The Wren Multiple-Family Development Project
Appendix C
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report
Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 670-110-043, -045,
-048 to -053, -055, and -056
CRM Tech
October 24, 2023
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NOS. 670-110-043, -045,
-048 to -053, -055, and -056
City of Cathedral City
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
City of Cathedral City Planning Department
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Prepared for:
Compass Consulting Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 2627
Avalon, CA 90704
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
October 24, 2023
CRM TECH Contract No. 4027A
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 670-110-043, -045, -048 to -053, -055, and -056, City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Breidy Q. Vilcahuaman, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: October 24, 2023
For Submittal to: City of Cathedral City Planning Department 68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
(760) 770-0370
Prepared for: Julie Gilbert, President
Compass Consulting Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 2627
Avalon, CA 90704
(909) 496-5960
USGS Quadrangle: Cathedral City Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Section 15, T4S R5E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)
Project Size: Approximately 10.48 acres (20.5 acres surveyed in total)
Keywords: Northwestern Coachella Valley; Colorado Desert; Phase I historical/ archaeological resources survey; no “historical resources” under CEQA
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between June and October, 2023, at the request of Compass Consulting Enterprises, Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 20.5 acres of vacant land in the City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Nos. (APN) 670-110-043, -045, -048 to -053, -055, and -056, located on the east side of Date Palm Drive and the north side of McCallum Way, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T4S R5E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed construction of a 204-unit apartment complex in the northern portion of the study area, namely APN 670-110-043, which measures 10.48 acres . The City of Cathedral City, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the study area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted pertinent local Native American representatives, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. Through the various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any “historical resources” within or adjacent to the study area. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Cathedral City a finding of No Impact regarding “historical resources.”
No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 4 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 4 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 6 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7 Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 8 Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Historical Research ......................................................................................................................... 10 Native American Participation ........................................................................................................ 10 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 11 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 12 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 15 APPENDIX 2: Native American Responses ...................................................................................... 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. The study area and the project area ...................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the study area ............................................................................... 3 Figure 4. Current condition of the study area ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies within the scope of the records search ......................... 9 Figure 5. The study area and vicinity in 1855-1856 .......................................................................... 10 Figure 6. The study area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................... 10 Figure 7. The study area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................... 11 Figure 8. The study area and vicinity in 1956 ................................................................................... 11
1 INTRODUCTION
Between June and October, 2023, at the request of Compass Consulting Enterprises, Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 20.5 acres of vacant land in the City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Nos. (APN) 670-110-043, -045, -048 to -053, -055, and -056, located on the east side of Date Palm Drive and the north side of McCallum Way, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T4S R5E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figs. 2, 3).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed construction of a 204-unit apartment complex in the northern portion of the study area, namely APN 670-110-043, which measures 10.48 acres (Figs. 2, 3). The City of Cathedral City, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the study area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted pertinent local Native American representatives, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections and their qualifications are presented in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangle [USGS 1979])
2 Figure 2. The study area and the project area. (Based on USGS Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle [USGS 1981])
3 Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the study area. (Based on Google Earth imagery)
4 SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Cathedral City lies in the northwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, a northwest- southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the westernmost part of the Colorado Desert.
Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the study area and its surrounding region are typical of southern California’s desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.
The study area is situated in a suburban setting in the northern portion of Cathedral City, near the Interstate Highway 10 corridor. It is surrounded mostly by residential neighborhoods of relatively recent vintages to the east and the south, a community church to the north, and vacant land across Date Palm Drive to the west (Fig. 3). The terrain is generally level (Fig. 4), with elevations ranging around 370 feet above mean sea level. The surface soil is composed of a light olive gray very fine sand.
The ground surface in the southern portion of the study area has been disturbed by the construction of two commercial buildings at the southern end, one of them currently occupied by a Dollar Tree store, and a paved road that runs east-west across the study area some 400 feet to the north of the buildings. The central portion of the property retains more of the natural character of the land, while the northern portion has been cleared in the past and is now devoid of any native vegetation (Fig. 3).
Vegetation in the central portion consists mainly of creosote bushes, brittlebush, salt cedars, and other small desert shrubs and grasses, with introduced landscaping plants found around the commercial buildings in the southern portion.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian (ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” of hunters and gatherers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes” (ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools, “cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.).
The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal 5 Figure 4. Current condition of the study area. (Photograph taken on July 21, 2023; view to the southwest)
food resources and relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period.
The most recent period in Schaefer’s scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern.
Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal “wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66).
It was during this period that brown and buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region.
The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and resource procurement; but in times of the lake’s desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremations.
Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-
6 19th century. The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.
The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources.
They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.
The Cahuilla people were primarily hunters and gatherers who exploited nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains. When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented by the body of fresh water. Once the lake had desiccated, they utilized the available terrestrial resources. They also migrated to the higher elevations of the nearby mountains to take advantage of the resources and cooler temperatures available in that environment.
The Cahuilla collected seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowls. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002).
Common tools and utensils included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally available material as well as exotic material procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink (ibid.).
Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Agua Caliente, Morongo, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine.
Historic Context
In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who 7 traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway 111.
During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).
Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws (Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat.
Cathedral City, one of Coachella Valley’s rapidly growing towns, was founded in 1925 and named for its location at the mouth of Cathedral Canyon. Conceived as a development for low- to moderate-income housing, Cathedral City was characterized by its narrow streets lined by small and often odd-shaped lots, and soon became known as the “blue-collar neighbor” of Palm Springs, the glittering desert playground for the rich and famous (Hardie 1990; Moore 1990). During the 1930s, the budding town gained impetus by enticing Palm Springs visitors with two prominent gambling casinos (Burke 1978:117, 120). In the post-WWII years, Cathedral City, together with the other “cove communities”—Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and La Quinta—along Highway 111, became a major driving force in regional development and began to play an increasingly important role in the regional economy. In 1981, Cathedral City was incorporated as the 18th city in Riverside County.
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
The historical/archaeological resources records search for this study was provided by the Eastern Information Center (EIC). Located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside, the EIC is the official cultural resource records repository for the County of Riverside in the California Historical Resources Information System. The purpose of the records search was to compile a complete inventory of previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources studies within a one-mile radius of the study area. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Historic Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.
8 HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH principal investigator/ historian Bai “Tom” Tang. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in local and regional history, U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856-1886, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1901-1981, and aerial/satellite photographs taken in 1959-2023. The maps are available at the websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS, and the aerial and satellite photographs are available at the website of Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online and through the Google Earth software.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On June 26, 2023, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. In the meantime, CRM TECH contacted the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians by electronic mail for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity and to invite tribal participation in the upcoming archaeological fieldwork. The responses from the Native American representatives are summarized in the sections below.
FIELD SURVEY
On July 21, 2023, CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester carried out the field survey of the study area with the assistance of Native American monitor Jeremy Cummings from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The survey was conducted on foot at an intensive level by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way, the ground surface in the study area was systematically and closely examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older).
Ground visibility was good to excellent (85-90%) despite the scattered vegetation growth.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, the study area had not been surveyed systematically for cultural resources prior to this study, although a linear survey had been completed along the segment of Date Palm Drive adjacent to the western project boundary for a fiberoptic cable project in the 1980s (Underwood et al. 1986; Fig. 5). Within the one-mile scope of the records search, EIC records show more than 20 additional studies on various tracts of land and linear features, which collectively covered approximately 30% of the land surface within the scope (Fig. 5).
As a result the previous survey efforts, one historic-period site, 33-009498, has been identified and recorded within the one-mile radius, representing the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad.
Located nearly a mile to the northeast of the project location, Site 33-009498 requires no further consideration during this study. No historical/archaeological resources were previously identified in the immediate vicinity of the study area.
9 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies within the scope of the records search, listed by EIC file number. Location of historical/archaeological resources are not shown as a protective measure.
10 HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical sources consulted for this study suggest that the study area is relatively low in sensitivity for cultural resources from the historic period. Prior to the 1950s, no human-made features were known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the study area (Figs. 6-8). By the mid-1950s, amid the post-WWII boom, a grid of roads was laid out immediately to the south of the project location, including the forerunner of today’s McCallum Way, although no further development had occurred as of 1959 (Fig. 9; NETR Online 1959).
The segment of Date Palm Drive adjacent to the western project boundary was built between 1959 and 1972, and the residential neighborhoods surrounding the project location gradually came into being during the 1970s-1990s (NETR Online 1959-1996). In 1996, a westerly extension of what is now Rosemount Road in the adjacent neighborhood to the east, likely a temporary construction access road, became the first human-made feature to appear within the project boundaries, but it was abandoned over the next few years, after the completion of that neighborhood (NETR Online 1996; 2002). The two commercial buildings at the southern end of the study area were constructed in 2012-2016, while the rest of the property has remained undeveloped to the present time (NETR Online 2002-2020).
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC stated in a letter dated July 26, 2023, that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity (see App.
Figure 6. The study area and vicinity in 1855-1856.
(Source: GLO 1856)
Figure 7. The study area and vicinity in 1901. (Source:
USGS 1904)
11 Figure 8. The study area and vicinity in 1941. (Source:
USGS 1941)
Figure 9. The study area and vicinity in 1956. (Source:
USGS 1958)
2). Noting that the absence of specific information would not necessarily establish the absence of such resources, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information. For that purpose, the NAHC provided a referral list of Native American tribes in the surrounding region. The NAHC’s reply is attached to this report in Appendix 2 for reference by the City of Cathedral City in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent tribes, if necessary.
As mentioned above, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which is the nearest tribe to the project location, participated in the archaeological field survey for this study. In a response letter dated June 29, 2023, Claritsa Duarte, Cultural Resources Analyst with the Agua Caliente Trabal Historic Preservation Office, requested to review copies of all applicable cultural resource documentation, along with the presence of an approved Agua Caliente cultural resources monitor during any ground-disturbing activities (see App. 2 for further details).
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey of the study area produced negative results for any potential “historical resources,” and no buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifacts more than 50 years of age were encountered. A small amount of refuse, including landscaping waste, metal cans, and bottles, were found scattered across the property, but the vast majority of the items are clearly modern in origin, and none of them demonstrates any historical/archaeological interest. A few older pull-tab beverage cans of indeterminate age were noted among the refuse, but these isolated items do not occur in intact depositional context and thus have no archaeological data potential. No refuse concentrations of historical age were observed.
12 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the study area, and to assist the City of Cathedral City in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”
More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))
In summary of the research results presented above, no potential “historical resources” were previously recorded within or adjacent to the study area, and none was found during the present survey. In addition, neither the Native American Sacred Lands File nor the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians identified any properties of traditional cultural value in the project vicinity, and no notable cultural features were known to be present in the study area throughout the historic period. Based on these findings, and in light of the criteria listed above, the present report concludes that no historical resources exist within or adjacent to the study area.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.” As stated above, no “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, were encountered throughout the course of this study. Therefore, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Cathedral City:
13 • No “historical resources” exist within or adjacent to the study area, and the project as currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical resources.” • No further cultural resources investigation will be necessary for this project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Burke, Tony
1978 Palm Springs: Why I Love You. Palmesa, Inc., Palm Desert.
CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Study. Http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm.
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856 Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J. D.
Gunther, Riverside.
Hardie, George
1990 Revitalizing Area Carries High Price Tag. The Desert Sun (Palm Springs) 8/4:D1, D5.
Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Moore, Steve
1990 City’s ‘25 Layout Hard to Redesign. The Press-Enterprise (Riverside) 12/4:B1, B5.
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research) Online
1972-2020 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity taken in 1972, 1984, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. http://www.historicaerials.com.
Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.
14 Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.
Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date Gardens, Indio.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972.
Underwood, Jackson, James Cleland, Clyde M. Woods, and Rebecca Apple 1986 Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey Report for the US Telecom Fiber Optic Cable Project from San Timoteo Canyon, California, to Socorro, Texas: The California Segment. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1901 Map: San Jacinto, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1897-1898. 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1958 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120’x60’, 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978.
15 APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, HISTORY/ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California, Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
16 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, ARCHAEOLOGY
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 “Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level,” UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside. 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.
Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Project Director, Field Director, Crew Chief, and Archaeological Technician for various southern California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Principal investigator for, author or co-author of, and contributor to numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 17 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Breidy Q. Vilcahuaman, M.A., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
2018 M.A., Anthropology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2005 B.A., Anthropology, University Nacional del Centro del Peru.
Professional Experience
2022- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2021-2022 Archaeological Technician, Applied Earthwork, Inc., Hemet, California. 2021 Archaeologist/Crew Chief, Historical Research Associates, Inc., Portland, Oregon. 2020-2021 Archaeological Technician, Cogstone Resource Management, Orange, California. 2020 Archaeological Technician, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino.
2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
18 APPENDIX 2
NATIVE AMERICAN RESPONSES
Dear Ms. Nina Gallardo,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Proposed 200 Unit Apartment project. The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area.A records check of the ACBCI registry indicates this area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. In consultation, the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
CRM TECH
Ms. Nina Gallardo
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
June 29, 2023
Re: Proposed 200 Unit Apartment Project
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 883-1134. You may also email me at [email protected].
Cordially,
03-007-2023-001
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.
*A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center.
*The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. # *Contact ACBCI THPO when survey times and dates are set up.
Claritsa Duarte
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
July 26, 2023
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Proposed 200 Unit Apartment Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
ACTING CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
7/26/2023
Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation
Counties
Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians
F Patricia Garcia, Director of
Historic Preservation
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
(760) 699-6907 (760) 699-6919 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Augustine Band of
Cahuilla Mission
Indians
F Amanda Vance, Chairperson 84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
(760) 398-4722 (760) 369-7161 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Cabazon Band of
Mission Indians
F Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Indio, CA, 92203
(760) 342-2593 (760) 347-7880 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Cahuilla Band of
Indians
F BobbyRay Esaprza, Cultural
Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Cahuilla Band of
Indians
F Daniel Salgado, Chairperson 52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 972-2568 (951) 763-2808 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Cahuilla Band of
Indians
F Anthony Madrigal, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Los Coyotes Band of
Cahuilla and Cupeño
Indians
F Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
(760) 782-0711 (760) 782-0712 Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
F Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5259 (951) 572-6004 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
F Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 (951) 755-5177 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 261-0254 [email protected] Quechan Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Manfred Scott, Acting
Chairman - Kw’ts’an Cultural
Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 210-8739 [email protected] Quechan Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(760) 919-3600 [email protected] Quechan Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla
F Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla
F John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians
F Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
F Jessica Valdez, Cultural
Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
Imperial,Los
Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
Imperial,Los
Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla
Indians
F Cultural Committee, P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 (760) 397-8146 Cultural-Committee@torresmartinez- nsn.gov
Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 200 Unit Apartment Project, Riverside County.
Record: PROJ-2023-003687
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Riverside
NAHC Group: All