Exhibit 6 Appendix C - Cultural Rev 6 (2026-03-30) — Glendale City Council, June 9, 2026

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T Garden River Bridge Project
Glendale and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County , California Prepared for:

Ruth Villalobos
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C310
Ontario, Ca 91764
Prepared by:

David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
With Contributions By: Nicholas Shepetuk, B.A.

Project No. RVA2205
Data Base Information:

Type of Study: Cultural Resources Assessment
Resources: Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 Section of the L.A. River; L.A. River Channel Keywords: Glendale Narrows, Reach 3, Los Angeles River Channel USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Burbank, California (1994)
March 30, 2026
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T
ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc. to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Garden River Bridge Project (project) in the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles , Los Angeles County, California. The work is being performed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A cultural resources recor ds search, additional research, field survey, Sacred Lands File Search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and paleontological overview were conducted for the project . The records search revealed that 14 cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in 18 cultural resources identified within a half- mile radius of the project site. Of the 14 previous studies, one has assessed the project site for cultural resources and one cultural resource (the Glendale Narrows segment of the Los Angeles River designated P -19-190897) has been previously identified within its boundaries. A [Draft] Regional Historic Context for Flood -Control Activities within Los Angeles County and an Architectural Assessment of Select Reaches of the Los Angeles River Channel, Los Angeles County, California prepared by Thompson et al. in 2022 was not available during the records search, but was provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The eligibility of the Los Angeles River channel as a whole, was described in the Thompson et al. 2022 study, and recommended to be a presumed historic District (P - 19-190897) eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criteria A and C. The individual reaches of the Los Angeles River District, including Reach 3 in which the Project will occur, though not found individually eligible, were presumed contributing elements of the Los Angeles River historic District as previously defined. As a cultural resource eligible for National Register listing, the Los Angeles River is also eligible for registration on the California Register of Historical Resources and is therefore a significant historical resource under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

During the research and field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists identified the historic- period Glendale Narrows segment of the Los Angeles River , which is roughly coterminous with Reach 3 (approximately 7.4 miles in length) of the Los Angeles River constructed between 1938 and 1939 . The Los Angeles River has been determined eligible for National Register listing and as such is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and a historical resource under CEQA . However, the proposed project will impact a tiny portion (approximately .06 percent) of the Glendale Narrows/ Reach 3 segment of the Los Angeles River. Based on the small percentage of the segment that will be subject to direct impacts , BCR Consulting recommends that the proposed project , a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Glendale Narrows, will not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource which can cause a significant effect on the environment under CEQA. Furthermore, the bridge abutments would be constructed to be higher than the existing elevation of the channel walls and would not touch the levee walls. Although the integrity of setting would be minimally impacted by the installation of the bridge, the setting of the Glendale Narrows/ Reach 3 segment has already been impacted by subsequent development of the surrounding neighborhoods and by the Interstate 5 and State Route 134 freeway bridges over the Los Angeles River that are visible from the proposed project site and were constructed after the period of significance. As such, the proposed project will not introduce any elements (e.g., bridges over the river) to the setting that are not already present , and the proposed project will not alter the ability of the EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T
iii
Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 to contribute to a larger district . Based on these results, BCR Consulting recommends that the project as proposed will not result in a significant impact to a historical resource (under CEQA). No mitigations are recommended for the current undertaking. No archaeological resources were identified during this assessment.

Disturbances associated with the construction of the Reach 3 of the Los Angeles River , recent development of bike and walking paths, recent reconfiguration of Flower Street adjacent to the north end of the project site, and modern development of athletic fields adjacent to the south side of the project site have disrupted soil beyond depths at which buried cultural resources are likely. Also, no buried discoveries have occurred in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the potential to encounter in -situ remains associated with significant archaeological materials during project-related excavation is low.

While the current study has not indicated sensitivity for unknown cultural resources within the project boundaries, ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface during previous surveys. Therefore, a list of recommendations is provided in the Recommendations section, based on the City of Los Angeles’ Best Management Practices for Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological and Paleontological Resources.

Sacred Lands File search results with the NAHC were negative. The NAHC has recommended contacting tribes listed (Appendix D) for more information. The lead CEQA agency will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project.

Therefore, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.

If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).

With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 1 NATURAL SETTING ............................................................................................................... 1 CULTURAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 3 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................... 3 ETHNOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 3 HISTORY .......................................................................................................................... 4 PERSONNEL .......................................................................................................................... 7 METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 7 RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 8 FIELD SURVEY ................................................................................................................ 8 RESULTS................................................................................................................................ 8 RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 8 FIELD SURVEY ................................................................................................................ 9 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS .......................................................................................... 10 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 10 NATIONAL AND CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATIONS .......................................... 10 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 11 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 16

FIGURES
1: Project Location Map ........................................................................................................ 2

TABLES
A: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project ............................... 9

APPENDICES
A: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
B: DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION 523 FORMS
C: DETAILED PROJECT EXHIBIT
D: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH E: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
F: RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

1 INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Ruth Villalobos & Associates to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Garden River Bridge Project (project) in the Cities of Los Angeles and Glendale, Los Angeles County, California . The work is being performed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in a non-sectioned portion of Township 1 North, Range 13 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, in the Cities of Los Angeles and Glendale . It is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Burbank, California (1994) 7.5 - minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1). A detailed project exhibit is provided as Appendix C. The project site consists of areas in which impacts from a proposed project to potential historical resources could occur. The project includes construction of an approximately 350- foot long three -span curvilinear pedestrian/bicycle bridge structure that spans the Los Angeles River with canopied seating areas. The bridge will be constructed using steel and concrete. It will be supported by two piers located in the river. Safety railings, trash cans, interpretive signs, pedestrian safety lighting, and other features will also be installed. The maximum height of the bents which will support the bridge from the floor of the channel will be 23 feet and six inches . The area of ground disturbance on the channel floor has been calculated at approximately 8,500 square feet. Staging and access will all take place within the project site boundaries depicted in Figure 1.

NATURAL SETTING
The local geologic region coincides with the physiographic area known as the Los Angeles Basin. It is characterized as a transverse -oriented lowland basin and coastal plain approximately 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. The basin originated as a deep marine trough during the Pliocene (7 -2 million years ago) that eventually filled with shallow water fossil bearing sediments. By the beginning of the Pleistocene (after 2 million years ago) uplifting created the series of plains and mesas along the coast that now characterize the area (Lambert 1994, Mendenhall 1905, Woodford et al. 1954). Local rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36 -37). The project region comprises a portion of the Los Angeles River channel, which (locally channelized and paved) flows from west to east. Although much of the native vegetation has been locally removed, c haparral, coastal sage scrub, and riparian vegetation communities dominate regional flora. Key native plants include black sage, California brittlebush, California buckwheat, California sagebrush, deerweed, golden yarrow, laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, poison oak, purple sage, sticky monkeyflower, sugar bush, toyon, white sage, coastal century plant, coastal cholla, prickly - pear cactus, arroyo willow, and bulrush. These plants were utilized by local animal species, kangaroo rats, California horned lizard, orange -throated whiptail, horned lizard, brown - headed cowbird, California gnatcatcher, California quail, cactus wren, darkling beetle, harvester ant, and Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Williams et al. 2008:117,122). Peripheral species included deer, and various rodents, rabbits, and birds -many of which were utilized by prehistoric and historic inhabitants (see Lightfoot and Parrish 2009).

EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

3 CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The local prehistoric cultural setting has been organized into many chronological frameworks (see Warren and Crabtree 1986; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Lanning 1963; Hunt 1960; Wallace 1958, 1962, 1978; Campbell and Campbell 1935), although there is no definitive sequence for the region. The difficulties in establishing cultural chronologies for Los Angeles County are a function of its enormous size and the small amount of archaeological excavations conducted there. Moreover, throughout prehistory many groups have occupied the area and their territories often overlap spatially and chronologically resulting in mixed artifact deposits. Due to dry climate and capricious geological processes, these artifacts rarely become integrated in -situ. Lacking a milieu hospitable to the preservation of cultural midden, local chronologies have relied upon temporally diagnostic artifacts, such as projectile points, or upon the presence/absence of other temporal indicators, such as groundstone. Such methods are instructive, but can be limited by prehistoric occupants’ concurrent use of different artifact styles, or by artifact re - use or re -sharpening, as well as researchers’ mistaken diagnosis, and other factors (see Flenniken 1985; Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Flenniken and Wilke 1989). Recognizing the shortcomings of comparative temporal indicators, this study recommends review of Warren and Crabree (1986), who have drawn upon this method to produce a commonly cited and relatively comprehensive chronology.

Ethnography
Although no previously recorded prehistoric sites have established a local prehistoric ethnographic affiliation, the project site vicinity is situated within traditional Gabrielino territory. The Gabrielino consisted of semi -nomadic hunter -gatherers who spoke a variation of the Takic language subfamily. The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other brief encounters took place over the years, and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the Uto -Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978). Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often administered several villages.

Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith 1978:540 -546). Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn -producing oaks, as well as seed -producing grasses and sage.

Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925:652).

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

4 History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).

Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in 1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino, crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).

Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions, reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes (Beattie and Beattie 1974).

American Period . The American Period, 1848 –Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period.

Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849 –1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861 –1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19 th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits that have continued to proliferate to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1941).

Water Resources in Southern California. Upon Spanish settlement of California in the eighteenth century, water was recognized as a vital resource and water rights were written into Spanish law. The first Spanish missionaries and settlers constructed a dam across the San Diego River, linking the resulting reservoir to the Mission San Diego de Alcala by way of a six -mile aqueduct and creating the first irrigation and domestic water system built in the west. Similarly, the Spanish in Los Angeles built a dam across the Los Angeles River in 1781 to serve their prospective pueblo.

Prior to the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in 1848, settlements throughout the state consisted of scattered missions and ranches with most streams and rivers running uncontrolled. Simple irrigation systems were constructed for individual settlements. As thousands of eastern immigrants from around the world flocked to California during and EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

5 after the Gold Rush, water resources were more extensively deve loped. Miners built hundreds of miles of flumes to sluice gold in streams, creeks, and rivers. Gold became scarce by the 1860s, and many residents of the newly admitted state of California turned to farming which heightened the demand for water. In subsequent decades the expansion of local agriculture was accompanied by higher populations and a diversified economy.

The 1881 completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad and the 1885 completion of the Santa Fe Railroad connected the region from the Mexican border as far north as Ventura and as far inland as Arizona. This resulted in an influx of settlers and land speculators who began subdividing and developing local tracts (Brock et. al. 199 2:19). The 1887 passage of the Wright Irrigation Act allowed formation and management of irrigation districts financed and operated by localities throughout California, stimulating agricultural growth.

This measure assisted agricultural prospects in Southern California and incentivized settlement on the farms and homesteads that had already been platted. Groundwater was pumped through artesian wells , and open canals were commonly used to transport water as early as the 1860s. By 1880, concrete ditches and pipes were commonly used to divert water from major rivers, and by the 1890s they had become standard in southern California. By 1900, stream flow from major rivers such as the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and San Diego Rivers, and their respective tributaries (including the Rio Hondo), was fully utilized. The swell of southern California’s population into the twentieth century necessitated more creative means of meeting growing water demands (Carle 2004:227; California Department of Water Resources 2020 ; Davis 1998; Harding 1960:2, 109; San Diego County Water Authority 2020).

In the early 1900s , state and municipal officials began to develop public works projects to diminish problems related to water conservation and frequent floods. In 1901, the state of California divert ed water from the Colorado River to farmlands in the Imperial Valley.

Later, the California Development Company unintentionally diverted heavy flood waters from the west bank of the Colorado River into the Salton Basin, creating the present -day Salton Sea (Water Education Foundation 2017). In 1913 the Los Angeles Aqueduct was successfully completed to supply water to Los Angeles from the Owens Valley on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Los Angeles would acquire more water and land rights from the Owens Valley in the early 1920s , expanding capacity of the new aqueduct (Carle 2004:228; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2007).

The rivers and washes of the Los Angeles Basin lose elevation quickly in their relatively short route from the mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and are therefore naturally prone to overtopping their banks. There were eight serious floods in the Los Angeles basin between 1815 and 1879 and nine more between 1884 and 1938 (Starr 1996:320). After the 1914 flood, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LAFCD) was formed in response to public outcry for protection from floods, to develop water conservation systems, and to enhance water-based recreational opportunities throughout the county (LAPW 2019). In 1934, Congress authorized $70 million of flood control spending on the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers and local tributaries, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would use to design, build, and improve flood control systems (Starr 1996:321).

The Flood Control Act of 1941 also enabled the channelization of the Los Angeles River, and subsequently the Rio Hondo, San Gabriel , and Santa Ana Rivers, to better control EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

6 and contain the flow of downstream water (Suburban Emergency Management Project 2006).

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal job programs enabled further expansion of water infrastructure projects. The Boulder Dam (later renamed the Hoover Dam) was built between 1931 and 1935 along the Nevada - Arizona border. It was intended for flood control and irrigation measures, as well as to generate hydroelectric power for Southern California. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, formed in 1928 and servicing the Los Angeles area, constructed the Colorado River Aqueduct in 1941. The channel directs water from Lake Havasu at the Arizona-California border to Lake Mathews in Riverside. It was routed through four dams and five pumping plants on its 242 -mile course (History 2018; M etropolitan Water District 2016). The postwar years saw an immense economic boom as people flocked to California for its climate and robust job market. The increased population and commerce in urban centers such as Los Angeles and San Diego would not be sustained by existing water conveyance systems. Groundwater basins were being rapidly depleted for the irrigation of vast acreage needed to produce food for a growing population. A drought in the 1940s and 1950s forced the Metropolitan Water District to absorb agencies from Ventura, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, expanding their conveyance district to 5,200 square miles. The San Diego Water Company, formed in 1944, began claiming a share of Colorado River water resources in the late 1940s, and oversaw an expansion of pipelines into the 1950s and 1960s. In 1951, conversations began regarding a State Water Project under the California Department of Water Resources. Construction for the project began in 1957, and construction of the California Aqueduct, the channel bringing Northern California water south, began in 1961. With the help of the Metropolitan Water District, the first State Water Project conveyances to Southern California were made in 1973 (C alifornia Department of Water Resources 2020; Water Education Foundation 2017).

Southern Californian water resources in recent decades have seen extensive conservation measures and expansion of existing infrastructure. In 1970, the passage of CEQA and the California Endangered Species Act opened the door to mitigating negative effects of development on water resources. That same year, groundwater from the Owens Valley and diversions from Mono Basin filled a second barrel of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The Federal Clean Water Act passed in 1973, which protected state -designated wild and scenic rivers. In 1991, the West Coast’s first sea water desalination plant was opened on Catalina Island. A period of drought from 1987 to 1993 caused member agencies under the Metropolitan Water District to diversify its water supplies through the Integrated Water Resources Plan. Enough water was preserved through conservation policies, water recycling, and recovery that it could fill a new Colorado River Aqueduct. A coastal branch of the State Water Project began supplying Santa Barbara County with water from San Luis Obispo County in 1997. In 2000, Diamond Valley Lake near Hemet, the largest reservoir in Southern California, provided a six -month emergency water supply for prolonged droughts, with water being supplied by the Colorado River and the State Water Project. Southern California’s water resources continue to undergo efforts of conservation and expansion today to meet needs of growing cities and drought concerns (Carle EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

7 2004:233; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2016; Water Education Foundation 2017).

The project site occupies the Glendale Narrows /Reach 3 segment of the Los Angeles River, which was channelized between 1938 and 1939. Ground water precluded a paved riverbed, and the Glendale Narrows segment was the only part of the river that was originally constructed with concrete banks and a natural bottom. The segment has occupied the same alignment since construction, but has been subject to maintenance and repaving in areas. The historic setting has been affected by the modern construction of athletic fields to the south, construction of Interstates 5 and 134 to the south, paved bicycle and walking paths, and the reconfiguration of Flower Street to the north (Slawson 2013).

PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as the Project Manager and Principal Investigator , and provided project oversight. Mr. Brunzell meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interio r Standards for Archaeology and for Architectural History . Mr. Brunzell also completed the cultural resources records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and performed additional research through various archives and repositories, and authored the technical report and Department of Park and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for the current study with contributions by BCR Consulting Archaeological Crew Chief Nicholas Shepetuk, B.A. BCR Consulting Staff Historian George Brentner, B.A., completed the field survey. Staff resumes are provided as Appendix F.

METHODS
This work was completed pursuant to CEQA, the Public Resources Code (PRC) Chapter

2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5. The pedestrian cultural resources survey was intended to locate and document previously recorded or new cultural resources, including archaeological sites, features, isolates, and historic -period buildings and structures , that exceed 45 years in age within defined project boundaries. The project site was examined using 15 meter transect intervals. This study is intended to determine whether cultural resources are located within the project boundaries, whether any cultural resources are significant pursuant to the above -referenced regulations and standards, and to develop specific mitigation measures that will address potential impacts to existing or potential resources. Tasks pursued to achieve that end include:

• Cultural resources records search to review studies conducted and the resulting cultural resources recorded within a one half-mile radius of the project boundaries • Additional research through various local and regional resources • Systematic pedestrian survey of the entire project site • Evaluation of California Register eligibility for any cultural resources discovered • Development of recommendations and mitigation measures for cultural resources documented within the project boundaries, following CEQA guidelines • Completion of DPR 523 forms for any cultural resources identified EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T
8 • Vertebrate paleontology resources report through Professional Paleontologists of the Western Science Center in Hemet, California.

Research
Records Search. An archaeological records search was conducted at the SCCIC on November 17, 2022. This included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports generated from projects located within one -half mile of the project site. In addition, a review was conducted of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), documents and inventories from the California Office of Historic Preservation including the lists of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Listing of National Register Properties, as included in the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD).

Additional Research. BCR Consulting performed additional research through the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, General Land Office records of the Bureau of Land Management, and various internet resources. Los Angeles and Glendale City resources reviewed included the Historical Places LA Historic Resources Inventory, the list of Los Angeles City Landmarks and Historic -Cultural Monuments, and the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Field Survey
An intensive -level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on November 15 , 2022 . Due to the developed and paved nature of the project site, reconnaissance archaeological survey methods were utilized, during which the visible ground surface along the northern and southern banks of the Los Angeles River were carefully inspected for evidence of archaeological resources. The small portion of the Glendale Narrows Segment of the Los Angeles River channel was recorded on DPR 523 forms. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project site. These included overviews as well as detail photographs of all cultural resources. Cultural resources were recorded per the California OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources in the field using:
• Detailed note taking for entry on DPR 523 Forms (see Appendix B) • Hand-held Garmin Global Positioning systems for mapping purposes • Digital photography of all cultural resources (see Appendix B and E).

RESULTS
Research
Records Search. Data from the SCCIC revealed that 14 cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in 18 cultural resources identified within a one half-mile radius of the project. Of the 14 previous studies, one has assessed the project site for cultural resources, and one cultural resource (the Glendale Narrows /Reach 3 segment of the Los Angeles River designated P -19-190897) has been identified within its boundaries. The Glendale Narrows segment is roughly coterminous with Reach 3 (approximately 7.4 miles in length) of the Los Angeles River constructed between 1938 and 1939 as identified in EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T
9 Thompson et al. 2022. The records search results are summarized in Table A and bibliographic details are provided in Appendix A.

Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Located Within One-Half Mile of Project USGS

7.5 Min
Quad
Cultural Resources Within One-Half Mile of Project Studies Within One- Half Mile of Project
Burbank,
California
(1994)
P-19-175297: Griffith Park (Adjacent S)
P-19-188087: Pomona Valley Creamery (0.25 Miles SE)
P-19-190312: San Fernando Road Bridge (0.25 Miles E)
P-19-190599: General Aircraft Co Bldg (0.25 Miles E)
P-19-190600: AirGas Inc. Building (0.3 Miles E)
P-19-190601: ICC Co. Building (0.3 Miles E)
P-19-190602: R.A. Fisher Co (0.3 Miles E)
P-19-190603: Milford St. Industrial Historic Dist (0.4 Miles E) P-19-190604: Historic SFR, 801 Milford St (0.4 Miles E) P-19-190605: Van Heuklyn & Handy Cabinet Co (0.4 Miles E) P-19-190606: Van Heuklyn & Handy Cabinet Co (0.4 Miles E) P-19-190607: Modern Refrigerator Works (0.4 Miles E)
P-19-190608: Beverly Dairies Addition (0.4 Miles E)
P-19-190609: Historic SFR, 862 Grange St (0.25 Miles E) P-19-190610: Historic SFR, 866 Grange St (0.25 Miles E) P-19-190611: Historic SFR, 870 Grange St (0.25 Miles E) P-19-190612: Historic SFR, 874 Grange St (0.25 Miles E) P-19-190897: Glendale Narrows Section of the Los Angeles River* LA-2210, 3554, 3950,
6006, 6722, 6738,
7259, 7263, 7840,
8255, 8303, 10767,
10768, 12120
*Within Project Area
Field Survey
During the field survey Mr. Brentner carefully inspected the project site and identified a portion of the Glendale Narrows section of the Los Angeles River . This resource is described below , and DPR 523 Forms are included in Appendix B. No other cultural resources (including prehistoric or historic archaeological or historic architectural resources) were identified during the field survey. The project site and surrounding area have been subject to severe disturbances related to reconfiguration of Flower Street, construction of the channel, construction of the modern bike path and walkway , modern refuse dumping, the installation of transmission towers and streetlights, and by repeated flooding. Sediments, where visible, consist of sandy silt and comprise recent alluvium.

Vegetation is limited to seasonal grasses and imported trees. The Interstate 5 Bridge over the Los Angeles River (constructed between 1954 and 1964) is visible from the project site approximately one half -mile to the west, and the State Route 134 Bridge over the Los Angeles River (constructed between 1964 and 1972) is visible from the project site approximately one-quarter mile to the southeast (United States Department of Agriculture 1972, 1964, 1954).

The Glendale Narrows. The Glendale Narrows (roughly coterminous with Reach 3 of the Los Angeles River as defined in Thompson 2022) is a seven -mile section of the Los Angeles River. It is the only portion of the river which lacks a concrete bottom, although it does have concrete lined banks. The bottom could not be paved due to excessive groundwater forces and is instead natural and lined with river cobbles, alluvium, and a variety of vegetation. A series of small river islands have formed from the accumulation of alluvial sediment. These islands are mainly on the west and south sides of the narrows, as EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

10 well as in its middle at certain points. Bike paths sit atop both banks of the channel in this segment. This portion of the Los Angeles River channel was originally constructed between 1938 and 1939 as a response to the flood of March 3, 1938 (Slawson 2013).

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS
During the field survey, the portion of the Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 section of the Los Angeles River Channel was identified. CEQA call s for the evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register. Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation under a local ordinance.

Significance Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met:

1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects:
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

California Register Evaluation
The Los Angeles River, of which the Glendale Narrows Segment and roughly coterminous Reach 3 (defined in Thompson et al. 2022) constitute a portion, has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a “presumed” historic district and is therefore also eligible for listing in the California Register (Thompson et al. 2022:4.15, citing Polanco 2019). Specifically,

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

11 Under Criterion A [ and Criterion 1 of the California Register], the LAR [Los Angeles River] channel conveys a direct association with the LACDA [Los Angeles County Drainage Area] flood-control efforts undertaken by the USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] , which constitute a locally significant event that directly influenced the settlement and economic development of the City of Los Angeles and neighboring communities along the length of the LAR. The LAR channel as a whole also meets Criterion C [ and Criterion 3 of the California Register], given the scale and geographic extent of the channelization and the fact that it represents the first implementation of a fully concrete -lined river designed specifically to manage unique flood conditions. It embodies an engineered solution to the volatile flooding episodes common to the watershed and its tributaries, and it has served as a prototype for flood channels in the region (Thompson et al. 2022:4.15).

The Los Angeles River is not eligible for listing under Criterion 2 or 4 of the California Register. Criterion 2 is specifically intended to apply to properties that are associated with individuals whose specific contributions can be identified and documented. It is restricted to properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person’s achievements. Although notable people have been instrumental in carrying out policies that set flood control projects in motion in California , research has failed to indicate any individuals whose contributions to the construction of the Los Angeles River itself can be associated with prescribed level of specificity. It is therefore not eligible for listing under Criterion 2.

Criterion 4 is most commonly associated with data potential archaeological sites. The flood control channel is a well understood property type. It has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Therefore the Los Angeles River is not eligible for listing under Criterion 4.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has also found that the Los Angeles River channel retains integrity of workmanship, materials, setting, feeling, and association and that the period of significance spans the years from 1936 to 1960 (Thompson et al. 2022:4.16) .

However, the visual setting surrounding the project site has been impacted by development outside the period of significance, including construction of surrounding neighborhoods, the Interstate 5 and State Route 134 freeway bridges over the Los Angeles River, the reconfiguration of Flower Street, construction of the modern bike path and walkway, and by the installation of modern transmission towers and streetlights.

Based on these results, the Los Angeles River Channel (including the Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 Segment) is eligible for California Register listing. As such it is recommended a historical resource under CEQA.

RECOMMENDATIONS
During the research and field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists identified the historic-period Glendale Narrows segment of the Los Angeles River, which is roughly coterminous with Reach 3 (approximately 7.4 miles in length) of the Los Angeles River constructed between 1938 and 1939. The Los Angeles River has been determined eligible for National Register listing and as such is a historical resource under CEQA. However, the proposed project will impact a tiny portion (approximately .06 percent) of the Glendale EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

12 Narrows/Reach 3 segment of the Los Angeles River. Based on the small percentage of the segment that will be subject to direct impacts , BCR Consulting recommends that the proposed project, a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Glendale Narrows, will not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource which can cause a significant effect on the environment under CEQA.

Furthermore, the bridge abutments would be constructed to be higher than the existing elevation of the channel walls and would not touch the levee walls. Although the integrity of setting would be minimally impacted by the installation of the bridge, the setting of the Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 segment has already been impacted by development of the surrounding neighborhoods and by the Interstate 5 and State Route 134 freeway bridges that are visible from the proposed project site and were constructed after the period of significance. As such, the proposed project will not introduce any elements to the setting that are not already present , and the proposed project will not alter the ability of the Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 to contribute to a larger district . Based on these results, BCR Consulting recommends that the project as proposed will not result in significant impacts to a historical resource (under CEQA). No mitigations are recommended for the current undertaking. No archaeological resources were identified during this assessment.

Disturbances associated with the construction of the Glendale Narrows segment/ Reach 3 of the Los Angeles River , recent development of bike and walking paths, recent reconfiguration of Flower Street adjacent to the north end of the project site, and modern development of athletic fields adjacent to the south side of the project site have disrupted soil beyond depths at which buried cultural resources are likely. Also, no buried discoveries have occurred in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the potential to encounter in -situ remains associated with significant archaeological materials during project-related excavation is low.

While the current study has not indicated sensitivity for unknown cultural resources within the project boundaries, ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface during previous surveys. Therefore, a list of recommendations is provided below based on the City of Los Angeles’ Best Management Practices for Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological and Paleontological Resources. This has been amended slightly where corrections were necessary, and to involve all participating agencies.

Archaeological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) . Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Archaeologist or archaeological monitor shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of archaeological resources and the procedures for notifying archaeological staff should archaeological resources be discovered by construction staff. In the event of an archaeological resource discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If it is determined that the archaeological resource(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the archaeological monitor shall complete the Archaeological Assessment.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

13 Archaeological Assessment. If a possible archaeological resource is uncovered during earthwork or construction, all work shall cease within a minimum distance of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Archaeologist has been retained to evaluate the find in accordance with National Register and California Register criteria. The Qualified Archaeologist may adjust this avoidance area, ensuring appropriate temporary protection measures of the find are taken while also considering ongoing construction needs in the surrounding area. Temporary staking and delineation of the avoidance area shall be installed around the find in order to avoid any disturbance from construction equipment.

Ground disturbance activities may continue unimpeded on other portions of the site outside the specified radius. Any potential archaeological resource or associated materials that are uncovered shall not be moved or collected by anyone other than an Archaeological Monitor or Qualified Archaeologist unless the materials have been determined to be non -unique archaeological resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.1(h), by the Qualified Archaeologist. The Qualified Archaeologist shall determine if the resources are unique archeological resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g). Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of unique archaeological resources should occur as follows:

• The find should be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state unless the project would damage the resource.

• When preserving in place or leaving in an undisturbed state is not possible, excavation and recovery of the find for scientific study should occur unless testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, and this determination is documented by a Qualified Archaeologist.

Ground disturbance activities in the area where resource(s) were found may recommence once the identified resources are properly assessed and processed by a Qualified Archaeologist. A report that describes the resource(s) and its disposition, as well as the assessment methodology, shall be prepared by the Qualified Archaeologist according to current professional standards and maintained for at least five years after certificate of occupancy. If appropriate, the report should also contain the Qualified Archaeologist’s recommendations for the preservation, conservation, and curation of the resource at a suitable repository, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, with which the City of Los Angeles must comply. Within 60 days following the completion of monitoring and all associated work, the archeologist shall submit the appropriate report to the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering , representatives of other participating agencies, and to the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton ; the report(s) shall include all state and local requirements. Reports submitted to the SCCIC shall be formatted and completed in accordance with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) document submittal standards.

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Paleontologist or Paleontological Monitor shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

14 for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. In the event of a fossil discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a Qualified Paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the Paleontological Monitor shall complete the next two steps.

Treatment of Paleontological Resources. If a probable paleontological resource is uncovered during earthwork or construction, all work shall cease within a minimum distance of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Paleontologist has been retained to evaluate the find in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010). Temporary flagging shall be installed around the find to avoid any disturbance from construction equipment. Any paleontological materials that are uncovered shall not be moved or collected by anyone other than a Qualified Paleontologist or his/her designated representative such as a Paleontological Monitor. If cleared by the Qualified Paleontologist, Ground Disturbance Activities may continue unimpeded on other portions of the site. The found deposit(s) shall be treated in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. In consultation with the City, Ground Disturbance Activities in the area where resource(s) were found may recommence once the identified resources are properly assessed and processed by the Qualified Paleontologist. A report that describes the resource and its disposition, as well as the assessment methodology, shall be prepared by the Qualified Paleontologist according to current professional standards and maintained for at least five years after certificate of occupancy. If appropriate, the report should also contain the Qualified Paleontologist’s recommendations for the preservation, conservation, and curation of the resource at a suitable repository, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, with which the City must comply.

Treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources. If a possible tribal cultural resource is uncovered during earthwork or construction, all work shall cease within a minimum distance of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Tribal Monitor or Archaeological Monitor has been retained to evaluate the find.

Following discovery, the Bureau of Engineering shall immediately contact all Native American tribes that have informed the City they are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project . If a Qualified Tribal Monitor or Archaeological Monitor determines, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074(a)(2), that the object or artifact appears to be a potential tribal cultural resource, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, the City shall provide any affected tribe a reasonable period of time, not less than five business days, to conduct a site visit and make recommendations to the participating agencies, regarding the monitoring of future Ground Disturbance Activities and the treatment and disposition of any discovered tribal cultural resources. The City shall implement the tribe’s recommendations if the Qualified Tribal Monitor or Archaeological Monitor reasonably concludes such recommendations are reasonable and feasible.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

15 Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of tribal cultural resources should occur as follows:

• The find should be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state unless the Project would damage the resource.

All collected artifacts and fieldwork notes, if not human remains or other mortuary objects, shall be offered to participating Tribes for reburial. If a suitable reburial location is not found, the items should be curated at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate curatorial facility for educational purposes. If cleared by the Qualified Tribal Monitor or Archaeological Monitor, ground disturbance activities may continue unimpeded on other portions of the site. Ground disturbance activities in the area where resource(s) were found may recommence once the identified resources are properly assessed and processed. A report that describes the resource and its disposition, as well as the assessment methodology shall be prepared by the Qualified Tribal Monitor or Archaeological Monitor, according to current professional standards. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Bureau of Engineering, representatives of other participating agencies, and the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton. Participating agencies may review and approve any monitoring or mitigation plan prior to implementation.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

16 REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.

Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.

Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bettinger, Robert L., and R.E. Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin and Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 3:1-26.

Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe.

Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.

Brock, James, John F. Elliot, and Nina M. Harris
1992 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Hansen Dam Flood Control Basin, City of Los Angeles, California. On File, South Central Coastal Information Center.

Fullerton, California.

California Department of Water Resources
2020 History of Water Development and the State Water Project. Electronic Document:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/History. Accessed 9/8/20.

Campbell, E., and W. Campbell
1935 The Pinto Basin. Southwest Museum Papers 9:1-51.

Carle, David
2004 Introduction to Water in California. Berkley: University of California Press.

Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino, California: Huntington Library.

Flenniken, J.J.
1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. Stone Tool Analysis:

Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods, and M.G.

Pavesic. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Flenniken, J.J. and A.W. Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation, and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

17 Flenniken, J.J. and Philip J. Wilke
1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American Anthropologist 91:149-158.

Harding, S. T.
1960 Water in California. Palo Alto: N-P Publishers.

Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852, edited/annotated by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Hunt, Alice P.
1960 The Archaeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, California. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 47.

Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. University of California Press. Los Angeles

Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted in 1976, New York: Dover Publications.

Lanning, Edward P.
1963 The Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site (Iny-372). University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3):237-336.

Lambert, David
1994 The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life. Diagram Visual Information Limited. New York.

Lightfoot, Kent G., Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and Their Environment, an Introduction. University of California Press, Berkeley.

McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.

Mendenhall, W.C.
1905 Developments of Underground Waters in the Eastern Coastal Plain Regions of Southern California. USGS Water Supply Paper, Number 137.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
2016 “75 Years of Water Delivery.” Electronic Document: http://www.mwdh2o.com/ WhoWeAre/History/75years/. Accessed 9/8/20.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

18 San Diego County Water Authority
2020 History. Electronic Document: https://www.sdcwa.org/history. Accessed 9/8/20.

Slawson, Dana
2013 Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523A Form for Resource Number P- 19-190897. On file at the SCCIC.

Starr, Kevin
1996 Endangered Dreams: The Great Depression in California. Oxford University Press, New York.

Suburban Emergency Management Project
2006 Los Angeles Basin’s 1938 Catastrophic Flood Event. Electronic Document:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090509054714/http://www.semp.us/publications/ biot_reader.php?BiotID=369. Accessed 11/8/2018.

Thompson, Scott, Burr Neely, Scott Kremkau, Patrick B. Stanton, and Kenneth M. Becker 2022 A [Draft] Regional Historic Context for Flood-Control Activities within Los Angeles County and an Architectural Assessment of Select Reaches of the Los Angeles River Channel, Los Angeles County, California. Provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

United States Department of Agriculture
1972 Aerial Photographs of Los Angeles County. Electronic Document:
historicaerials.com. Accessed on Multiple Dates.

1964 Aerial Photographs of Los Angeles County. Electronic Document:
historicaerials.com. Accessed on Multiple Dates.

1954 Aerial Photographs of Los Angeles County. Electronic Document:
historicaerials.com. Accessed on Multiple Dates.

United States Geological Survey
1994 Burbank, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

Wallace, William J.
1958 Archaeological Investigation in Death Valley National Monument. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 42:7-22.

1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American Antiquity 28(2):172-180.

1978 The Southern Valley Yokuts, and The Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp. 448 - 470. W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

19 Warren, Claude N. and R.H. Crabtree
1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp.183 -193.

W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Water Education Foundation
2017 California Water Timeline. Electronic Document:
https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/california-water-timeline. Accessed 9/8/20.

Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.

Woodford, A.O., J.E. Schuellhamer, J.E. Wooder, and R.F. Yerkes 1954 Geology of the Los Angeles Basin. In Geology of Southern California, Bulletin 170.

Division of Mines and Geology. San Francisco.

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX A

RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY

EXHIBIT 6
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs RVA2205
LA-02210 1989 Archaeological Survey Report and
Assessment of the Riverdale Parcel, Griffith
Park Los Angeles, California
Frierman, Jay D.

LA-03554 1968 Ucas-304 Survey of Griffith Park, Los
Angeles County
UCAS,Department of
Recreation and Parks City
of Los Angeles
Leonard, Nelson N. III 19-175297
LA-03950 1998 Archaeological Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility
La 119-01, 604 Sonora Avenue, City of
Glendale, County of Los Angeles, California
LSA Associates, Inc.McLean, Deborah K.

LA-06006 2003 Cultural Resources Technical Report City of Glendale Water & Power Grayson Unit 9
Project
URS CorporationFarmer, T. Reid
LA-06722 2000 Historic Property Survey Report State Route 134/san Fernando Road Access and Safety
Improvement Program
PCR Services CorporationOstashay, Janet 19-190312, 19-190599, 19-190600, 19-190601, 19-190602, 19-190603,
19-190604, 19-190605, 19-190606,
19-190607, 19-190608, 19-190609,
19-190610, 19-190611, 19-190612
LA-06738 2001 Highway Project to Construct a New
Maintenance Station Under the Ventura
Freeway (134) in the City of Glendale, the
Doran Street Station at 943 W. Doran Street.

Caltrans District 7Sriro, Adam
LA-07259 2005 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit for Sprint Facility Candidate La70xc132d
(aeroscopic) 5245 West San Fernando Road,
Los Angeles Los Angeles County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H.

LA-07263 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility Vy183-01 City of Glendale,
California
Kyle ConsultingKyle, Carolyn E.

LA-07840 2001 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Beautification and Modernization Along
Route 134 From the 134/170 Separation to
Shoup Ave Uc, and Along Route 101 From
the 101/170 Separation to Concord Street Uc
Caltrans District 7Sylvia, Barbara
LA-08255 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network
Construction Project State of California:

Volumes I and Ii
SWCA Environmental
Consultants, Inc.

Arrington, Cindy and
Nancy Sikes

Page 1 of 2 ends

EXHIBIT 6
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs RVA2205
LA-08303 2007 Cultural Resources Record Search and Site Visit Results for Royal Street
Communications, Llc Candidate La0057b
(nextel-sperry), 4640 Sperry Street, Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H. 19-186638
LA-10767 2010 Archaeological Monitoring for Cultural
Resources- the Los Angeles Zoo Parking Lot
Project, EW40023F, Phase 1, City of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
CRM TechHogan, Michael
LA-10768 2010 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties - Grade Crossing Safety
Improvement Program, San Fernando
Road/Broadway/Brazil Street, cities of
Glendale and Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County, California
CRM TechTang, Bai "Tom" and
Michael Hogan
LA-12120 2012 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC
Candidate SV00019A (VY019 Aeroscopic)
5245 West San Fernando Road, Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
MBABonner, Wayne and
Crawford, Kathleen
19-186638

Page 2 of 2 ends

EXHIBIT 6
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
RVA2205
P-19-175297 OHP Property Number - 097813;
Resource Name - Griffith Park
LA-03554, LA-
11120, LA-11550,
LA-11813, LA-
11996, LA-12468,
LA-12809, LA-13252
District Historic HP31 1994 (McAvoy, Christy J., Historic Resource Group)
P-19-188087 Resource Name - Pomona Valley
Creamery
LA-09871, LA-09894Building Historic HP06; HP45 2006 (S. Carmack, LSA) P-19-190312 Resource Name - San Fernando
Road Bridge over Verdugo Wash;
Other - CA53C-0226;
Other - US Army Corps Bridge
B3241
LA-06722, LA-
12526, VN-03153
Structure Historic HP19 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR
Services);
2012 (Candace Ehringer, ESA)
P-19-190599 OHP Property Number - 126220;
Resource Name - General Aircraft
Co;
Other - 512 San Fernando Rd
(Historic)
LA-06722Building Historic HP06; HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190600 OHP Property Number - 126221;
Resource Name - AirGas Inc
LA-06722Building Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190601 OHP Property Number - 126222;
Resource Name - ICC Co.

LA-06722, LA-12367Building Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190602 OHP Property Number - 126223;
Resource Name - R.A. Fisher Co.

LA-06722Building Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190603 Resource Name -
Commercial/Milford Streets
Industrial Historic District
LA-06722District Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190604 OHP Property Number - 126224;
Resource Name - 801 Milford St
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190605 OHP Property Number - 126225;
Resource Name - Van Heuklyn &
Handy Cabinet Co
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190606 OHP Property Number - 126226;
Resource Name - Van Heuklyn &
Handy Cabinet Company
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190607 OHP Property Number - 126227;
Resource Name - Modern
Refrigerator Works
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08

Page 1 of 2 ends

EXHIBIT 6
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
RVA2205
P-19-190608 OHP Property Number - 126228;
Resource Name - Beverly Dairies
Addition
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190609 OHP Property Number - 126229;
Resource Name - 862 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP02 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190610 OHP Property Number - 126230;
Resource Name - 866 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP02 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190611 OHP Property Number - 126231;
Resource Name - 870 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP02 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190612 OHP Property Number - 126232;
Resource Name - 874 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP03 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190897 Resource Name - Los Angeles
River Channel;
Resource Name - Glendale
Narrow Section;
Other - LAHCM No. 942
LA-13171, LA-13252Structure Historic HP20; HP22 2013 (Dana Slawson, Greenwood & Associates)

Page 2 of 2 ends

EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION 523 FORMS
EXHIBIT 6
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-19-190897 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 2 ends

P1. Other Identifier:

*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)

*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Burbank, California Date: 1972 T 1N; R 14W; Non-Sectioned; SBBM c. Address: City: Los Angeles Zip:
d. UTM: Zone: 11N 381963mE/ 3780200mN (NAD83); Elevation: 444’ AMSL e. Other Locational Data: This portion of the Glendale Narrows Segment of the Los Angeles River is located in the city of Los Angeles and the City of Glendale, immediately to the north of the John Ferraro Athletic Fields.

*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements: design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, boundaries) This resource is a 300 by 326-foot concrete segment of the Los Angeles River Channel at the northwestern edge of Griffith Park, adjacent to Zoo Drive in the city of Los Angeles . This resource was originally recorded and evaluated by Dana Slawson in 2013. It was constructed from 1938 to 1939 (see Slawson 2013). Some patches of concrete have been repaired, but in general this portion of concrete that comprises the segment remains intact as originally recorded.

References:

Slawson, Dana. 2013. Site Record for P-19-190897. On File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP20 Canal. HP22 River.

P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Photo 6: Site
Overview 11/15/2022

*P6. Date Built; Age and Source:
Historic
Prehistoric Both
1939 (Slawson 2013)

*P7. Owner and Address:

City of Los Angeles/Los Angeles
County Flood Control District/U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers

*P8. Recorded by:

George Brentner
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, CA 91711

P9. Date: 11/15/22
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive

*P11. Report Citation: Cultural
Resources Assessment of the Garden
River Bridge Project, Los Angeles,
California

*Attachments: NONE  Location
Map  Sketch Map  Continuation
Sheet Building, Structure, and
Object Record
Archaeological Record District
Record Linear Feature Record
Milling Station Record Rock Art
Record
Artifact Record Photograph
Record  Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
Page1of4*ResourceNameor#:LosAngelesRiverChannel, GlendaleNarrowSection P1.OtherIdentifier:
*P2.Location:NotforPublication1Unrestricted*a.County:LosAngeles and(P2bandP2corP2d.AttachaLocationMapasnecessary.)
*b.USGS7.5Quad:Burbank,CADate:1991TiN;R13W;unsectionedB.M. c.Address:Nonej+tk,:
.

LciSCity:LosAngelesZip:90039
d.UTM:Zone:uS;NWcr.382528mE/3777414mN;NEcr.382601mE/3777403mN;SWcr.382554mE/3777308mN;SECr. 382630mE/3777316mN
e.OtherLocationalData:PartiallywithintheboundariesofGriffithPark,boundedbyInterstate5onthewest,betweenRigali Ave.andVerdantSt.ontheeast(AtwaterVillage)side.Elevation:396-405 feetamsl. *p3a.Description:

TheGlendaleNarrowsisa7-milesectionofthe52-milelong LosAngelesRiverthatflowsbetweenthecommunityofBurbankand theCityofLosAngelesneighborhoodof ElysianValley.GriffthParkliestothewestoftheriver,andAtwaterVillageistotheeast.

GlendaleNarowsischannelized,andhasslopinggroutedrockandconcreteembankmentwallsandanaturalor“soft”bottomthat islargelycoveredbywater-worn rocks andcobbles.Flankingthenaturalriverbedoneithersideareflatconcrete-pavedmargins.

Typically,theriverdepthwithintheNarrowsis1-3feet.Abuild-upofsedimentnearthewestriverbankhascreatedalong,low islandthatsupportsabundantvegetation,includingavarietyofgrasses,reeds,bushes,andtrees.Flankingthewestsideofthe riverchannelisanasphaltpavedbikepath(LARiverBikePath)15feetwide,immediatelywestofwhichistheInterstate5Golden StateFreeway.Alsoadjoiningtheonthewestisanaccessrampforanequestriantunnelthatextends beneaththefreewayto GriffithPark.Earthenrampsthatallowequestrianaccesstotheriverbedhavebeencreatedontopoftheconcretebankson eitherside.Ontheeastsideofthechannel,theearthenriverberm/leveeiselevated8-10feetabovethesurroundinglandscape.

Atoptheleveeisagravelpedestrian/equestrianpathway10-15feetwide.(SeeContinuationSheets) *P3bResourceAttributes:HP2OCanal,HP22River
*4ResourcesPresent:BuildingIXiStructureflObjectESiteI:lDistrictEElementofDistrictEOther(Isolates,etc.) P5a.PhotoorDrawing
-P5b.DescriptionofPhoto:

GlendaleNarrowsectionofLA
River,viewtoNWfromNAtwater
Parkarea,8/29/13
*p6.DateConstructed/Ageand
Sources:Historic
EPrehistoricEBoth
*7Owner andAddress:

CityofLosAngeles/
LosAngelesCountyFloodControl
District/
USArmyCorpsofEngineers
*p8.Recordedby:

DanaSlawson
Greenwood andAssociates
725JaconWay
PacificPalisades,CA90272
*9DateRecorded:May29,2013
SurveyType:Intensive
Survey
*P11ReportCitation:D.Slawson.2013.HistoricPropertyEvaluationReport,NorthAtwaterCrossingProject.Greenwoodand Associates.SubmittedtoLARiverRevitalizationCorporationandUSArmyCorpsofEngineers,LosAngelesDistrict. *Aftachments:ENONEELocationMapESketchMap1ContinuationSheetBuilding,Structure,andObject Record EArchaeologicalRecordEDistrictRecordELinearFeatureRecordEMiIlingStationRecordERockArtRecord EArtifactRecordEPhotographRecordEOther(List):Documentationofisolates StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
PRIMARYRECORDTrinomial
NRHPStatusCode
OtherListingsLAHistoric-CulturalMonumentNo.942
ReviewCodeReviewerDate
iI.I-
-—-.-“
DPR 523A(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
BUILDING,STRUCTURE,ANDOBJECTRECORDNRHPStatusCode
OtherListingsLAHistoric-CulturalMonumentNo.942
ReviewCodeReviewerDate
Page2of4*ResourceNameor#:LosAngelesRiverChannel,GlendaleNarrowSection Bi.HistoricName:

B2.CommonName:GlendaleNarrowsSectionoftheLosAngelesRiver B3.OriginalUse:RiverChannelB4.PresentUse:same
*B5.ArchitecturalStyle:Utilitarian,concreteandgroutedrock *B6.ConstructionHistory:(Constructiondate,alterations,anddateofalterations):Existingstructurewas completedin1939.

TheGlendaleNarrowswasstraightenedandconfinedwithinearthenleveesin1919-1921.Anearlier groutedstonechannel was constructedin1935-1936,rebuiltaftera1938flood.
*B7.Moved?NoLJYesDUnknownDate:OriginalLocation:
*B8.RelatedFeatures:GlendaleNarrowsispartofthe52-milelongLosAngelesRiverandanelementoftheLosAngeles CountyDrainageArea(LACDA)system.

B9a.Architect:USArmyCorpsofEngineersb.Builder:Unknown
*Blo.Significance:Theme:WaterConveyance Systems/FloodControlArea:LosAngeles PeriodofSignificance:1939PropertyType:RiverchannelApplicableCriteria:N/A (Discussimportanceintermsofhistoricalorarchitectural contextasdefinedbytheme,period,andgeographic scope.Also addressintegrity.)
TheGlendaleNarrowssegmentoftheLosAngelesRiverwas amongthefirstsectionsoftherivertobechannelized underthe supervisionoftheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)followingthehistoricfloodofMarch3,1938.UndertheCorps’ leadership,acomprehensivefloodcontrolschemewasconceivedthatwouldprotect theentire countyfromfuturefloodevents.

TheUSACEprogram calledforchannelizationofallthecounty’smajorrivers,nottheLosAngelesRiveralone,alongwitharange ofothermeasures.ConstructionoftheLosAngelesRiverchannelcommencedinlate1935andworkonthelastsegmentof channelwascompletedin1959.(SeeContinuationSheets)
Bi1.AdditionalResourceAttributes:(Listattributesandcodes) *B12References:

Gumprecht,Blake
1999TheLosAngelesRiverItsLife,Death,and PossibleRebirth.TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore,Maryland.

Layne,J.G.
1957WaterandPowerforaGreatCity.CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofWaterandPower,LosAngeles,California.

Paul,Daniel,MeghanPotter, ElizabethWeaver, ChristopherHetzel,andMichaelEberts 2008Historic-CulturalMonumentApplicationforGriffithPark.ICF Jones&Stokes,LosAngeles,forsubmissiontotheCityof
LosAngelesCulturalHeritage Commission.

B13.Remarks:
*B14Evaluator:DanaSlawson
GreenwoodandAssociates
725JaconWay
PacificPalisades,CA90272
(310)454-3091
*DateofEvaluation:May29,2013
(Thisspacereservedfor officialcomments.)
DPR523B(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
CONTINUATIONSHEETTrinomial
Page3of4*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder):LosAngelesRiverChannel, GlendaleNarrowsSection *Recordedby:DanaSlawson,GreenwoodandAssociates*Date:May29,2013iiContinuationUpdate *p3a.Description,continued:

Measuredfromthetopofeachslopedbank,theLosAngelesRiverchannelis309feetwideand22feetdeep.The naturalportion oftheriverbedisapproximately154feetwide,flankedbyhorizontalconcrete-paved apronsthat areroughly20feetwide.The GlennclaleNarrowsliesparitiallywithintheboundariesofGriffithPark.The parkinitsentiretywasdesignatedaLosAngeles Historic-CulturalMonument(No.942)in2009.
*B1o.Significance,continued:

Thissameperiodsaw the channelizationofallofthecounty’smajorriversandstreams,includingtheSanGabrielRiver,Rio Hondo,andBallonaCreek. The7-milelongGlendaleNarrowssectionoftheLosAngelesRiverhasthedistinctionofbeingthe onlyportionoftheriverwithconcrete banksandanaturalbottom.Thismodeofconfinementwasselectedbecausegroundwater forcesinthislocationrenderedcreationofapavedriverbedimpossible.

Reviewof USACEdocumentationforthissectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchannel indicatesthatthechannelbedisessentiallyas itwasconstructedinthelate1930s.Workonthissectionoftheriverchannelhasbeenconfinedtoroutinemaintenanceactivities, suchasrepairingdamagedareasoftheinteriorchannelsurfaceswithcomparablematerials.Thelevelofhistoricalintegrityfor thissectionoftheriverchannelisconsideredverygood,relativetolocation,design,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association.Thehistoricalsettingoftheresourcewassignificantlycompromisedbyconstructionofthe1-5GoldenStateFreeway inthelate1950s.Constructionofthe 10-lane freewaydirectlyadjacenttotheriverchannelseveredtheconnectionbetweenthe naturalenvironmentofGriffithParkandthewaterwaythathadexisteduntilthattime.

TheGlendaleNarrowssectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchanneldoesnotappeareligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegister underCriterionA(AssociationwithEvents),nordoesitappeareligibleforstateor localhistoricdesignationbymeritofits associationwithimportanthistoricaleventsorpatternsofevents.Theriverchannelisassociatedwithfloodcontroleffortswithin LosAngelesCountyintheimmediatepreandpostWorldWarIIera, directedbytheUSArmyCorpsofEngineers, andthe developmentoftheLosAngelesCountyDrainageArea(LACDA).Thefloodcontrolandchannelizationprogram hadadramatic impactwithinLosAngelesCountyontheappearanceofthelandscapeandalterationofthe naturalandbuiltenvironment,aswell asitsimpactonthedevelopmentoftheregionbroughtbyessentiallyeliminatingthefearof flooding.Theeffortopenedforuse thousandsofacrespreviouslydeemedunsafe.

Whilethe systemasawholemaybeviewedashistoricallyimportant,thisparticularsectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchannel doesnotpossessanyspecialornoteworthyassociationswiththefloodcontrolprogramdevelopedand implementedbythe USACE,theorganizationprimarilyresponsibleforitsimplementation.

Similarly,thissectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchanneldoesnotappeareligibleforNationalRegisterlistingunderCriterionB (AssociationwithPersonsofHistoricalImportance),nordoesitmeetthecriteriaforstateorlocaldesignationinthiscategory.The efforttochannelizetheriverwasledbytheUSACELosAngelesDistrict.NoindividualmembersoftheUSACEwereidentifiedby theresearchwhobearparticularresponsibilityforthedesignandconstructionofthisportionoftheriverchannel,orfortheLACDA floodcontrolsystemgenerally.

ThissectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchanneldoesnotappeareligibleforNationalRegisterlistingunderCriterionC (Design/Construction),orunderstateandlocalhistoricaldesignationcriteriafordesign.TheGlendaleNarrowssectionoftheriver hasplayedanimportantroleinthehistoryoftheregion’sgrowthanddevelopment,particularlyinregardstotheCity’swater supply.Indeed,itwaswithintheNarrowsthatWilliamMuihollandandtheLosAngelesWaterCompanyexcavatedtheinfiltration gallerieswellsthatweretheCity’sprimarysourceofwaterandthereforesurvivalandgrowth,betweenthemid1880sandthe completionoftheLosAngelesAqueductin1913.Theappearanceoftheriversinceitstamingbywayofconstructionofthe currentconcretechannelinthe 1930sdoesnotevokehistoricalassociationswiththoseimportantevents.The existingchannelis ofstandarddesignand materials, andcomparableinappearanceandfunctiontotheonehundred-plusmilesofchannelswhich have carriedallofthecounty’sprincipalriverssincethemidtwentieth century.Thissegmentdisplaysnouniqueorinnovative designelements.-
DPR523L(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
CONTINUATIONSHEETTrinomial
Page4of4*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder):LosAngelesRiverChannel,GlendaleNarrowsSection Photographs
DetailofGlendaleNarrowsriverbed,lookingsouthfromNAtwater Parkarea. tt
-‘
;...--..
--.‘-
...jg*::-:

GlendaleNarrows,westbank,lookingsouthfromNAtwaterPark/GriffithParkarea.LA RiverBikePath andInterstate5areonright.

DPR523L(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX C

DETAILED PROJECT EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX D

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH

EXHIBIT 6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

December 9, 2022

David Brunzell
BCR Consulting, LLC

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Garden River Bridge (RVA2205) Project, Los Angeles County

Dear Mr. Brunzell:

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

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE 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]

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

EXHIBIT 6
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of
Mission Indians
Rudy Ortega, Tribal President
1019 Second Street, Suite 1
San Fernando, CA, 91340
Phone: (818) 837 - 0794
Fax: (818) 837-0796
[email protected]
Tataviam
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
1 of 1
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 Garden River Bridge (RVA2205) Project, Los Angeles County.

PROJ-2022-
007409
12/09/2022 11:18 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Los Angeles County
12/9/2022
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX E

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

Photo 1: Overview of W Boundary of Project Area From SW Corner

Photo 2: Overview of Project Area From SW Corner
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

Photo 3: Overview of Project Area From W of it on S Side of River

Photo 4: Overview of Project Area From N Side
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

Photo 5: Overview of Project Area From N Side

Photo 6: Overview of Project Area From N Side
EXHIBIT 6
M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX F

RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
EXHIBIT 6

DAVID BRUNZELL, M.A., RPA
Owner/Principal Investigator
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
909/525-7078
[email protected]

EXPERTISE
Cultural Resource Project Management
National Environmental Policy Act Cultural Resource Compliance California Environmental Quality Act Cultural Resource Compliance National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Compliance Government Agency (Federal/State/Regional) Partnering, Streamlining, and Consultation Preliminary Environmental Assessment Coordination (i.e. Caltrans PEAR/PES) Technical Report Writing for Archaeology, History, and Architectural History NRHP/CRHR Evaluation of Pre/historic Archaeological, and Historic Architectural Resources Preparation of all DPR523 Site Records
Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural History Research Archaeological Excavation
Archaeological Survey
Architectural Survey
Lithic and Ground Stone Analysis
Global Positioning Systems / Archaeological Mapping and Orienteering Fossil Preparation
Laboratory Analysis
California SB18 and AB52 Native American Consultation
University/College Instruction: Anthropology, Archaeology, Architectural Evaluation

EDUCATION
California State University, Fullerton, M.A. Anthropology/Archaeology, 2002 Thesis Project: Cultural Resources Investigation and California Register of Historical Resources Architectural Evaluation of the Marymount College Campus, Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County California State University, Fullerton, B.A. Anthropology, 1997 California State University, Fullerton, Independent Graduate Research: Architectur al Change in Los Angeles, Jerusalem, Prague, and London 1999 California State University, Fullerton, Internship: Cultural Resource Management, Historic Preservation, and Architectural History at McKenna et al., Whittier, California 1998-1999 Pomona College Field School, Southern Oregon/Northern California, 1995 Edge of the Cedars Museum, Ancestral Pueblo Ceramic Identification Training 2001 Cultural Sensitivity Training, Native American Consultation, Riverside County, 2011, 09, 07 California State Univ. San Bernardino College of Extended Learning, Flint Knapping, 2007 National Preservation Institute NHPA Section 106 Training, 2004 EXHIBIT 6

PERMITS
Bureau of Land Management Principal Investigator for Cultural Resource Investigations in California and the Great Basin (Both Current)
Nevada Antiquities Permit
California Department of Transportation Principal Investigator for Cultural Resources Authorized Researcher at Each of the Twelve California Archaeological Information Centers Authorized NVCRIS Researcher

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS, AWARDS, AND CERTIFICATIONS
2002-Present Member, Register of Professional Archaeologists 2000-Present Member, Society for American Archaeology
2012-15 Claremont Heritage, Historic Preservation Board of Directors 2011 Certified Archaeologist for Unincorporated Orange County 2000 McKenna Scholarship Award, 4th Recipient
1996-2002 Lambda Alpha Society, National Collegiate Honors Society for Anthropology 2008-09 Board of Directors, Pomona Valley Historical Society

FULLTIME PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Total time spent at each firm is indicated in Table A. Overlap periods between positions represent times when (a) two jobs were worked concurrently, or (b) absence -with- permission was taken from one firm to acquire valuable experience from another . Positions are all full-time unless otherwise noted. Table A also shows (per Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property Chapter National Park Service, Department of the Interior Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards [PQS]) that fulltime professional experience exceeds one year . Also, more than a year of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology occurred between 1996 -1998 during Archaeological Field Director/Associate position with McKenna et al . Supervisory positions (exceeding one year -per PQS) are indicated in parentheses. Relevant s upervisory e xperience in prehistoric and historic archaeology, history, and architectural history are itemized by project in Tables B and C. For the purposes of this table, one week refers to 40 hours worked, and one month is four 40-hour weeks.

Table A. Employment
Employment
Date Range Position Title Total Duration of
Employment
2008-Present Owner and Principal Investigator. BCR Consulting LLC (Supervisory) 18 Years 2004-08 Senior Cultural Resource Project Manager/Archaeologist. LSA Associates, Inc., Riverside, California (Supervisory Position) 3 Years, 10
Months
2004-07 Adjunct Faculty. University of La Verne, La Verne, California 3 Years (part-time) 2004 Adjunct Faculty. Community College of Southern Nevada 6 Months (part- time)
2004 Archaeological Crew Chief. Native X, Reno, Nevada 6 Months 2003-04 Archaeological Project Manager. SWCA Environmental, Las Vegas, Nevada. 2003 to 2004 (Supervisory Position) 1 Year, 2 Months EXHIBIT 6

Employment
Date Range Position Title Total Duration of
Employment
2003
Archaeological Crew Chief. Colorado State University Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Fort Greeley, Alaska. 2003 (Supervisory Position)
4 Months
2002 Archaeological Crew Chief (GS -9). Hammond Post Fire Assessment, Manti La Sal National Forest, Utah (Supervisory) 4 Months 1996-2002 Archaeological Field Technician/ Field Director/ Architectural H istorian, McKenna et al., Whittier, California (Supervisory after 1998) 5 Years 1999-2000 Archaeological/Paleontological Crew Chief. Keith Companies, Costa Mesa, California (Supervisory Position) 4 Months
1999 Internship. Cultural Resource Management, Historic Preservation, and Architectural History, McKenna et al. (Academic/Professional) 4 Months 1995 Archaeological Research Assistant. Siskiyou County, Oregon, with the BLM and Pomona College Field School, Claremont 2 Months

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
The following tables depict selected projects to demonstrate Mr. Brunzell’s adherence to Professional Qualifications of the Secretary of Interior Standards for the fields of History, Archaeology, and Architectural History , as defined in the PQS. Mr. Brunzell served as project manager and first author for each project, except * =co-author/field director, **=contributing author/field director, or *** =crew chief/field director . Table B shows t ime spent on prehistoric or historic archaeology or history projects. Table C shows time spent on architectural history projects . Mr. Brunzell has completed many additional years in each field. Additional project experience will be provided upon request.

Table B. Select Principal Investigator Experience
Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Cultural Resources Monitoring Program for the McFarland Solar Project, Yuma County, Arizona (2 Years)
2 years
(Principal) N/A N/A
Cultural Resources Assessment Gravesite Expansion and
Cemetery Improvements VA Project No. 914 CM3009, National Memorial Cemetery of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona (10 Months) 2 Weeks
(Principal) 2 Weeks N/A
Archaeological Survey Report of Needles Hwy Project,
Needles/Unincorporated Portions of San Bernardino County, California, BLM, Lake Havasu, Arizona Jurisdiction (4 Months) 2 Weeks 1 Month 1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment Baldy Mesa Solar Project
Adelanto, San Bernardino County (10 Months)
10 Months
(Principal) N/A N/A
Archaeological Monitoring Program Beacon Photovoltaic
Project: Project Sites 1, 3, and 4, Kern County, California Nine Months
(Principal) N/A N/A
Cultural Resources Inventory LSV Indian Springs, Nevada Four Months (Principal) N/A N/A
EXHIBIT 6

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Cultural Resources Assessment of 3,168 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks
(Principal) 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment of 2,882 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks
(Principal) 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment of 661 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks
(Principal) N/A N/A
Cultural Resources Assessment of 328 Acres Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks
(Principal) N/A N/A
Historic American Building Survey, Pitzer Ranch Project, Claremont, California (1 Month) N/A N/A 1 Month
Historic American Building Survey, Schulte Road Bridge
Project, Monterey County, California (1 Month) N/A N/A 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment of the Crown Castle USA
Southern California Metro PCS DAS Project, Orange and Los Angeles Counties, California (6 Weeks)
2 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Bureau of Land Management Monitoring of Class III
Recordation of Prehistoric Resources within Solar One Project, Unincorporated San Bernardino, Calif. (2 Months)
2 Months N/A N/A
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36229, APN 471-080-014, Reche Canyon,
Unincorporated Riverside County (1 Month; see also Table C) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week
Addendum to a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Records Review of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan Project, City of Orange, Orange County (3 Weeks)
1 Week 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment of a Proposed Single Family Residence, Unincorporated Castaic, LA County. (2 Weeks) 1 Week N/A 1 Week NR Eligibility Evaluation of the Coalinga Library Building, Coalinga, Fresno County (1 Month; see also Table C) N/A N/A 2 Weeks Archaeological Records Search, Shallan Residential Project in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County (1 Week) N/A N/A 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment and Evaluations for Habitat Conservation Plan of 100 Acres for North Pit Expansion, USFWS, Unincorporated San Bernardino County (1 Month )
2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment and Evaluations East Los
Angeles College (1 Month, see Also Table C.) 1 Week N/A 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of 3,168 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of 2,882 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of 661 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks N/A N/A Cultural Resources Assessment of 328 Acres Solar 2 Weeks N/A N/A EXHIBIT 6

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) Cultural Resources Assessment of 649 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks N/A N/A Archaeological Monitoring/Excavations at the Dateland Project, Indio, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 1 Month N/A N/A Member of the Board of Directors and Volunteer for the Pomona Valley Historical Society (1 Month; No Publication) N/A N/A 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment and Evaluation of the Riverside Canal, Lateral No. 3, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** N/A 2 Weeks 2 Weeks Draft Archaeological ASR and HPSR (Caltrans) for the I- 15/Cajalco Interchange Project (2 Months) 2 Months N/A 2 Weeks Cultural Resources Assessment of the Starcrest Distribution Facility, City of Perris, Riverside County, California (2 Weeks) N/A N/A 2 Weeks Cultural Resource Assessment of the Ritz Tract Project, City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California (6 Weeks) 2 Weeks 1 Week 3 Weeks Cultural Resource Monitoring of the Temecula 32 Project, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (3 Months) 3 Months N/A N/A Cultural Resource Assessment and Significance Evaluations at the Hacienda at Fairview Valley Specific Plan Project, San Bernardino County, California (3 Months)
1 Month 1 Month 1 Month
Cultural Resource Assessment/Evaluations of the Majestic Hills Specific Plan, San Bernardino County, California (4 Months, 2 Weeks; see Also Architectural Survey Section)
2 Months 1 Month 1 Month
Archaeological Survey Report for the Mid County Parkway, Riverside County, California (2 Months)** 2 Months N/A N/A Cultural Resource Test Excavations of the Temecula 32
Project, City of Temecula, Riverside County (2 Weeks) 1 Week N/A 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment Box Springs Road Apartment Project, Moreno Valley, Riverside County (2 Weeks) 1 Week N/A 1 Week Cultural Resource Assessment/Significance Evaluations,
Murrieta Hills S.P., Murrieta, Riverside County (3 Months) 1 Month 1 Month 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment and Significance of the
Skyward I Project, California City, Kern County (3 Months) 2 Months N/A 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment of the Topaz Ranchero Project, City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resource Assessment of the Deutsch Property
Specific Plan, City of Banning, Riverside County (2 Months) N/A 1 Month 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment of the Jacqueline Cochran
Regional Airport, Community of Thermal, Unincorporated
Riverside County, California (3 Months)
2 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Evaluation of Prehistoric Resources Within the Jacqueline 2 Weeks N/A N/A EXHIBIT 6

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Cochran Regional Airport, Community of Thermal,
Unincorporated Riverside County, California (2 Weeks)
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Simi Village Project, City of Simi Valley, Ventura County, California (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment Hospitality Center Project, City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County (1 Month) N/A N/A 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment and Excavations at Stoneridge Ranch Project, Moreno Valley, Riverside County (3 Months) 1 Month 1 Month 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment, Archaeological Testing, and Evaluations of the Bridle Path and N. Point Projects (2 Months) 2 Weeks 2 Weeks 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment of the Harley John Road and Twyla Jane Lane Projects (1 Month) 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resource Assessment of the SC Edison San Gorgonio Hydroelectric Plant, Riverside County, California (2 Months) 2 Weeks 3 Weeks 3 Weeks Archaeological Monitoring of the Parkside Village Project, City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California (2 Months) 2 Months N/A N/A Cultural Resource Assessment, Stein Project, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of the Garbani Road Project, TTM No. 33883, Riverside County, California (1 Month) 1 Week 1 Week 2 Weeks Cultural Resources Assessment of Cherry Valley, Nevada (2 Months)*** 1 Month 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Cultural Resources Assessment and Site Evaluations of a 12 Mile Linear Survey on BLM Land Near Elko, Nevada (1 Month) 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Res. Assessment, BLM, Lake Mead, NV (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of the Lassen Volcanic National Park Fuel Treatment Units in Lassen and Plumas County, California (2 Months)
1 Month 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Cultural Resources Assessment and Prehistoric Site Evaluation for Mesa Project at Henderson, Nevada (1 Month) 2 Weeks N/A 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory and Significance Eval's of the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area Fuel Treatment Units in Shasta County, California (5 Months; see Also Table C) 2 Months 1 Month 1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment, Ft. Greeley, AK (4 Months)*** 3 Months 1 Month N/A A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Gallery Homes Property in Western Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 1 Month N/A N/A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of APN 958-060-005,a 20 Acre Parcel Located in Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks N/A 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Esplanade Specific Plan Project, Riverside County, California (3 Weeks)** 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week EXHIBIT 6

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Master’s Thesis Project: A Phase I Cultural Resources
Investigation and CRHR Architectural Evaluation of the
Marymount College Campus, Rancho Palos Verdes (4 Months- see also architecture section, below)
N/A N/A 2 Months
Results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Recycled Water
Feasibility Study, Los Angeles/Ventura Counties (2 Months)** 1 Month 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of 500 Acres in the Bedford Canyon Area, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks N/A 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Expansion of the W. Los Angeles College, Culver City, Los Angeles County, California (1 Month)**
N/A 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Project, La Quinta, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** N/A 2 Weeks 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Milton Property in Hemet, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Meadowview Golf Course, Temecula, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of “The Ranch” Project Located in the Community of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (3 Months)***
2 Months N/A 1 Month
A Phase I Prehistoric Cultural Resources Investigation of the Eastern Industry/Majestic Realty Project, City of Industry, Los Angeles, California (2 Months)**
1 Month N/A 1 Month

Table C. Selected Projects Showing Time Spent on Architectural History Projects Project Title Survey, Evaluation
and Research
Master’s Thesis Project, Produced in Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Arts Degree in Archaeology, California State University, Fullerton: Architectural Evaluation of the Marymount College Campus in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California (Committee Chair: Phylissa Eisentraut)
4 Months
Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Muscoy 86 Property, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment and View Shed Assessment for Historic Properties at the Crown Castle Pasadena SCL Old Town G1 and SCL Pasadena B2 Project, Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California
1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation Caprock Warehouse Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, El Paseo Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month
Analysis for Potential Indirect Impacts to Historical Resources by the BNSF Ono Lead Track Extension Project, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month EXHIBIT 6

Project Title Survey, Evaluation
and Research
Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation NEC Archibald and Limonite Project, Eastvale, Riverside County, California 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Normandie Courtyard Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California 1 Month Historical Resources Evaluation, 743 Craig Avenue City of La Canada Flintridge 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Sun Edison Hemet Project, City of Hemet, Riverside County, California 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Pipeline Avenue Project, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month
National Register Eligibility Evaluation of the Coalinga Library Building, Coalinga, Fresno County, California (1 Month; see also Table B) 2 Weeks Cultural Resources Assessment and Evaluations East Los Angeles College (1 Month; see Also Table B) 2 Weeks
Cultural Resource Assessment and Architectural Evaluation for Ridgeline Equestrian Estates, City of Orange, Orange County, California 1 Month Proposal to Prepare Citywide Historic Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey for the City of Napa, and Historic Context Statement and Detailed Property Survey for the Soscol Gateway/East Napa Neighborhood
2 Weeks
Cultural Resources Monitoring Program: Architectural Demolition Monitoring of the Historic P.I. Market, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo County, California 2 Weeks Cultural Resource Assessment/Evaluations of the Majestic Hills Specific Plan, San Bernardino County, California 2 Weeks
Research, Development, and Application of Archaeo-astronomy Course to Teach Architectural Survey Methods at Maya Sites in Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize, University of La Verne (Course Core 340: Archaeoastronomy and Maya Cosmology) 3 Months
A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory/ Significance Evaluations of the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area Fuel Treatment Units in Shasta County, California 1 Month Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Whitewater Preserve Levee Protection Project, Riverside County, California 1 Month
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of 7179 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California** 2 Weeks
Demolition Monitoring and Documentation of the TAV Theater Project, Hollywood 1 Month Historic Building Evaluations in Laguna Beach, Orange County, California*** 2 Weeks Addendum Studies Historic Bridge Evaluations and NEPA Review, Historic Route 66*** 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Tract 16191 in the City of Fontana * 2 Weeks Architectural History: Review of the South Seas House in the City of Los Angeles ** 1 Month Historic Property Relocation Monitoring Program: The McLaughlin House, Oxnard, Ventura County, California** 2 Weeks
Historic American Bldg. Survey of Glendon Manor, Los Angeles, California*** 1 Month EXHIBIT 6

Project Title Survey, Evaluation
and Research
Historic Property Evaluation; Ann Camarillo Petit House in Camarillo ** 2 Weeks Historic Property Evaluation: The Azusa Foothill Drive-In Theater, Azusa ** 2 Weeks Field Research/Historic Building Survey, Recordation/Ethnographic Analysis of Religious and State Buildings Research Conducted in Los Angeles, London, Dublin, Prague, Hradec Kralove (Czech Republic), Krakow, Jerusalem [No Publication] 4 Months
Historic American Building Survey: Cultural Resources Investigation of the Village at the Park, City of Camarillo, Ventura County, California *** 2 Months Historic American Building Survey: The Currier Ranch Complex Located in the City of Industry, Los Angeles County, California*** 2 Months
Academic Paper: Broken Windows and Spatial Theory: Applying Broken Windows Theory to Crime Prevention 2 Weeks
A Phase I Historic Cultural Resources Investigation and Architectural Descriptions for the Historic Alvan T. Currier Property, Industry, Los Angeles County, California** 2 Months Historic Building Survey, SPUSD, South Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California*** 2 Weeks

Table D. Client References
Eric Flodine
Vice President of Community Planning
Strata Equity Group
858-546-0900 x214; [email protected]
Cord Hute
Project Manager
Synthesis Environmental
415-328-7923; [email protected]
Jorge EstradaSenior Associate
[email protected]
714-966-9220 x2366

Darren Edgington
Environmental Programs Manager
Riverside County Planning Department
[email protected]; 951-955-2459

Table E. Government Agency References
Kurt Heidelberg
California Department of Transportation
909-388-7028
[email protected]
Jim Shearer
Bureau of Land Management
760-252-6034
[email protected]
Jocelyn Swain
City of Lancaster Planning Department
661-723-6100
[email protected]
Shannon Fitzgerald
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, EDA
206-220-7703
[email protected]

EXHIBIT 6
NICHOLAS SHEPETUK, M.A./RPA
Archaeological Project Manager/Field Director (2017-Present) BCR Consulting LLC
310-469-2291
[email protected]
SKILLS
Project Management
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical Report Writing for Archaeology, History, and Architectural History Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural History Research Archaeological Excavation
Archaeological and Architectural History Survey
Lithic and Ground Stone Analysis Includi ng Typo-technologic al Analys is and Refitting Studies
Archaeological Mapping
Geoprocessing Using GIS Software
Laboratory Analysis
Human Osteological Analysis and Identification

EDUCATION
California State University, San Bernardino, M.A., Archaeology, 2024 University of California, Berkeley, B.A. Anthropology, 2017 Continuing Education
Maya Research Program, Archaeological Field School 2016 University of California, California Archaeology Laboratory, Excavation/Research 2016 University of California, Historical Archaeology Laboratory, Excavation/Research 2017 University of California, Geoarchaeology and Southwes t Asia Prehistor y Laboratory, Lithic Analysis 2016, 2017

SELECTED PROJECTS
Archaeological Monitoring of the Bayshore A Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California
Archaeological Monitoring of the Park to Playa Project in Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Archaeological Monitoring of the Bob Hope Crossing Project, Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
Archaeological Monitoring of the HP Communications Project in the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, California
EXHIBIT 6

Phase II Archaeological Excavation of the Wawona Combined Evaluation Project in Wawona, Mariposa County, California

Archaeological Excavation of the Willits 17 Site Evaluation Project in Willits, Mendocino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Chubbuck Reclamation Project, Chubbuck, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Caprock Warehouse Project in Fontana, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Union Fontana Warehouse Project in Fontana, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of Assessor Parcel Number 3128-531-05-0000 in the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Antelope North Solar Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of Bench Ranch Solar Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Lane Ranch Solar Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Dewalt Project in Bakersfield, Kern County, California

Archaeological Survey for the Early Implementation Section 106 Project in Los Banos, Merced County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of Assessor’s Parcel Number 3128-531-05-0000 in the City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Wyndham Hotels Project in Murrieta, Riverside County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Martin Homes Project, Tract 7318, Project in Bakersfield, Kern County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sacramento T-Mobile Telecom Project, Sacramento County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Eco Plaza Commercial Center Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California

EXHIBIT 6

GEORGE BRENTNER
Staff Historian/Archaeological Field Technician (2021-Present) BCR Consulting LLC
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, California 91711
310-882-1732
[email protected]

SKILLS
Historical and Architectural Historical Research
Archaeological and Architectural History Survey
Department of Park and Recreation 523 Forms
Archaeological Excavation
Archaeological Monitoring
Archaeological Site Identification and Recording
Lithic and Ground Stone Recognition
Global Positioning Systems
Geoprocessing Using GIS Software
Construction Site Safety
Proficient in Microsoft Office, Adobe, and Excel Software

EDUCATION
University of California, Los Angeles, Bachelor of Arts, History (2017) El Camino College (2013-2015)

SELECTED PROJECTS
Cultural Resources Assessment of the City of Industry - T3LA2524M1 Telecommunications Project, City of Industry, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the SV00215 Telecommunications Project, Bakersfield, Kern County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA023193A Telecommunications Project, Mission Viejo, Orange County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA02430 Telecommunications Project, Paramount, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA45477-A-01 Telecommunications Project, Whittier, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA83258A Telecommunications Project, Inglewood, Los Angeles County, California

EXHIBIT 6

Cultural Resources Assessment of the IE82049A Telecommunications Project, Orange County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Dale Evans Parkway Project, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the SRO Apartments Project, Gardena, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Lemon Reservoir Project, Bradbury, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Gateway 8 Project, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Riverside Kmart, Riverside, Riverside County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Slover and Banana Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Hesperia Charter School Project, Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the SRG Lakewood Warehouse Project, City of Lakewood, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Cottonwood and Pahute Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sycamore and Mesa Linda Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Vista Verde Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the APNs 0262-051-45 and 0262-051-47, Devore, San Bernardino County, California

Archaeological Test Excavations of the Oro Grande Cement Plan Expansion Project, San Bernardino County, California

Archaeological Monitoring of the Skechers Project, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, California

Archaeological Monitoring of the McFarland Solar Project, Dateland, Yuma County, Arizona

EXHIBIT 6

Glendale City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Glendale City Council
June 9, 2026