobability in the near future. H.I. Vatcher Jr. has retired from the directorate of the Cawston farm, which has its offices in LosAngeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York. Their breeding farm has been located here for a number of years and is one of

the interesting places of the valley. Mr. Vatcher has been general manager for several years, and in connection with the businessengaged in the real estate and investment business. He will now give his entire attention to this work. The farm has been underthe management of R. S. Smith, who has recently purchased the tract of land where the farm is located. Mr. Smith will seed theland to alfalfa. It is the intention of the company to move the birds in the near future.

Cawston Dairy Farms

Mary Whitney reports in Pieces of the Past from San Jacinto Valley that Hemet did not exist in 1883 and the town ofSan Jacinto was moved one-half mile north of the original location of the city (at Hewitt and Commonwealth) in orderto take advantage of the rich pasture land adjacent to the San Jacinto River:

“The bountiful grass pastures north and east of San Jacinto, close to the San Jacinto River, drew settlers fromMaine, Connecticut, Ohio, Missouri and other states to the valley. Some were involved in dairying before theyarrived, so they knew the need for good grass and water. When they purchased from twenty to more than onehundred acres of land, they were told water was just below the surface. Consequently, they hired artesianwell borers.” (Whitney 2006:98)

With the advent of artesian wells, alfalfa could be raised which turned out to be far superior as cow feed and for thequality of milk production over natural grasses, grains and vegetables, all of which had been used by local dairymen.Dairy farming grew in popularity as urban sprawl started to affect other farming areas of Southern California and thedemand for milk products grew. By 1922, dairy farmers in the San Jacinto Valley were producing more than 500,000gallons of milk yearly (Law 1922). The San Jacinto Valley Railroad also contributed to the profitability of dairy farms asfresh milk could be shipped directly to Los Angeles daily. With so much available open acreage and easy irrigation,San Jacinto dairy cows enjoyed free forage and fresh alfalfa. Rather than being kept in stagnant pens and fed low-quality hay, these cows were healthy and produced a better milk product.

21

However, “the Great Depression eventually took its toll on the San Jacinto Valley dairy industry. During the 1920s,about fifty milk producers were operating in the valley, but many of them went out of business during the depressionyears. By the 1940s, only six dairies remained. Owners who started their dairies before 1930 and survived thedepression were (Whitney 2006:128):

1 William J. Eastham in San Jacinto2 Mark Worden in San Jacinto3 Ray Perry in San Jacinto

4 Clayton Austin Record in San Jacinto5 Joe Scaramella in Hemet6 Louis Strickland at Lyon and Esplanade

Of the six farms, the Strickland dairy was in the vicinity of the subject property. Pieces of the Past continues listing 7dairy businesses that were started during the late 1930s and 1940s; two in Hemet and five in San Jacinto. Two of thenew dairies were situated very close to the subject property on Cawston Avenue (Whitney 2006:128):

1 Pete Dotinga started his dairy at Cawston and Esplanade in 19462 Peter Plantega started his dairy on Cawston in 1945

Property History

With at least three dairies, Strickland, Dotinga and Plantega, situated immediately adjacent to the subject property bythe late 1940s, and the earlier suggestion that alfalfa would be raised on the property after the Ostrich Farm closed, itis likely that the 11-acre farm comprising the subject property at 7th and Sanderson was mainly used for alfalfa cropproduction at the time the single residence on the property was constructed. Manufactured with the use of concreteblock, a Vernacular Rural Farm Style house was erected within the 11-acre farm at 2451 West 7th Street in 1947according to the Riverside County Assessor (Dice 2010). Historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that this wasthe only residence on the property for many years. Concrete structures were popular in the late 1940s, as indicated inthe Portland Cement Association 24-page brochure entitled “Why People Like Concrete Homes” in its 1947 secondedition with 17 sections on: Beauty, Livable, Low in Cost, Clean, Adaptable, Warm in Winter, Cool in Summer, Noise Proof,

Weathertight, Stormproof, Fire Safe, Easy to Insure, Long Lasting, Easy to Keep Up, Termite Proof, Sound Investment, and

Comfortable. A 1967 historic aerial photograph still shows this house as the only building on the farm which appears tobe in hay or as suggested, alfalfa.

Transpolar Record Flight Site

In the same vicinity, north of Cottonwood and west of Sanderson, another unique incident occurred: a Russian ANT-25 plane landed in Earl Smith’s dairy pasture on July 14, 1937. Three different crews of Soviet fliers attempted airdistance records in 1937 with a terminus at San Francisco. None reached that city with the first landing in Vancouver,Washington, the second in San Jacinto, and the third disappeared in bad weather at the Canadian-US Border. Thesilver and red craft was described as a motorized glider since the landing gear had been removed to lessen the plane’sweight. With only 25 gallons of fuel left and no landing gear the plane had to avoid a runway and use a ‘softer’ landingwhich it found in Smith’s pasture in San Jacinto. Admission was charged by the lessee to see the plane during the timeit remained in San Jacinto. After 10-days the plane was dismantled, crated and shipped to Leningrad (Riverside CountyHistorical Commission 1988).

Summary

The northwestern section of Fruitvale boasted a colorful history with an ostrich farm, dairies and a Russian transpolarlanding site all near the subject property which was in alfalfa with a vernacular concrete block farm house in 1947.

22

RESEARCH DESIGN AND REGULATIONS

The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources that may be negatively impacted by the proposed project.SRSINC will determine the archaeological and historic context within the region and the proposed project area byutilizing academic research, historic documents, auxiliary cultural resource studies within a one-mile radius from theproject area, and a Phase I pedestrian land survey. These findings will be used to evaluate the presence or absenceof an historic or archaeological site, contextualize any cultural resources found, and if necessary, provide mitigationrecommendations.

Regulatory Setting

Historic resources fall within the jurisdiction of several levels of government. Federal laws provide the framework forthe identification, and in certain instances, protection of historic resources. Additionally, states and local jurisdictionsplay active roles in the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources within their communities. TheNational Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and the California Public Resources Code (PRC),Section 5024.1, are the primary federal and state laws and regulations governing the evaluation and significance ofcultural resources of national, state, regional, and local importance. Descriptions of these relevant laws and regulationsare presented below.

In local government, a property is presumed to be historically or culturally significant if it is listed in a local register,satisfies the criteria for cultural or historic significance set forth by local government, or found to be historically orculturally significant (by meeting federal, state, or local government criteria) in a resource survey. Generally, a leadagency must consider a property a cultural resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if it iseligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The California Register ismodeled after the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The National Register, California Register,and local designation programs are discussed below.

Federal Level

There are numerous federal regulations, executive orders, and policies that direct management of cultural resourceson federal lands and by federal agencies. These include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 36 CFR Part800, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) 16 USC 470 & 43 CFR 7, Native American GravesProtection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 25 USC 3001 & 43 CFR 10, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act(AIRFA) Executive Order 13007, and Public Lands, Interior 43 CFR 8365.1-7.

The National Register

The National Register has an established set of significance criteria to which each potentially eligible historic propertymust be evaluated. The criteria are reviewed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60. In essence, aproperty is considered eligible for nomination to the National Register if the quality of significance in American history,architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possessintegrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the

broad patterns of our history;B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or;C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic

value, or that represent a significant and distinguished entity whose componentsmay lack individual distinction, or;

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory and history.

23

Prehistoric sites are usually accepted on the National Register based on Criterion D. Archaeological sites vary incomplexity from:

1. Village complexes with multiple artifact classes and a deep midden (organic

deposit formed by decomposing debris), and usually include an associatedcemetery, to

2. Support camps depicted by shallow deposits with limited artifact classes, to3. Limited use areas, such as processing areas (e.g. shellfish; hard seeds; acorns),

procurement areas (e.g. plant gathering areas; lithic quarry sites; and huntingblinds), and ceremonial areas (e.g. shamanic; annual rites; puberty rites), to

4. Minimal expressions of Native American use of an area can frequently be found in

widely scattered surface artifacts or in a single artifact which is described as anisolate or occasional “drop site.”

Particularly, village complexes normally have the ability to provide information to address regional research questionsand, as such, contribute to the broad patterns in prehistory. However, support camps and limited use areas can alsoqualify if they include significant ritual areas or are included in a district. A National Register district comprises a groupof sites, normally related geographically, which possess a common location, setting, feeling and association.

Sacred areas often leave no trace of Native American use, thus, consultation with local Native American groups isnecessary to avoid inadvertent problems with respect to places held to be secret or sacred by Native Americans.

The guidelines (National Register Bulletins) for assessing cultural resources are reviewed for the current projectincluding seven specific publications that address prehistoric archaeological, historic archaeological, andethnographical sites as enumerated below:

#12 Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archaeological Properties

#15 How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation#18 How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes

#24 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning#30 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes#36 Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeology Sites and Districts#38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties

National Registry of Natural Landmarks

Federally, the National Registry of Natural Landmarks (49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 641) (NRNL) is a voluntary programthat works to encourage and support preservation of sites that strengthen the public appreciation of the Nation’sgeological and ecological heritage. As of July 2014, 597 sites have been added to the National Registry of NationalLandmarks. National Natural Landmarks (NNL) are nationally significant sites owned by a number of different landstewards. The NRNL obtains its legislative authority from the 1935 Historic Sites Act. Nevertheless, the program doesnot have the same protection features of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, designationsmade under the NRNL merely represent an agreement from the land owner of a significant natural resource to preserveit. The preservation of the NNL and administration is the land owner’s responsibility, as the federal government doesnot include land acquisition as a goal of the program. Further, the agreement to preserve the NNL can be terminatedby either part after notification.

24

State Level

The goals of initial phase CEQA studies are to seek cultural resources on the subject property, evaluate the CEQA“significance” and “uniqueness” of such resources (if any), assess potential impacts upon those resources, andrecommend such impact mitigation measures as might be warranted.

Cultural resources are evaluated in terms of the criteria for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) listingand the CEQA criteria (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.). The CRHR criteria in part recapitulatethose for NRHP eligibility, which have been promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as follows.

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present indistricts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,workmanship, feeling, association and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the

broad patterns of our history; orB. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or thatrepresent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lackindividual distinction; or

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Ordinarily, religious, grave sites, or relocated historic structures do not qualify as cultural or historic resources;cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religiouspurposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings,commemorative property locals, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years usually arenot considered eligible for the National or State Registers. However, such properties will qualify if they are integralparts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

A. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic

distinction or historical importance; or

B. A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significantprimarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantlyassociated with an historic person or event; or

C. A birthplace or grave of an historical figure of outstanding importance if there is noappropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life.

D. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons oftranscendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or fromassociation with historic events; or

E. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment andpresented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no

other building or structure with the same association has survived; orF. A property primarily commemorative in intent of design, age, tradition, or symbolic

value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; orG. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

25

Cultural resources eligible for CRHR listing are defined by the California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 asincluding those formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP, State Historical Landmarks numbered 770 orhigher, Points of Historical Interest recommended for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC),resources nominated for listing and determined eligible in accordance with criteria and procedures adopted by theSHRC, and resources and districts designated as city or county landmarks pursuant to a city or county ordinance whenthe designation criteria are consistent with California Register criteria.

Local Level

The City of San Jacinto General Plan (City of San Jacinto, 2006) recognizes the California Environmental Quality Actas the basis for City policies regarding cultural resources. In addition, the City’s General Plan does identify two maingoals with a multitude of policies that apply to cultural resources.

GoalsLand Use Goal 4: Promote cultural awareness through the preservation of the City’s historical, archaeological, andpaleontological resources.Policies

Policy 4.1: Whenever possible, identify, protect, and preserve the historical resources

of the City.Policy 4.2: Encourage historic preservation in the downtown core.Policy 4.3: Increase public awareness of and accessibility to the City’s cultural heritage

And resources through educational visitor-oriented programs.Policy 4.4: Ensure new development is compatible with and complementary to

adjacent historic resources.

Land Use Goal 6: Preserve and protect the City’s cultural, historic, agricultural, and visual resources.Policies

Policy 6.1: Balance the benefits of development with potential

impacts to existing cultural resourcesPolicy 6.2: Identify, designate, and protect buildings, districts, and

sites of historic importance within San Jacinto.Policy 6.3: Use landscaping for screening, solar control, parking lot

shade, and other beautification purposes throughout the City.

Policy 6.4: Encourage outdoor gathering spaces, such as miniparksand plazas that encourage social interaction andalso enhance the visual character of the community.

Policy 6.5: Encourage the use of project design features thatreduce impacts to important local and regionalenvironmental resources.

Policy 6.6: Identify funding programs to assist private propertyowners in the preservation of historic resources.

Policy 6.7: Preserve and enhance public views of the mountainsand hillsides and other scenic vistas.

Policy 6.8: Preserve large groupings of trees, rock outcroppings,

and other valuable scenic resources.Policy 6.9: Protect valuable agricultural resources and encourage

the continuation of agricultural activities.Policy 6.10: Promote the maintenance of private and public

properties to enhance the visual appearance of the community

26

Predictive Model and Hypothesis

The use of a predictive model in archaeological studies stems from the New Archaeology theoretical framework thatwas developed during the 1960s. Scholars (Binford, Flannery, Wagner, Steward, Gamble, Cleland) throughout the1960s and 70s were especially concerned with understanding the cultural systems that populations used to adapt totheir environment and the settlement patterns they produced. Essentially, a predictive model attempts to understandthe relationship between site function, resource exploitation, and settlement patterns to recognize the patterns theymanifest in the archaeological record. Archaeologists study these identifiable settlement patterns to help locateunknown sites in similar environments and cultural systems.

The predictive model applies this methodology to assess whether or not a location classifies as a low risk, moderatelylow risk, moderate risk, high risk, or very high risk of encountering prehistoric or historic resources. There are twoapproaches that are frequently employed to assess the level of risk. Empirical approaches characterize patterns basedon observations. For example, an empirical assessment might classify a project area as extremely high risk becausethe project site is located within one-mile of a water source, which is a characteristic that has been observed at severalknown sites within the region. The deductive approach assesses the risk of encountering a site based upon traits orcharacteristics a population would select to meet their physical and social needs. For example, an archaeologist mightclassify all areas in close proximity to water as high risk because they predict that people would select settlement areasthat provided water and food resources. This study will use four predictive hypotheses to assess the risk ofencountering prehistoric and historic resources based upon cultural, geological, and environmental data.

Prehistoric Resources

The predictive model and hypothesis for prehistoric resources is based on examination of information related to theproximity of other prehistoric resources and the natural and cultural environment of the local area.

Since the boundaries of village sites are known to spread across modern parcel boundaries for several miles, our firsthypothesis is a spatial analysis of known site locations. If prehistoric sites have been documented within a mile of theAPE, then we expect a moderate risk of encountering prehistoric cultural resources on the APE. Risk is expected toincrease as the distance between the APE and documented sites decreases. In other words, the risk of encounteringcultural resources on the APE will be higher if a previous site was documented on another portion of the APE;conversely, the risk of encountering cultural resources on the APE will be lowest if the closest documented site waslocated between a half-mile and one mile away from the APE.

1st Hypothesis: Prehistoric sites will cluster around each other. If there are prehistoric sites located near the APE, thenthe APE contains a high risk of encountering cultural resources.

Additionally, prehistoric sites have been observed to be located near areas with abundant or specific natural andcultural resources near the APE. The Cahuilla and Luiseño used plant resources for many purposes, particularly forfood, medicine, and materials (Table 4). Since at least three biomes (riparian, sage scrub, and chamise-chaparral)may have originally existed on the lower and upper slopes in the region and in and alongside the drainages, a varietyof floral resources were available that were routinely used, such as those listed above (Mead 1972; Sparkman 1908;Kroeber 1925; Strong 1929; Weislander 1931-34; and Koerper 1981). These resources, coupled with the availabilityof granitic outcrops on the property, provided all the necessary means for gathering and processing plant remains.

These biomes, coupled with a permanent water source such as a spring or stream, also provided the ideal environmentfor human habitation. In 1983, Joan Oxendine conducted an investigation of all known late prehistoric/ protohistoricvillage sites within the inland Luiseño territory. Her review included an analysis of the geographic location of thesesites vis-a-vis aspect, elevation, geological base, and surrounding plant communities. Oxendine concluded:

27

“Environmental attributes of a village are a location at the edge of a valley, at the interface of two or moreplant communities (including a Riparian plant community), within 100 m. of a creek and spring(s), sandy loamsoil, slope of about 9%, and bedrock with horizontal or slightly sloping faces (Oxendine 1983:178-179). Thezone where the Valley and Foothill Woodland plant community meets the Chaparral would have provided thestaple foods of the Luiseno: seeds, acorns, and game animals. Seeds would have been collected from Marchto September, and acorns in October and November. Stores of seeds and acorns would have fed thepopulation throughout the year, including winter months when other vegetal foods were scarce. If the brushwas regularly burned, an increase in the animal populations would have occurred near a village during thewinter, and game would have supplemented the diet of stored seeds and acorns” (Oxendine 1983:29).

Table 4. Dominant Plants in Typical Local Plant Communities and their Uses by Resident Native Americans.

Plant Name Scientific Name Plant Usebrome (Bromus diandrus) food- seedspurple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra)willow (Salix sps.) wood much used for making bows;

inner bark used to make apron-like garment;also back piece worn by women

cottonwood (Populus sp.) material- inner bark usedto make apron-like garment; second part (ofwillow) worn behind by women

elderberry (Sambucus sp.) food- the fruit is used both fresh & dried;medicine- a remedy for female complaints

chamise, greasewood (Adenostoma fasciculatum) material- foreshaft of arrows;gum- a deposit of scale-insect

laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) material- basketryyellow bush penstemon (Kekiella antirrhinoldes) food- snapdragongolden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum) food- sunflowerredberry (Ramnus crocca) food- buckhornjuniper (Juniperus sp.) food- berriesgrasses (Graminae) foodwhite sage (Salvia apiana) food; medicinesedge (Carex sp.) material- basketrystinging nettle (Urtica holosericea) food-stems; medicineCalifornia laurel (Umbellularia californica) food; medicinemulefat (Baccharis viminea) medicine; materialflat-top buckwheat (Erigonum sp.) food; medicineprickly-pear cactus (Opuntia sp.) food- the fruit is eaten both fresh and dried;

the seeds are ground into meal.wild grape-vine (Vitis girdiana) food- the fruit is cooked

In addition to the necessity of water for survival, water sources are high risk because streams can erode the banks andtransport cultural resources or burials downstream. Cultural materials interred at a nearby site situated along the samewaterway could have been moved to secondary locations by natural geologic forces. Secondly, the likelihood ofsubterranean cultural resources is greater because sediment is frequently deposited during floods. The inundation ofsediment could hinder the visibility of cultural resources and/or completely bury surface material. Water resources areconsidered high risk because several prehistoric sites in the region have been documented near streams and rivers.Our second hypothesis assesses the risk of encountering prehistoric cultural resources by examining the proximity ofimportant natural and cultural resources near the APE.

28

Furthermore, the second hypothesis tests for the presence or absence of bedrock features and other sites consideredsacred to the local tribes. Archaeological and ethnographic research demonstrates that bedrock outcrops werefrequently used for food processing and ceremonial activities. In fact, bedrock outcrops may have been preferentiallyselected because they facilitated food preparation or fulfilled a social custom, such as puberty rites.

2nd Hypothesis: Prehistoric sites were systematically selected based upon their location to critical natural or culturalresources. Specifically, if the APE contains or is near (within a quarter-mile) important plant or animal resources,bedrock outcrops, tool stone, water sources, or other resources of cultural importance (such as sacred sites), thenthere is a higher risk of encountering cultural resources on the APE. If such resources are located within one mile ofthe APE, then we expect a moderate risk of encountering a prehistoric site or other prehistoric cultural resources.

Historic Resources

Historic sites within the region are typically associated with agriculture or ranches and farms. We hypothesize that ifthe APE contains an historic site, we will be able to observe standing building(s), historic trash scatter on the surfaceof the site, and/or dilapidated ruins or building foundations on the property. Further, it is hypothesized that if significanthistoric archaeological resources have been documented within one mile of the project area, then there also may bepotential for subsurface historic resources.

3rd Hypothesis: If historic buildings, structural remains, or artifacts are present on the APE, then there is a highpotential for subsurface material

4th Hypothesis: If the significant historic archaeological sites or resources are present in the proximity of the APE, thenthere is moderate to high potential for subsurface material.

RESEARCH METHODSRecord Searches

Eastern Information Center (EIC): Cultural Resources Record Search

A record search was requested by SRSINC Principal Investigator, Dr. Nancy Anastasia Wiley (see resume: AppendixA) on October 10, 2018, from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside.The results were mailed to SRSINC on November 2, 2018. The EIC is the official cultural resource records repositoryfor Riverside County and is part of the California Historical Resource Information System, established and maintainedunder the auspices of the Office of Historic Preservation. The information obtained by the records check utilized thecenter’s maps and records, identifying previously recorded historical/archaeological resources in or near the projectarea, and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity.

Registry of Historic Places

In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (SHL), the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California StateHistoric Properties Directory (HPD), as well as local inventories of cultural resources were reviewed to determinewhether any already-recorded significant cultural resources were located on or within a mile of the project area. All builtresources were assessed via the National Resource Status codes (NRS) developed by the National Registry of HistoricPlaces (NRHP).

29

Sacred Lands File Search

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on October 19, 2018 by Michelle Garcia to requesta Sacred Lands File record search to serve as a preliminary method to locate areas of potential adverse impact withinthe area of potential effect (APE) (see Appendix B). The NAHC response was received on October 26, 2018. TheNAHC record search did not produce any record of Native American cultural resources or sacred lands within a one-mile radius of the proposed project. SRSINC contacted thirty-eight (38) entities representing nearby Native groups.SRSINC received comments back from 8 tribal groups including: Agua Caliente and Augustine Bands of CahuillaIndians, Cabazon, Morongo, San Manuel and 29 Palms Bands of Mission Indians, and the Pauma and Soboba Bandsof Luiseno Indians.

Archival Searches

Historical maps and records consulted during this study included published literature in local and regional history,archival records of the County of Riverside, and historical topographic maps of the general region. In addition, thisresearch included investigations of General Land Office (GLO) land patents for the project area. GLO Land Patentsare some of the first historical documents produced as a result from the Land Ordinance of 1785, which authorized thetransfer of public lands to private individuals (http://www.blm.gov) . Finally, historical aerial photographs from 1967,1972, and 1978 were also consulted (http://historicaerials.com/) along with 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2018 aerial photos.

Field and Survey Methods

An in-field survey of buildings within the project area was conducted on November 23rd, 2018 by the SRSINC historicalcrew under the direction of Dr. Wiley. A 1940s simple vernacular concrete block house had been identified by therecords check as a building of potential historic interest within the project area. Aside from the residence, no prehistoricor potential historic cultural resources were identified within the project area.

In addition to the ground survey, an historic building assessment was conducted by the SRSINC crew to evaluate theintegrity of the structures on the property. This involved photographing every façade of the structure, examining thefoundation, doors, windows, roofs, and other external elements. Notes of the overall integrity of the architecturalelements of the structures on the property were taken in conjunction with the photographs for further analysis. Thisstructure was examined in detail; given its altered and damaged state it does not meet the criteria for significance asindicated by the previous assessment (Dice 2010; Appendix D).

RESEARCH RESULTS

Record Searches

Eastern Information Center (EIC): Cultural Resources Record Search

The record search identified 30 previous cultural resources studies/surveys within one mile of the project area; noneincluded the subject property (see Appendix C). Further, the EIC records show that a total of 13 cultural resourceshave been recorded in or within one mile of the project area. One of the thirteen resources was located on the projectarea: 33-17928: a 1947 Concrete Farmhouse (see Appendix D).

Archaeological Resources

Only one prehistoric/protohistoric resource has been identified within a one-mile radius of the project area, 33-01471.This resource is a single isolated prehistoric artifact with no associated surface or subsurface artifacts (LSA 2005). Theartifact consisted of a ground stone fragment.

30

Sacred Lands File Search

A Sacred Lands File record search was conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). TheNAHC record search did not produce any record of Native American cultural resources or sacred lands within a one-mile radius of the proposed project. However, these negative results do not indicate the absence of cultural resourceswithin the area because many traditional cultural places and sites are only known by Native American tribes orindividuals. The NAHC provided a list of tribes culturally affiliated to the project area and recommended that thosetribes be contacted to further assess the presence or absence of cultural resources.

SRSINC contacted thirty-eight (38) entities representing nearby Native groups. SRSINC received comments back from8 tribal groups including: Agua Caliente and Augustine Bands of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon, Morongo, San Manueland 29 Palms Bands of Mission Indians, and the Pauma and Soboba Bands of Luiseno Indians. The Soboba Band ofLuiseño Indians is the only tribal group requesting formal consultation; the others either deferred to Soboba or statedthat the project area was outside their traditional territorial boundaries.

Table 5. Scoping Letters Tribal Recipient Chart Based on NAHC Contacts List.

Tribe Contact Emailed Mailed ResponseAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

o Acbci-thpo@aguacaliente.netJeff Grubbe,Patricia Garcia-Plotkin

X X XDefers to Soboba

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Amanda Vance X XNo Concerns

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Doug Welmas X X

Cahuilla Band of Indianso chairman@cahuilla.net

Daniel Salgado X X No Concerns

Campo Band of Mission Indians Ralph Goff X

Chemehuevi Indianso chairman@cit-nsn.gov

Charles F. Wood X

Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado Rivero crit.museum@yahoo.com

Dennis Patch X

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Robert Pinto, Michael Garcia X

Fort Moiave Indians judybricker@fortmohave.com

Timothy Williams X

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nationo admin@gabrielenoindians.org

Andrew Salas

Gabrieleno/Tongva Nationo sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com

Sandonne Goad X

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of MissionIndians

o gttribalcouncil@aol.com

Anthony Morales X

Jamul Indian Village Erica Pinto X

Juaneno Band of Mission Indianso sonia.johnston@sbcglobal.net

Sonia Johnston X

Juaneno Band of Mission Indians AcjachemenNation

o kaamalam@gmail.como tromero@juaneno.com

Joyce Perry, Matias Belardes,Teresa Romero

X,X

31

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Thomas Rodriguez X

La Posta Band of Mission Indians Javaughn Miller,Gwendolyn Parada

X

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indianso chapparosa@msn.com

John Perada,Shane Chapparosa

X X

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Angela Elliott Santos X

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Virgil Oyos X

Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, Denisa Torres X XRequests

Continued ContactPala Band of Mission Indians

o sgaughen@palatribe.como rsmith@palatribe.com

Shasta Gaughen, Robert H.Smith

X X

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet Aguilar X XDefers to Soboba

Pechanga Band of Mission Indianso epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov

Mark Macarro, Paul Macarro X X

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation m.jackson@quechantribe.com

Michael Jackson Sr. X

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indianso admin@ramonatribe.com

Joseph Hamilton, JohnGomez

X X

Rincon Band of Mission Indianso bomazzetti@aol.com

Bo Mazzetti, Jim McPherson X X

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians John Valenzuela X

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indianso cmojado@slrmissionindians.org

Tribal Council X X

San Manuel Band of Mission Indianso lclauss@sanmanuel-nsn.gov

Lee Clauss, Lynn Valbuena X X XNo Concerns

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians John Flores, Allen E. Lawson X

Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians Steven Estrada X

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Goldie Walker X

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indianso jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov

Carrie Garcia,Joseph Ontiveros,Scott Cozart

X X XRequests

Consultation

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Lisa Haws, Cody Martiniez X

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indianso mmirelez@tmdci.org

Michael Mirelez X X

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indianso 29chairman@29palmsbomi-nsn.govo amadrigal@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov

Darrell Mike, AnthonyMadrigal Jr

X XNo Concerns

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Robert Welch, Julie Hagen X

32

Historic Records and Archival Results

The historical indices consulted included: Local Point of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), TheCalifornia Register of Historic Places (CRHP), as well as the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No culturalresources were listed on these sources for the subject property. GLO maps from 1867 and 1880 encompass theparcels. No structures are present on any of the GLO records. Copies of land patents were unavailable from theBureau of Land Management. Nevertheless, the plat maps indicate that the project area was part of the Rancho SanJacinto Viejo (Figure 8: NW ¼ Sec.32).

Historical maps consulted for this study indicate that one historic residence is present in the project area (describedbelow). Historic topo maps and aerials show that by 1967 there was only one structure present within the project area;by 1978 additional farm buildings were erected. The progression of building additions is evident on Figure 9 whichprovides an historic aerial photo comparison of the years 1967, 1972, 1978, 1996, and 2018. Farming continued atleast through the 1970s and 1980s. By the turn of the century the property had converted to animal husbandry as it istoday.

Built Resources

Twelve historic structures were identified by the records checks as existing within a one-mile radius of the ranchproperty dating from 1907 to 1954 (see Table 6). The oldest residence includes the Hanson Stock Farm with a 1907Neoclassical structure, followed by a Rural Bungalow at Crosby Farms in 1910, and other 1910 and 1913 VernacularRural Wood Frame Farmhouses and associated barns. This is the era of the Cawston Ostrich Farm as discussedearlier. Vernacular and Craftsman-style bungalows were popular throughout San Jacinto by the 1920s; two suchstructures are near the subject property. The Russian Trans-polar Landing occurred nearby in 1937 on Earl Smith’sdairy land and a Moderne Milking Barn from 1939 is recognized as a locally significant Industrial Building in the region.

During the 30s and 40s there was a concerted push for channeling water to the various farms for the development ofrow crops and seed crops and especially alfalfa for the burgeoning dairy industry. For example, the Colorado RiverAqueduct had two building periods in 1933 and 1939 and the San Diego Aqueduct/ Casa Loma Canal was worked onin 1947 and 1951. This aqueduct is just north of the property at 7th and Sanderson and could conveniently providewater for the property. The building on the subject property is listed in the historic archives as Cultural Resource # 33-017928 located at 2451 West 7th Street and consists of a Vernacular Concrete Block Farmhouse. Another post- WorldWar II Modern Wooden Ranch house was constructed at 2670 7th Street.

2451 West 7th Street Vernacular Concrete Block Farmhouse

According to the archaeological site form for this historic structure the Riverside County Assessor lists the concretehouse as being built in 1947 (Appendix D) . The structure is surrounded by modern metal buildings, animal sheds andtroughs, and movable items such as a motorhome. The modified Vernacular Concrete Farmhouse is the onlypermanent residence on the property. The building was assessed in 2010 by Michael Brandman and Associates butgiven it’s heavily altered and damaged state, it was not considered significant as they described:

“A 1967 historic aerial photograph shows the house alone within the farm, which was being used for hay oralfalfa (see Figure 10). The structure is a concrete block house built in a simple vernacular style with aluminumwindows. It features a main east-west hipped roof with a gabled T-addition to the south. The gabled additionis probably not permitted as this makes the house roughly 1500 square feet. It has a composition roof, twosmall bedrooms and ¾ bath and has a permitted square footage of 1,000. The garage is attached and about12x20 in size. The farm complex outbuildings were built after the date of the historic aerial photograph. Thestructure is not considered a historic resource at the National, State or Local level of analysis.” (Dice 2010).

33

Figure 8. 1867 Plat Map for Township T4S, R1W, San Bernardino Meridian.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

32

Table 6. Historic Structures Located on or within a Mile-Radius of the Project Area.

Primary # Trinomial Resource Location/ Type Age Date Recorded/Recorder Code

P-33-0062872158 Esplanade Ave./Hanson Stock Farm/ NeoclassicalStructure

Historic: 1907 1982 (J. Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.) 3

P-33-007358 23290 Kirby St./Crosby Farms: Rural Bungalow Historic: 1910 1982 (J. Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.) 6Z

P-33-007307 33-2383-1123453 Kirby St./K.G. Rancho: Vernacular Wood FrameRural Farmhouse

Historic: 1910 1982 (J. Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.) 5

P-33-007308 33-2383-12 23885 Kirby St./Farmhouse w/ Barn Historic: 1913 1982 (J. Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.) 3

P-33-007301 33-2383-65 37255 7th St./Craftsman Bungalow Historic: 1920 1982 (L. Swift, Riverside County Historical Comm.) 5

P-33-14964 375 Kirby St./ Lula M. Graves/ Vernacular Bungalow Historic: 1920 2006 (N.Harris, Harris Archaeological Consultants) 6Z

P-33-009697 Russian Trans-polar Landing Site Historic: 19371987 (M.Lozano, Dept of Parks and Rec)SHL-0989-0000 1CL

P-33-007306 33-2383-10 23177 Kirby St./Moderne Milking Barn-Industrial Building Historic: 1939 1982 (J. Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.) 3

P-33-0011265RIV-006726H Colorado River Aqueduct/Old Aqueduct Road Historic: 1933/39 2000 (J. Goodmand & J Neves, SWCA, Inc) 3S

P-33-015734 RIV-008195 San Diego Aqueduct/Casa Loma Canal Historic: 1947/51 2005 (P.Easter, P Beedle Applied Earthworks, Inc 3S

P-33-0179282451 W. 7th St./Farmhouse: Vernacular Concrete Block***Subject Property***

Historic: 1947 2010 (M. Dice, Michael Brandman Assoc) 6z

P-33-0015267 2670 Seventh St/ Modern Ranch post WWII Historic: 1954 2006 (S. McElroy/Historic Property Development 6Z

P-33-14710 Isolated Ground stone, Excavation Prehistoric 2005 (R. Goodwin, LSA Associates Inc.)

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

33

Figure 9. Project Area as Shown on Respective Historic Aerial Photographs.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

34

Figure 10. 1967 USGS Map and 1967 Aerial Photograph Showing Location of the Project Area. Note: Only One Structure is Present on the Property, the1947 Concrete Farmhouse at the North End of the Entrance Driveway.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

35

Field and Survey Results

The pedestrian survey did not yield evidence for any prehistoric cultural resources. Additionally, no historic debris ortrash scatters were identified on the surface of the project area, but the heavily altered and damaged 1940s residenceis still present on the project area as described. Figures 11 to 18 provide photographs documenting the current stateof the structure. The structure is situated at the top or north end of the property entrance road surrounded by modernmetal buildings, animal sheds and troughs, and movable items such as a motorhome.

Figure 11 provides a view of the front (south) of the modified structure surrounded by mature trees which obscure afull view of the concrete house (grey building). Part of the hipped roof is visible. A white mobile home is parked next to(east) of the original residence. Pillars from the western portion of the structure (the gabled house addition) are visible(white building). The porch attached to the gabled building addition is again shown in Figure 12 and is attached to thesouth side of the concrete farmhouse. The 1947 farmhouse is visible in the background in this photograph with a clearview of the hipped roof. Closeup views of the east and north sides of the concrete house (Figures 13 and 14) showthe aluminum windows. An electrical box and outside piping indicate that wires and other lines were at some point intime moved outside from their original placement between the concrete walls. Modern trash is scattered around theback of the house and under a very old willow tree.

The next set of photographs, Figures 15 and 16, highlight the back or north side of the concrete structure and clearlyshow repair seams from opening the walls to move/remove utilities and replace/remove doors and windows. The backof a wooden converted garage is also visible attached to the west side of the concrete building. Closeup views of thegarage are provided which show shiplap building construction. The relationship of the garage to the original hip roofedstructure and the wooden gabled addition is also revealed (Figures 17). A metal barn, one of many outbuildings, isvisible in the background in a northeast view of the front of the building complex (Figure 18).

This series of photographs clearly documents the major changes to the original 1947 concrete block farmhouse throughthe addition of a wooden gabled structure with porch and the addition of a wooden garage both on the west side of theresidence. Removal and replacement of windows, doors and utilities left visible repair seams in the pattern of theconcrete blocks. These additions and changes affect the integrity of the structure rendering it not significant as anhistoric resource.

The final four photographs (Figures 19-22) provide an overview of the ranch and its operations. Currently the propertyis used for animal husbandry including raising horses, cattle, goats, turkeys, egg laying chickens, individual cocks andplant crops such as pumpkins.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

36

Figure 11. Entrance to the Residential Complex Surrounded by Mature Stand of Trees. View LookingNortheast Shows White Wooden Structure and Porch Attached to the Left Front of the Original 1947 GreyConcrete House.

Figure 12. Eastern Side of Building Complex Showing Gabled Addition Attached to the Southern Side (Front)of 1947 Concrete Block House. View Looking North Shows Hip Roof on the Concrete Structure.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

37

Figure 13. Views of Eastern Side of 1947 House and Highlights of Concrete Brick Construction.

Figure 14. View of Back of Concrete Structure looking South and Very Old Willow Tree.

.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

38

Figure 15. Repair Seams on East Side and South or Back Wall of the Main Structure.

Figure 16. View of Back of Concrete Structure Showing Attached Wooden Converted Garage LookingSouthwest.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

39

Figure 17. Closeup of Old Shiplap Construction on Part of the Attached Garage and Views Looking East atthe Complex.

Figure 18. View of Front of Building Complex Looking Northwest Showing Attached Garage and GabledWooden Addition to the 1947 Concrete House.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

40

Figure 19. Entrance to Ranch Looking North Showing Fence Complexes Bordering 7th Street. Large WillowTree in Center Background Towers over the Residential Complex.

Figure 20. Examples of Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Products on the Ranch.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

41

Figure 21. Goats, Turkeys, Egg Laying Chickens and Cock Pens on the Ranch Near the ResidentialStructures.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

42

Predictive Model Results

The hypotheses were tested through all information presented within this report, including background research,records checks, Native American consultation, and the cultural resources survey. Results are presented belowfollowed by analysis.

1st Hypothesis: If there are prehistoric sites located near the APE, then the APE contains a high risk of encounteringcultural resources.Results: No prehistoric/protohistoric site is located within one mile of the project area, and one isolated ground stonefragments provides the only artifactual evidence: LOW RISK

2nd Hypothesis: Prehistoric sites were systematically selected based upon their location to critical natural or culturalresources. Specifically, if the APE contains or is near (within a quarter-mile) important plant or animal resources,bedrock outcrops, tool stone, water sources, or other resources of cultural importance (such as sacred sites), thenthere is a high risk of encountering cultural resources on the APE. If such resources are located within one mile of theAPE, then we expect a moderate risk of encountering a prehistoric site or other prehistoric cultural resources.Results: No bedrock outcrops are present on the project area, and no milling sites are located within one mile of theproject area. The San Jacinto River, which flows seasonally, is located over one-mile away from the project area.Based on these findings, the results suggest: LOW RISK.

3rd Hypothesis: If historic buildings, structural remains, or artifacts are present on the APE, then there is a highpotential for subsurface material.Results: YES, a 1940s Vernacular Concrete Block Rural Farm house is present on the project parcel, but the surveyestablished that the home has been heavily altered with building additions and suffered damage fromreplacement/removal of utilities, windows and doors and therefore is not considered significant however, subsurfacematerials associated with use of the structure can be anticipated: MODERATE-to-HIGH RISK.

4th Hypothesis: If historic archaeological sites or resources are present in the proximity of the APE, then there is amoderate to high potential for subsurface material.Results: YES, Numerous historic resources are recorded within one mile of the project area: MODERATE RISK.

As indicated in the Record Search Results, a total of 13 resources were identified within one mile of the project area.According to the EIC files, only one of recorded resources is prehistoric/protohistoric consisting of a single isolatedground stone fragment. The remaining 12 resources consist of historic residences and associated agricultural buildings.The proposed project area does not have any bedrock outcrops and it is located over one mile from the San JacintoRiver. Furthermore, this survey on the project parcels and previous surveys within a one-mile radius of the project areahave produced no artifactual evidence of prehistoric use. The survey conducted here, however, did encounter a 1940sVernacular Concrete Block Rural Farm house, but given its heavily altered and dilapidated state, it does not meet thecriteria for significance.

The final risk is assessed by considering all the factors tested. Aside from the presence of an historic residence, whichdoes not meet the criteria for significance, we did not encounter any additional historic cultural resources, and noprehistoric resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. Given the presence of a historic residence and ahistory of agricultural use, there is always a chance of encountering subsurface materials. Based on our predictivemodel, there is a Low risk for encountering subterranean prehistoric cultural resources and a Moderate-to-High risk ofencountering historic resources on the APE. Therefore, this study advises archaeological and Native monitoring duringany groundbreaking activities.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

43

ANALYSIS OF STUDY RESULTS

Significance Criteria

Under CEQA, a proposed development must be evaluated to determine how it may impact the potential eligibility of astructure(s), or a site, for designation as an historic resource. The thresholds for determining the significance ofenvironmental effects on cultural resources are derived from the CEQA Guidelines as defined in §15064.5. Pursuantto this guidance, a project that would physically detract, either directly or indirectly, from the integrity and significanceof the historical resource such that its eligibility for listing in the National Register, California Register, or local registrywould no longer be maintained, is considered a project that would result in a significant impact on the historicalresource. Therefore, studies must evaluate direct and indirect impacts (how the project would/could alter potentiallysignificant project-specific resources and neighboring resources). Adverse impacts, that may or may not rise to a levelof significance, result when one or more of the following occurs to a cultural resource: demolition, relocation,conversion, rehabilitation, alteration, or new construction on the site or in the vicinity. The following sections examinethe property’s potential significance in relation to National, State, and local criteria.

National and State Significance

Broad Patterns of History

Regarding broad patterns of history, the following are the relevant criteria:National Register Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to thebroad patterns of our history.California Register Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to thebroad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.

The property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Nationalor State history.

Significant Persons

With regard to associations with important persons, the following are the relevant criteria:National Register Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.California Register Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

The property is not associated with any persons significant to National or State history. A number of different peopleowned the parcel; however, their association with the land, and the documented resources, does not meet thiscriterion.

Architecture

Regarding architecture, design or construction, the following are the relevant criteria:National Register Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method ofconstruction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent asignificant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.California Register Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, ormethod of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artisticvalues.

Although a 1940s Vernacular Concrete Block Rural Farm house is present in the project area it has been heavily alteredand damaged by removal/replacement of utilities, doors and windows. In its current state it would not qualify as asignificant resource under this category as it would not be regarded as the work of a master architect or possess highartistic value.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

44

Archaeology

National Register Criterion D: Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory orhistory.California Register Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory orhistory.

The property as a whole is unlikely to yield any archaeological information important to National or State history. Noprehistoric or historic sites were identified on the parcel.

Local Significance

The City of San Jacinto has developed a series of resource management goals to help advise on their city planning(The City of San Jacinto 2015). Resource management goal four (4) was designed to protect the city’s cultural andhistoric resources:

Resource Management Goal 4: Promote cultural awareness through the preservation of the City's historical,archaeological, and paleontological resources.

Policy 4.1: Wherever possible, identify, protect and preserve the historical resources of the City.Policy 4.2: Encourage historic preservation in the downtown core.Policy 4.3: Increase public awareness of and accessibility to the City's cultural heritage and

resources through educational visitor-oriented programs.Policy 4.4: Ensure new development is compatible with and complementary to adjacent historicresources.

The Project meets the City of San Jacinto’s resource management goals as efforts were made to identify significantcultural resources under CEQA. The Project will have no effect on the historic downtown core. Again, as no knownsignificant resources will be affected by the project, Policy 4.3 and 4.4 do not apply to the current project.

Resource Management Goal 6: Preserve and protect the City’s cultural, historic, agricultural, and visual resources.Since the single historic building on the subject property is not considered a significant historic resource preservationand protection of the structure is not an issue.

Mitigation Analysis

Cultural Resources

The results of this study indicate that there are no known significant resources located on the property. Although itappears the current project will have no direct impact on any known cultural resources of significance, the historicresidence located on the project area and the presence of several historic structures and resources within a quarter-,half-, and mile-radius of the project area indicate there is a MODERATE-to-HIGH RISK of encountering subterraneancultural resources. We recommend that qualified archaeological and Native American monitors be present duringgrading. Monitors are recommended during all earth-moving activities in areas deemed as a moderate risk or above.

Overall, the APE represents a moderate risk because the project parcels are known to have a structure and a historyof use for agricultural purposes. The Riverside County Cultural Resources Investigations Standard Scopes of Workstipulates archaeological monitoring on all projects unless no archaeological resources are known on the property orwithin the one-mile record search radius. Therefore, archaeological monitoring is strongly recommended during allearth-moving activities because of the documented historic use of the property, the numerous historic resources in theAPE, the presence of one prehistoric/protohistoric cultural artifact documented within one mile of the property, and theproximity to a seasonal water source (the San Jacinto River).

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

45

In general, any soil-disturbing activity, including foundation removal, excavation, grading, utilities installation, anddriving of piles for shoring or foundation work pose risks to subsurface archaeological resources. Trash dumps, glassbottles, tin cans, shotgun shells, privies, changes in soil colorations, human or animal bone, pottery, chipped or shapedstone, shell-midden, etc. are all potential indications of an archaeological site. Therefore, caution should be takenduring ground-disturbing activities. Excavation of potential cultural resources should not be attempted by projectpersonnel. While Phase-1 reconnaissance-level surveys are helpful in locating cultural resources prior to development,it should be recognized that the nature of the study does not preclude the existence of subsurface deposits; there is adistinct possibility that cultural materials may exist in the area of proposed construction. Please refer to the followingsection for any recommended mitigation and the protocols for the event of unearthed burials/human remains.

Human Remains

Although there was no evidence suggesting human remains would be discovered during the construction phase, thefollowing section will discuss the procedures that must be followed in the event human remains are inadvertentlylocated. If human remains are discovered, there is an established legal framework that must be adhered to. Alldiscovered human remains shall be treated with respect and dignity. California State Law (California Health & SafetyCode 7050.5) and Federal Law and Regulations ([Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)16 USC 470 & 43CFR 7], [Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 25 USC 3001 & 43 CFR 10] and [PublicLands, Interior 43 CFR 8365.1-7]) require a defined protocol if human remains are discovered in the State of California,regardless if the remains are modern or archaeological.

Upon discovery of human remains in California, all work in the area must cease immediately, nothing disturbed, andthe area is to be secured. The County Coroner’s Office of the county where the remains were located must be called.The Coroner has two working days to examine the remains after notification. The appropriate land manager/owner ofthe site shall also be called and informed of the discovery. It is very important that the suspected remains and thearea around them remain undisturbed and the proper authorities called to the scene as soon as possible as it could bea crime scene. Disturbing human remains is against federal and state laws and there are criminal/civil penaltiesincluding fines and/or time in jail up to several years. In addition, all vehicles and equipment used in the commissionof the crime may be forfeited. The Coroner will determine if the bones are historic/archaeological or a modern legalcase.

Modern Human Remains

If the Coroner's Office determines the remains are of modern origin, the appropriate law enforcement officials will becalled by the Coroner to conduct the required procedures. Work will not resume until law enforcement has releasedthe area.

Ancient Human Remains

If the Coroner has determined the remains are archaeological and there is no legal question, the Coroner will makerecommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation,or to his or her authorized representative. If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a Native American, he/sheshall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. The NAHCwill immediately notify the person it believes to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the remains. The most likelydescendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment or disposition of the humanremains. If the descendent does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the land owner shall reinter the remainsin an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the land owner does not accept the descendant’srecommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

46

Thresholds of Significance

The following significance criteria are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project would resultin a significant impact related to cultural resources if it would:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Based on the cultural study presented in the document NO known significant cultural resources will be affected by thecurrent project design. Nevertheless, subsurface cultural resources may still be present in the project area due to thelocation of the APE to the San Jacinto River and the history of agricultural use on the project parcels. Therefore, thisstudy finds that the project as currently designed would have a Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Impact Summary: Less Than Significant with Mitigation.

The Project would not impact any known historic or archaeological resources of significance. Grading could impactunknown resources. This impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation ofthe following Recommended Mitigation.

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

Cultural Resources

CR-1 An Archaeological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (AMMP) shall be developed prior to initiating construction.The plan shall involve monitoring of all ground disturbing activities by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and aNative American Monitor. The plan shall include protocol for the mitigation and significance testing of inadvertentarchaeological finds.

CR-2 Archaeological clearance will be granted under the stipulation that should any material be encountered duringthe monitoring the archaeologist has the authority to stop all earthwork in the immediate area of the finds (within 50feet), so that appropriate mitigation measures can be undertaken in order to test and evaluate the significance of thefind in accordance with CR-1.

CR-3 In the unlikely event of inadvertent discovery of human remains, the Coroner will be notified and all work inthe area must cease immediately, nothing disturbed, and the area is to be secured. Protocol will follow all applicablestate and federal laws [California State Law (California Health & Safety Code 7050.5) and Federal Law and Regulations([Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)16 USC 470 & 43 CFR 7], [Native American Graves Protection &Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 25 USC 3001 & 43 CFR 10] and [Public Lands, Interior 43 CFR 8365.1-7])].

By following these recommendations, the client will make their best effort to comply with the terms of local, State, andFederal legislation, ensuring that an appropriate cultural resource protection plan can be put into place with minimumdelay in the unlikely event of discovery during construction.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

47

REPORT CONCLUSIONS

No prehistoric cultural resources were identified during this survey. One 1940s residence is present on the project area,but it has been heavily altered and damaged, and therefore does not meet the criteria for significance. Despite thelack of other historic or prehistoric surface remains, the presence of the residence and the location of the project areain the vicinity of a permanent seasonal water source, the San Jacinto River, suggests a potential for subsurfaceremains. Additionally, a total of 11 other resources were identified within one mile of the project area.

Finally, as all other known recorded resources located within one mile from the project are either outside of the project’sview-shed, not considered significant, and lastly, would not derive any potential significance based on the project area,the project WILL NOT have any impact on neighboring resources. Finally, as NO significant cultural resources areknown to exist within the project area, this study indicates that the project would have Less than Significant Impact withMitigation.

The results of the predictive model suggest that the project area is at moderate-to-high risk for containing subsurfacecultural resources. Prehistoric resources are more likely to be encountered during earth-moving activities due to theclose proximity to other prehistoric sites, bedrock outcrops, and natural water sources. This study recommends that aqualified archaeological and Native American monitor be present during all earth-moving activities to prevent anyadverse impacts to any unknown buried prehistoric or historic resources.

CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the dataand information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented aretrue and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATE:

January 24, 2019

SIGNED:

PRINT NAME: Nancy Anastasia Wiley, Ph.D.

COUNTY REGISTRATION # 224

REGISTER OF PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS # 10461

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

48

REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, JM, DR Pedler, J Donahue, and R Stuckenrath.1998 Two decades of debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeology 19: 317-341.

Andrews, Beryl Penacho2001 Apricot Memories. Hemet: self published.

Applied Earth Works, Inc.2003 CA-RIV-7151H and CA-RIV-7152H Orangewood Investment Partners Tentative Tract 31280 Project in

Hemet, California. Historical Property Report, Prepared for Orangewood Investment Partners, LLC.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.2014. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended December 2014. Accessed

September 2015. http://www.achp.gov/nhpa.html

Ballou, Earl1971 “Wilbur Lou and the Hemet Stock Farm”, IN The Friendliest Valley, compiled by Tapper

and Lolmaugh, San Jacinto, CA.

California Office of Historic Preservation2015 California Environmental Quality Act. Accessed September 2015.

http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21721.2015 National Register of Historic Places. Accessed September 2015.

http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21237.2015 California Public Resources Code. Accessed September 2015.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/california%20code%20of%20regulations.pdf.

The City of Hemet.2015 History of Hemet. Accessed October 2015. http://www.cityofhemet.org/index.aspx?nid=120.

The City of San Jacinto2006. Conservation Element, City of San Jacinto General Plan.2015 History. Accessed October 2015. http://www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us/explore/history.html.

CRM TECH2014 San Jacinto River Levee Project (STAGE 4). Historic Property Report, Colton: CRM TECH.

Dillehay, TD.1999 The Late Pleistocene Cultures of South America. Evolutionary Anthropology 7: 206-216.

Dunham, Betty Jo2018 Personal Communication with Dr. Nancy Anastasia Wiley at San Jacinto City Museum, San Jacinto, CA.

Goebel, Ted, Michael R. Waters, and Mikhail Mescherin2001 Masterov Kliuch and the early Upper Palaeolithic of the Transbaikal, Siberia. Asian Perspectives 39: 47-70.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

49

Goodyear , AC III.1999 The Early Holocene Occupation of the Southeastern United States: a Geogarcheological Summary. In Ice

Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations, edited by Robson Bonnichsen andKaren L. Turnmire, pp. 432-481. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Harden, Deborah R.1998 California Geology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Hemet Area Museum Association2008 Images of America: Hemet. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco, Ca

Johnson, Donald Lee1977 The Late Quaternary Climate of Coastal California: Evidence for an Ice Age Refugium. Quaternary

Research 8:154-179.

Jones , Terry L. , and Kathryn A. Klar.2007 California Prehistory .AltaMira Press, New York.

Keller, Jean Salpas, and Daniel F. McCarthy1989 Data Recovered at the Cole Canuon Site (CA-RIV-1139). Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly

25(1):1-89.

Koerper, H. C.1981 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County,

California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Kroeber, A.L.1925 The Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover, New York.

Law, George1922 “San Jacinto’s Achievement in Dairying”. Los Angeles Times April 23.

Los Angeles Times1883a "San Jacinto: Glorious Rain-Progress of the Settlement-Encouraging Predictions” Los Angeles Times April 71883b "San Jacinto Some News of the Settlement that is not Rose-Colored." Los Angeles Times , November 16.1908 "Prosperous Jacinto." Los Angeles Times , January 7.

Lompoc Journal1911 “Cawston Ostrich Farm Sold”. Lompoc Journal, Number 28, 2 December 1911.

McCarthy, Daniel F., and Leslie J. Mouriquand2003 Three Rock Art Sites at Coral Mountain, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Pacific Coast

Archaeological Society Quarterly 41 (4): 27-61.

McShane, Catherine1969 The Estudillo Family. The Journal of San Diego History: San Diego Historical Soicety Quarterly .

Accessed October 2015. http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/69winter/part3.htm.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

50

Mead, G.R.1972 The Ethnobotany of the California Indians: A Compendium of the Plants, Their Users, and Their Uses.

Museum of Anthropology, Greeley.

Moratto , Michael J.California Archaeology . Academic Press, Inc., San Diego

Munz, Phillip A.1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Norris, Robert M. and Robert W. Webb1990 Geology of California. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Orange Empire Railroad Museum

Orange Empire Railway Museum

2002. Southern California's Railway Museum: Santa Fe. Accessed October 2015.https://web.archive.org/web/20020925105544/http://oerm.mus.ca.us/.

2015 The Santa Fe Collection . Accessed October 2015.http://www.oerm.org/collection/santa-fe.

Oxendine, J.1983 The Luiseño Village During the Late Prehistoric Era. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Padon, Beth2010 City of Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Menifee: City of Menifee.

Pentacle Press, LLC.2015 California Missions Resource Center: San Luis Rey de Francía. Accessed September 2 7, 2015.

http://www.missionscalifornia.com/keyfacts/san-luis-rey-de-francia.html.

Perry, Lelila1971 “The Fruitvale Area”, The Friendliest Valley, compiled by Tapper and Lolmaugh, Hungry Eye

Books, Hemet CA

Pitman, Leon1976 “Domestic Tankhouses of Rural America.” Pioneer America 8 pp.84-97.

Portland Cement Association1947 Why People Like Concrete Homes. Second Edition. Chicago, Illinois.

Riverside Daily Press1914 “San Jacinto” (Cawston Ostrich Farm). Riverside Daily Press, Number 154, 29 June 1914- page 3.

Riverside County Historical Commission1988 Soviet Transpolar Landing Site. Application for Registration of Historical Landmark. Office of Historic

Preservation.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

51

Schurr, Theodore G.2004a An Anthropological Genetic View of the Peopling of the Americas. The Settlement of the American

Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography, by GA Clark, CM Barton , D Yesnerand G Pearson, pp.11-27. Tucson: Arizona State University Press.

2004b The Peopling of the New World: Perspectives from Molecular Anthropology. Annual Review ofAnthropology 33: 551-583.

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians2013 Environmental Impact Statement. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. September. Accessed

October 2015. https://www.soboba-nsn.gov/eis.

Sparkman, P. S.1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and

Ethnology 8(4).

SRSINC

2008 Report of Findings From a Record Search Conducted For Assessor’s Parcel NumberAPN 436-360-009. On File: EIC, UC Fullerton. Prepared for Panorama Properties,

Upland CA.

Stricklen, Louis1971 “Valley Agriculture: Its Rise and Fall”. The Friendliest Valley, compiled by Tapper and

Lolmaugh, Hungry Eye Books, Hemet CA

Strong, W. D.1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology

and Ethnology 26(1):1-358.

Sutton , Mark Q.2010 The Del Rey Tradition and its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological

Society Quarterly 44(2):1-54.2011a The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological

Society Quarterly 44(4):1-74.2011b A Prehistory of North America. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.2015 Revisions to the Palomar Tradition Model in Southern California Prehistory. Pacific Coast Archaeological

Society Quarterly 51(2):1-17.

Tapper, Violet and Nellie Lolmaugh, compilers1971 The Friendliest Valley: Memories of the Hemet-San Jacinto Area. Hungry Eye Books, Hemet CA

U.S. Department of the Interior: National Park Service2009 National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Accessed September 2015.

https://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/docs/NNLRegistry.pdf.

Vienten, Bob2009 Historic Homes of Hemet: Park Hill, Fruitvale, & South Hemet. Pip Printing, Hemet, CA

Warneke, Jack

2018 Personal Communication with Dr. Nancy Anastasia Wiley via telephone.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

52

Warneke, Jack, K.M. Holtzclaw, and the San Jacinto Valley Museum Association.2008 Images of America: San Jacinto. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco, Ca

Warren , Claude1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185.

White, Raymond C.1963 Luiseño Social Organization. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Whitney, Mary E.2006a Pieces of the Past, from the San Jacinto Valley. Event Horizon Press, Palm Springs, CA.2006b Dairying in the San Jacinto Valley. Pieces of the Past from the San Jacinto Valley: 97-133.

Event Horizon Press, Palm Springs, CA.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

53

APPENDICES

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

54

APPENDIX A:

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:

NANCY ANASTASIA WILEY, PH.D.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

55

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

56

APPENDIX B

CONFIDENTIAL

NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH

& TRIBAL RESPONSES

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

57

Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

Native American Heritage Commission

1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100

West Sacramento, CA 95691

916-373-3710

916-373-5471 – Fax

nahc@nahc.ca.gov

Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search

Project: 1804 San Jacinto

County: Riverside

USGS Quadrangle Name: Lakeview

Township:_4S_ Range:1W__ Section(s): _32_

Company/Firm/Agency: SRS

Street Address: 11810 Pierce Street Riverwalk Executive Suites #209

City: Riverside Zip: 92505

Phone: 951-354-1636

Fax:

Email: mgarcia@srscorp.net

Project Description:

Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRSinc) has been requested to conduct a cultural/tribal rescource records checkand building assessment on 11.5 acres for Riverside County Assessor Parcel No 432-270-012.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

58

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

59

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

60

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

61

EXAMPLE OF SCOPING LETTER SENT VIA US POSTAL SERVICE

October 12, 2018

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla IndiansAttn: Patricia Garcia-Plotkin5401 Dinah Shore DrivePalm Springs, CA 92264

Re: Project #1804-San Jacinto

Dear Patricia Garcia-Plotkin,

I am sending you this letter to inform you of a proposed project located in San Jacinto, California. Scientific ResourceSurveys, Inc. (SRSinc) has been requested to conduct a Cultural/Tribal Resources Records Check and HistoricBuilding Assessment for 11.5 acres on Riverside Assessor Parcel No 432-270-012.

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was completed for this projectarea and yielded negative results. In addition, SRSinc has conducted a record search at the Eastern InformationCenter; the results indicate twenty six (26) historic resources have been recorded within one mile of the project area.

Please contact us at your earliest convenience if you have any information regarding cultural resources located nearthe project areas. All information and recommendations provided by you will be filed with the Lead Agency. Inaccordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.1(d), the lead agency will contact you within 14 (fourteen) daysafter rendering a decision to proceed with the proposed project. California Native American tribes have 30 (thirty) daysto request consultation pursuant to the aforementioned Public Resources Code.

Please send your response regarding any concerns, comments, or recommendations you may have relating to theproposed project to our corporate office at:

SRSincAttn: Michelle Garcia11810 Pierce StRiverwalk Executive Suites # 209Riverside, CA 92505Tel: 951-354-1636

If you have any questions, please contact me at the phone number listed above. You may also email me directly atmgarcia@srscorp.net. I look forward to discussing any comments or concerns you may have.

Thank you in advance for your help on this matter.

Sincerely,

Michelle GarciaOffice, Lab, & GIS Supervisor

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

62

EXAMPLE OF SCOPING LETTER SENT VIA EMAIL

Subject: Fwd: SRS Project 1804

From: "Michelle Garcia" <mgarcia@srscorp.net>

Date: Fri, October 19, 2018 10:05 am

To: "Dr. Wiley" <wileycoyote@srscorp.net>

Priority: Normal

Options: View Full Header | Print | Download this as a file

-------- Original Message --------Subject: SRS Project 1804Date: 2018-10-18 14:41From: Michelle Garcia <mgarcia@srscorp.net>

To: Matias Belardes <kaamalam@gmail.com>, Shane Chapparosa<chapparosa@msn.com>, Lee Clauss <lclauss@sanmanuel-nsn.gov>, ShastaGaughen <Sgaughen@palatribe.com>, Sandonne Goad<sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com>, Joseph Hamilton <admin@ramonatribe.com>,Sonia Johnston <sonia.johnston@sbcglobal.net>, Mark Macarro<epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov>, Bo Mazzetti <bomazzetti@aol.com>, DarrellMike <29chairman@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov>, Michael Mirelez<mmirelez@tmdci.org>, Anthony Morales <gttribalcouncil@aol.com>, JosephOntiveros <jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov>, Dennis Patch<crit.museum@yahoo.com>, Joyce Perry <kaamalam@gmail.com>, PatriciaGarcia Plotkin <acbci-thpo@aguacaliente.net>, Teresa Romero<tromero@juaneno.com>, Daniel Salgado <chairman@cahuilla.net>, RobertSmith <rsmith@palatribe.com>, San Luis Tribal Council<cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org>, "Charles F. Wood"<chairman@cit-nsn.gov>

Good Afternoon,

SRS has been consulted for a project in Riverside county in the city ofSan Jacinto. Attached you will find a scoping letter and a topographicmap with the project area delineated. I have obtained your emailaddresses from the list that the NAHC sent me so if you have anyquestions or comments please feel free to call or email me.

Thank you.

Best,

--MICHELLE GARCIAOffice, Lab and GIS SupervisorSRSINC at Riverwalk11810 Pierce St.Riverside, CA 9250

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

63

Scoping Letters Tribal Recipient Chart Based on NAHC Contacts List.

Tribe Contact Emailed Mailed ResponseAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

o Acbci-thpo@aguacaliente.netJeff Grubbe,Patricia Garcia-Plotkin

X X X

Augustine Band of Cahuilla MissionIndians

Amanda Vance X X

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Doug Welmas X X

Cahuilla Band of Indianso chairman@cahuilla.net

Daniel Salgado X X

Campo Band of Mission Indians Ralph Goff X

Chemehuevi Indianso chairman@cit-nsn.gov

Charles F. Wood X

Colorado River Indian Tribes of theColorado River

o crit.museum@yahoo.com

Dennis Patch X

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Robert Pinto, MichaelGarcia

X

Fort Moiave Indians judybricker@fortmohave.com

Timothy Williams X

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation

o admin@gabrielenoindians.org

Andrew Salas

Gabrieleno/Tongva Nationo sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com

Sandonne Goad X

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band ofMission Indians

o gttribalcouncil@aol.com

Anthony Morales X

Jamul Indian Village Erica Pinto X

Juaneno Band of Mission Indianso sonia.johnston@sbcglobal.net

Sonia Johnston X

Juaneno Band of Mission IndiansAcjachemen Nation

o kaamalam@gmail.como tromero@juaneno.com

Joyce Perry, MatiasBelardes, Teresa Romero

X,X

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Thomas Rodriguez X

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

64

La Posta Band of Mission Indians Javaughn Miller,Gwendolyn Parada

X

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla andCupeno Indians

o chapparosa@msn.com

John Perada,Shane Chapparosa

X X

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Angela Elliott Santos X

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Virgil Oyos X

Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, DenisaTorres

X X

Pala Band of Mission Indianso sgaughen@palatribe.como rsmith@palatribe.com

Shasta Gaughen, Robert H.Smith

X X

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet Aguilar X X

Pechanga Band of Mission Indianso epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov

Mark Macarro, Paul Macarro X X

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma IndianReservation

m.jackson@quechantribe.com

Michael Jackson Sr. X

Ramona Band of Cahuilla MissionIndians

o admin@ramonatribe.com

Joseph Hamilton, JohnGomez

X X

Rincon Band of Mission Indianso bomazzetti@aol.com

Bo Mazzetti, Jim McPherson X X

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians John Valenzuela X

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indianso cmojado@slrmissionindians.org

Tribal Council X X

San Manuel Band of Mission Indianso lclauss@sanmanuel-nsn.gov

Lee Clauss, Lynn Valbuena X X X

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians John Flores, Allen E.Lawson

X

Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians Steven Estrada X

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Goldie Walker X

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

65

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indianso jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov

Carrie Garcia,Joseph Ontiveros,Scott Cozart

X X Xrequest

consultation

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Lisa Haws, Cody Martiniez X

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indianso mmirelez@tmdci.org

Michael Mirelez X X

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of MissionIndians

o 29chairman@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov

o amadrigal@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov

Darrell Mike, AnthonyMadrigal Jr

X X

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Robert Welch, Julie Hagen X

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

66

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

67

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

68

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

69

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

70

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

71

Subject: Fwd: 1804 - San Jacinto

From: "Michelle Garcia" <mgarcia@srscorp.net>

Date: Tue, November 13, 2018 1:22 pm

To: "Dr. Wiley" <wileycoyote@srscorp.net>

Priority: Normal

Options: View Full Header | Print | Download this as a file

-------- Original Message --------Subject: 1804 - San JacintoDate: 2018-11-13 11:59From: Cultural Pauma <cultural@pauma-nsn.gov>

To: "mgarcia@srscorp.net" <mgarcia@srscorp.net>Cc: "Dixon, Patti" <pdixon@palomar.edu>, Jeremy Zagarella<jzagarella@pauma-nsn.gov>, "jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov"<jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov>

Ms. Garcia,

The Cultural Office of the Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians has receivedyour October 15 notice for the 1804-San Jacinto Project. We will deferto the Soboba Band on any knowledge of Cultural sites or resources thatcould be disturbed during the development of this project. Pleasecontact us if there are any questions.

Thank you,

Mr. Chris Devers

Cultural Liaison

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians

--MICHELLE GARCIAOffice, Lab and GIS SupervisorSRSINC at Riverwalk11810 Pierce St.Riverside, CA 92505Tel:(951)354-1636

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

72

Subject: Fwd: RE: SRS Project 1804

From: "Michelle Garcia" <mgarcia@srscorp.net>

Date: Fri, October 19, 2018 9:35 am

To: "Dr. Wiley" <wileycoyote@srscorp.net>

Priority: Normal

Options: View Full Header | Print | Download this as a file

-------- Original Message --------Subject: RE: SRS Project 1804Date: 2018-10-18 17:05From: Jessica Mauck <JMauck@sanmanuel-nsn.gov>

To: "mgarcia@srscorp.net" <mgarcia@srscorp.net>

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI)regarding the above referenced project. SMBMI appreciates theopportunity to review the project documentation, which was received byour Cultural Resources Management Department on 18 October 2018. Theproposed project is located just outside of Serrano ancestral territoryand, as such, SMBMI will not be requesting consulting party status withthe lead agency or requesting to participate in the scoping,development, and/or review of documents created pursuant to these legaland regulatory mandates.

Regards,

Jessica MauckCULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSTO: (909) 864-8933 x3249M:(909) 725-905426569 Community Center Drive Highland California 92346

-----Original Message-----From: Lee Clauss

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:23 PMTo: Jessica MauckSubject: FW: SRS Project 1804

For your review

Lee ClaussDIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENTO: (909) 864-8933 x503248Internal: 50-3248M:(909) 633-585126569 Community Center Drive Highland California 92346

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

73

-----Original Message-----From: Michelle Garcia [mailto:mgarcia@srscorp.net]

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 12:42 PMTo: Matias Belardes <kaamalam@gmail.com>; Shane Chapparosa<chapparosa@msn.com>; Lee Clauss <LClauss@sanmanuel-nsn.gov>; ShastaGaughen <Sgaughen@palatribe.com>; Sandonne Goad<sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com>; Joseph Hamilton <admin@ramonatribe.com>;Sonia Johnston <sonia.johnston@sbcglobal.net>; Mark Macarro<epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov>; Bo Mazzetti <bomazzetti@aol.com>; DarrellMike <29chairman@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov>; Michael Mirelez<mmirelez@tmdci.org>; Anthony Morales <gttribalcouncil@aol.com>; JosephOntiveros <jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov>; Dennis Patch<crit.museum@yahoo.com>; Joyce Perry <kaamalam@gmail.com>; PatriciaGarcia Plotkin <acbci-thpo@aguacaliente.net>; Teresa Romero<tromero@juaneno.com>; Daniel Salgado <chairman@cahuilla.net>; RobertSmith <rsmith@palatribe.com>; San Luis Tribal Council<cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org>; Charles F. Wood <chairman@cit-nsn.gov>Subject: SRS Project 1804

Good Afternoon,

SRS has been consulted for a project in Riverside county in the city ofSan Jacinto. Attached you will find a scoping letter and a topographicmap with the project area delineated. I have obtained your emailaddresses from the list that the NAHC sent me so if you have anyquestions or comments please feel free to call or email me.

Thank you.

Best,--MICHELLE GARCIAOffice, Lab and GIS SupervisorSRSINC at Riverwalk11810 Pierce St.Riverside, CA 92505Tel:(951)354-1636

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is an external email. Use caution before clicking attachments orlinks.

For suspicious emails please contact the Service Desk at extension 4500or from the outside at 909 863 5700. You may also forward the suspiciousemail to spam@sanmanuel.com

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

74

November 28, 2018

Michelle GarciaScientific Resource Surveys, Inc.11810 Pierce StreetRiverwalk Executive Suites #209Riverside, CA 92505

RE: 1804 – San Jacinto (APN 432-270-012)

The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians appreciates your observance of Tribal Cultural Resources and theirpreservation in your project. The information provided to us on said project has been assessed through our CulturalResource Department, where it was concluded that although it is outside the existing reservation, the project areadoes fall within the bounds of our Tribal Traditional Use Areas. This project location is in proximity to known sites, is ashared use area that was used in ongoing trade between the tribes, and is considered to be culturally sensitive by thepeople of Soboba.

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians is requesting the following:

1. To initiate a consultation with the project proponents and lead agency.2. The transfer of information to the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians regarding the progress of this project

should be done as soon as new developments occur.3. Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians continues to act as a consulting tribal entity for this project.4. Working in and around traditional use areas intensifies the possibility of encountering cultural resources

during the construction/excavation phase. For this reason, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requeststhat Native American Monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Cultural Resource Department tobe present during any ground disturbing proceedings. Including surveys and archaeological testing.

5. Request that proper procedures be taken and requests of the tribe be honored(Please see the attachment)

Multiple areas of potential impact were identified during an in-house database search. Specifics to be discussed inconsultation with the lead agency.

Sincerely,

Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation OfficerSoboba Band of Luiseño IndiansP.O. Box 487San Jacinto, CA 92581

Phone (951) 654-5544 ext. 4137Cell (951) 663-5279jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

75

Cultural Items (Artifacts). Ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony reflect traditional religious beliefs andpractices of the Soboba Band. The Developer should agree to return all Native American ceremonial items and itemsof cultural patrimony that may be found on the project site to the Soboba Band for appropriate treatment. In addition,the Soboba Band requests the return of all other cultural items (artifacts) that are recovered during the course ofarchaeological investigations. Where appropriate and agreed upon in advance, Developer’s archeologist mayconduct analyses of certain artifact classes if required by CEQA, Section 106 of NHPA, the mitigation measures orconditions of approval for the Project. This may include but is not limited or restricted to include shell, bone, ceramic,stone or other artifacts.

The Developer should waive any and all claims to ownership of Native American ceremonial and cultural artifacts thatmay be found on the Project site. Upon completion of authorized and mandatory archeological analysis, theDeveloper should return said artifacts to the Soboba Band within a reasonable time period agreed to by the Partiesand not to exceed (30) days from the initial recovery of the items.

Treatment and Disposition of Remains.

A. The Soboba Band shall be allowed, under California Public Resources Code § 5097.98(a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains andgrave goods shall be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity.

B. The Soboba Band, as MLD, shall complete its inspection within twenty-four (24) hours ofreceiving notification from either the Developer or the NAHC, as required by California Public ResourcesCode § 5097.98 (a). The Parties agree to discuss in good faith what constitutes "appropriate dignity" as thatterm is used in the applicable statutes.

C. Reburial of human remains shall be accomplished in compliance with the California PublicResources Code § 5097.98 (a) and (b). The Soboba Band, as the MLD in consultation with the Developer,shall make the final discretionary determination regarding the appropriate disposition and treatment ofhuman remains.

D. All parties are aware that the Soboba Band may wish to rebury the human remains andassociated ceremonial and cultural items (artifacts) on or near, the site of their discovery, in an area thatshall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The Developer should accommodate on-site reburialin a location mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

E. The term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones because the SobobaBand's traditions periodically necessitated the ceremonial burning of human remains. Grave goods are

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

76

those artifacts associated with any human remains. These items, and other funerary remnants and theirashes are to be treated in the same manner as human bone fragments or bones that remain intact

Coordination with County Coroner’s Office. The Lead Agencies and the Developer should immediately contactboth the Coroner and the Soboba Band in the event that any human remains are discovered during implementationof the Project. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason tobelieve that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner shall ensure that notification is provided to the NAHCwithin twenty-four (24) hours of the determination, as required by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 (c).

Non-Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, thesite of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not begoverned by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, parties, and LeadAgencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specificexemption set forth in California Government Code § 6254 (r).

Ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony reflect traditional religious beliefs and practices of the SobobaBand. The Developer agrees to return all Native American ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony that maybe found on the project site to the Soboba Band for appropriate treatment. In addition, the Soboba Band requeststhe return of all other cultural items (artifacts) that are recovered during the course of archaeological investigations.Where appropriate and agreed upon in advance, Developer’s archeologist may conduct analyses of certain artifactclasses if required by CEQA, Section 106 of NHPA, the mitigation measures or conditions of approval for the Project.This may include but is not limited or restricted to include shell, bone, ceramic, stone or other artifacts.

Confidentiality: The entirety of the contents of this letter shall remain confidential between Soboba and ScientificResource Surveys, Inc. No part of the contents of this letter may be shared, copied, or utilized in any way with anyother individual, entity, municipality, or tribe, whatsoever, without the expressed written permission of the SobobaBand of Luiseño Indians.

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

77

APPENDIX C

CONFIDENTIAL

EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER

RECORD SEARCH REQUEST & RESULTS

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

78

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

79

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

80

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

81

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

82

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

83

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

84

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

85

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

86

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

87

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

88

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

89

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

90

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

91

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

92

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

93

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

94

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

95

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

96

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

97

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

98

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

99

APPENDIX D

CONFIDENTIAL

PRIMARY SITE RECORD- #33-17928:

1947 Concrete Farmhouse2451 West Seventh Street

San Jacinto, CA

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

100

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

101

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

102

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

103

SRS #1804 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search & Historic Building Assessment APN 432-270-012

104