FEIR - Appendix C - Cultural Resources — Riverside City Council, September 17, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

APPENDIX C
C

ULTURAL RESOURCES

DUDEK-A
Cultural Resource Assessment
Cultural Resources Technical Report
5261 Arlington Avenue,
Riverside, California
JUNE 2023
Prepared for:

RIVERSIDE PROPERTY OWNER LLC.
136 Calle de Los Molinos
San Clemente, CA 92672
Contact: Jamie Chapman
P
repared by:
3 8 N Marengo Ave
Pasadena, CA 91101
Heather McDaniel McDevitt, MA, RPA; Adrian Gusick, BA; Caitlin Greeley, MA; Claire Cancilla, MSHP; and Sarah Corder, MFA

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14391 iii JUNE 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Current Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Project Personnel ................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 11

2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................. 11

2.2 State ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Local ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 3 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................................... 19 4 Research and Field Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 23

4.1 CHRIS Records Search ........................................................................................................................ 23

4.2. Review of Academic Literature ........................................................................................................... 26

4.3 Native American Coordination ............................................................................................................ 27

4.4 Building Development and Archival Background Research ............................................................. 28

4.5 Pedestrian Survey................................................................................................................................ 33 5 Architectural Description .................................................................................................................................. 35 6 Definition of Area History .................................................................................................................................. 41

6.1 Prehistoric Overview ............................................................................................................................ 41

6.2 Ethnographic Overview........................................................................................................................ 43

6.3 Historic Period Overview ..................................................................................................................... 48 7 Statement of Significance ................................................................................................................................ 55

7.1 Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern (1940-1975) .................................................................... 55

7.2 Postwar Department Store Typology .................................................................................................. 56

7.3 Sears Building Architect: Charles Luckman ....................................................................................... 57 8 Evaluation of Significance ................................................................................................................................ 59

8.1 NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance ............................................................................................ 59 9 Discussion of Potential Im pacts ....................................................................................................................... 64

9.1 Archaeological Impacts Assessment .................................................................................................. 65

9.2 Built Environment Impacts Assessment ............................................................................................ 66

9.3 Management Recommendations ................................ ....................................................................... 66 14391 iv JUNE 2023
10 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 71 11 Sources .............................................................................................................................................................. 73 TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Subsurface Exploratory Borings — Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. 2020 ............................ 21 Table 2. Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site .................... 23 Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site ............................................... 25 Table 4. Building Permits for 5261 Arlington Avenue .................................................................................................. 29 Table 5. Historical Topographic Map Review of the Project Site ................................................................................. 31 Table 6. Historical Aerial Photograph Review of the Project Site ................................................................................ 33

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. Subsurface exploratory boring locations ...................................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 2. 1938 Kirkman-Harriman Historical Map ...................................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 3. Primary (south) elevation, view looking northwest ....................................................................................... 36 Exhibit 4. Rear (north) and side (west) elevations, view looking southeast ................................................................ 37 Exhibit 5. Primary (south) elevation of Auto Center, view looking north ..................................................................... 38 Exhibit 6. Side (west) and primary (south) elevations of Auto Center, view looking northeast.................................. 39 Exhibit 7. 1963 architect’s rendering of the subject property ..................................................................................... 54

FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Project Site .............................................................................................................................................. 9

APPENDICES
A Confidential CHRIS Records Search Results
B Confidential NAHC SLF Search Results
C Previous Evaluation
D DPR Form for 5261 Arlington Avenue
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 1 JUNE 2023
Executive Summary
Dudek was retained by Riverside Property Owner LLC to conduct a cultural resources inventory and evaluation report for the 5261 Arlington Avenue Project (Project) located in the City of Riverside, California. The Project involves the demolition of the Sears department store and auto center building located at 5261 Arlington Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 226-180-015, and the redevelopment of the parcel for a mixed -use commercial residential property including offsite improvements. This report includes the results of a California Historical R esources Information System (CHRIS) records search; a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF); a pedestrian survey of the Project site by qualified architectural historian s and a qualified archaeologist; building development and archival research; background research and historic map and aerial review; development of an appropriate prehistoric, ethnographic and historic context for the Project site; recordation and evaluation of one property over 45 years old locat ed within the Project site; and management recommendations. This report was prepared in conformance with C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5 for historical resources and 21083.2 for archaeological resources . The City of Riverside (City) is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the CEQA.

Results of the CHRIS records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) revealed that no cultural resources have been previously identified within the Project site , and nine (9) cultural resources have been previously identified within 0.5 -mile of the Project site. Surrounding resources include one (1) historic -period archaeological resource and eight (8) built environment resources. N o prehistoric sites or resources documented to be of specific Native American origin have been previously recorded within the records search area or the Project site. No prior cultural resources investigations have occurred within the Project site. At the time the CHRIS records search was requested, the 1.5 miles utility line had not been added to the study area and only approximately one- half of the utility line was captured in the record search results. A supplemental records search request has been submitted to capture the project area west of Phoenix Avenue. To date, Dudek has not received the supplemental records search results and due to limitations incurred by COVID and reduced staff at the EIC, the arrival of the results are unknown. The report will be updated once Dudek receives the supplemental results from the EIC. A search of the NAHC’s SLF of the Project s ite was requested on February 8, 2023 ; the result of that search was negative. A review of historical aerial photos indicates that the Project site has been subjected to consistent ground disturbance, shifting from agricultural land in the early twentieth century, and transforming steadily to include the development and removal of buildings/structures until the late twentieth century.

The geotechnical report prepared for the Project identified undocumented artificial fill soils throughout the Project site to depths ranging from 2 feet to 7 feet below ground surface (Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. 2020). Fill material is underlain by native alluvial deposits that have the potential to contain intact archaeological resources.

Current Project designs indicate that depth of ground disturbance may exceed eight (8) feet below ground surface, suggesting that excavations will occur within native soils. The City of Riverside General Plan (City of Riverside 2007) indicates that the Project site is within an area ranked as “Unknown” sensitivity for archaeological and prehistoric resources. This ranking refers to areas within the City that were developed in the early twentieth century and were therefore not subject to cultural resources investigations. “Unknown” areas do have the potential to contain intact subsurface cultural deposits. The Project site was surveyed for archaeological resources by a Dudek staff archaeologist on February 3, 2023. Existing conditions within the Project site include developed land with little to no exposed ground surface; thus, the negative findings of the archaeological survey are an unreliable indicator of the archaeological sensitivity of the Project site.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 2 JUNE 2023
In consideration of the background research and archaeological field survey , the potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils (encountered from 2 feet below ground surface in some areas) to the depths of proposed ground disturbance (approximately 8 feet below ground surface) is considered moderate. There is a potential for an inadvertent discovery of unknown archaeological resources and human remains to occur during Project implementation. With implementation of the archaeological mitigation measures recommended in this report, the potential impact to archaeological resources is considered to be less then significant . NOTE: since the portion of the utility line not yet addressed by the reco rds search is proposed to be installed primarily within previously disturbed soils, results for this section of the proposed Project are assumed negative and subject to the same findings as those areas addressed by the records search. All other background and archival research were conducted for the utility line footprint with negative results. This report will be updated once the results of the supplemental records search are received.

The built environment pedestrian survey conducted by Dudek Architectural Historians on May 11, 2022, resulted in the identification of one property over 45 years old located within the Project site: the property associated with the address 5261 Arlington Avenue (APN 226 -180-015) (subject property ). The subject property is a large commercial property that is currently developed with a Sears department store building and auto center constructed in 1964 and surrounded by surface parking. The subject property was previously determined eligible for listing in the California Regis ter of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 3 as part of the Riverside Modernism historical resources survey completed in 2009. The subject property was assigned status codes 3CS and 5S3 as part of the evaluation completed for the survey. The Riverside Modernism Context further found the subject property to be “significant at the local level in the context of modern architecture in Riverside as a good example of the Mid- Century Modern style” (Grimes and Chiang 2009: 70). The subject property was not found eligible for National Register listing at the time of the Riverside Modernism Context’s completion as it was not yet 50 years of age and did not meet NRHP eligibility criterion considerations. As this survey is now more than five years old, the subject property needed re-evaluation for eligibility under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), CRHR, and City of Riverside designation criteria to determine whether or not the proposed redevelopment project would impact historical resources.

As a result of the background research, field survey, and property significance evaluation, Dudek found that 5261 Arlington Avenue appears eligible for listing under Criterion C on the NRHP, Criterion 3 on CRHR, and as a City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Landmark under Criterion 1, 3, 5, and 7 due to its architectural merit and high degree of integrity.. Therefore, the subject property is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, its demolition would result in a significant unavoidable direct impact to a historical resource and would be considered a substantial adverse change under CEQA. For the demolition of a historical resource, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if a project cannot reduce impacts below a level of significance. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 3 JUNE 2023

1 Introduction
Dudek was retained by Riverside Property Owner LLC. to prepare a cultural resources inventory and evaluation report for the 5261 Arlington Avenue Project (Project), located in the City of Riverside, California. The purpose of this report was to determine if the Project would directly or indirectly impact any historical resources subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report was prepared in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 for historical resources and 21083.2 for archaeological resources. The City of Riverside (City) is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the CEQA.

The proposed Project in volves the demolition of the Sears department store and auto center building located at 5261 Arlington Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 226-180-015, and the redevelopment of the parcel for a mixed-use commercial residential property including offsite improvements. For the purposes of this report, all mentions of “Project site” refer to the entirety of the Project including the one parcel (APN 226-180-015) and offsite improvement areas. All mentions of “Project parcel” refer exclusively to the one parcel (APN 226 -180-015). All mentions of “subject property” are in reference to the built environment study of the Sears department store building and auto center.

The Sears department store and auto center building were previously identified as a historical resource in a historical resources survey completed in 2009 as part of the City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement. As this survey is now more than five years old, Dudek re- evaluated the subject property for eligibility under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City of Riverside designation criteria to determine whether or not a proposed redevelopment project on the subject property would impact historical resources. This report also considers the potential impacts of the Project and whether it would result in a substantial adverse change to the integrity of historical resources to the degree that they would no longer be eligible for listing as historical resources defined by CEQA.

This report includes the results of a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search; a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF); a pedestrian survey of the Project site by qualified architectural historian s and a qualified archaeologist; building development and archival research; background research and historic map and aerial review; development of an appropriate prehistoric, ethnographic and historic context for the Project site; recordation and evaluation of one property over 45 years old located within the Project site; and management recommendations.

1.1 Project Location
The Project is locat ed in a fully developed area surrounded by residential and commercial businesses within the City of Riverside, California. The Project site falls on public land survey system Section 33 of Township 2 South, Range 5 West and Section 4 of Township 3 South, R ange 5 West on the Riverside West , CA 7.5 -minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle . The Project site includes one parcel, 5261 Arlington Avenue (APN 226-180-015), and approximately 1.5 miles of offsite impacts along Streeter Avenue, Central Avenue, and Hillside Avenue right-of-way (ROW). The Project parcel is bound by Streeter Avenue to the west, Arlington Avenue to the south, Capistrano Way to the east, and Sierra Street to the north (Figures 1 and 2). 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 4 JUNE 2023

Built Environment Study Area
The boundaries of the subject property form the Built Environment Study Area for the purposes of this study. The Built Environment Study Area includes one (1) parcel: APN 226-180-015. Parcels beyond this study area were not included because the Project would have no potential to impact historical resources directly or indirectly on parcels beyond the Project site. The buildings and streets immediately surrounding the Project site create a geographic and visual separation between the parcels beyond the Built E nvironment Study Area and the Project site. The Project site cannot be reasonably considered part of the environmental setting of historical resources beyond the Built Environment Study Area due to this intervening space. Defining the Built Environment Stu dy Area as the limits of the property boundary also takes into consideration the maximum extent of potential visual and vibration -related impacts that the near-term projects could have on historic built environment resources.

Archaeological Study Area
The Archaeological Study Area encompasses all areas that may be affected by the proposed Project. This includes the entirety of the Project site: APN 226-180-015 and the 1.5 linear miles of offsite improvements (Figure 2, Project Site).

1.2 Current Setting
The Project parcel is located at the intersection of Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue in Riverside. Commercial properties are located throughout the city but are generally concentrated in shopping plazas and strip malls along major east-west and north-south boulevards along Van Buren Boulevard, Magnolia Avenue, and Arlington Avenue.

Arlington Avenue is a major thoroughfare running east-west through Riverside. In the vicinity of the Project parcel, Arlington Avenue is characterized by one- and two-story commercial buildings and strip malls of various styles, setbacks, and configurations. To the east and west of the Project parcel are residential streets developed with single-family homes.

The Project parcel includes two existing commercial buildings located on the 17.43 gross acre parcel that are associated with the former Sears Department Store and Automotive Service Center (subject property). The former department store was located in the central building, now a vacant structure. The interior of the vacant department store building includes retail areas, warehouse and supply storage areas, sub -grade basement areas, public and freight hydraulic elevators, and restrooms. The basement area contains a disconnected boiler, trash compactor, and emergency generator. A smaller automotive service center structure is located on the western portion of the property. This building includes six bay doors opening to a concr ete-paved former service area with secondary containment structures, nine hydraulic hoists, and a sub-grade oil/water separator. The parcel formerly contained a vehicle fueling island with three 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs which were removed in 1985 and seven 1,000 to 2,000-gallon oil and waste oil USTs removed in 1987; the fueling station island and distribution lines were removed in 1994. The balance of the remaining parcel comprises asphalt -paved parking areas, driveways, and minor landscaping including 72 ornamental, non-native trees located throughout the parcel.

The eastern portion of the parcel is composed of a surface parking area with ornamental trees and security lighting.

The eastern boundary abuts existing residential development where a 6-foot block wall divides the parcel from the neighboring properties. Access from Streeter Avenue consists of two full -access driveways, leading to the existing Auto Center area, Sears building loading dock, and includes additional surface parking with ornamental trees and 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 5 JUNE 2023

security lighting. The northern boundary abuts existing residential development, commercial offices, and a vacant parcel where a 6-foot block wall divides the site from neighboring properties.

1.3 Project Description
The Project proposes development of approximately 576,203 square feet of residential and commercial-retail uses and several amenities including: onsite leasing office, tuck-under garages, carports, public dog park, outdoor resort style pool and spa, fitness area, clubhouse, shade structures with barbeques and tables, multi -use turf areas, outdoor gaming and play spaces. The Project also proposes a variety of rooftop and carport solar panels with a fixed tilt of 10 degrees with no rotation, and an orientation of 90 degrees. The Project entails an approximately 17.43 gross acre and 17.37 net acre site (after dedication of 0.05 acres along Arlington Avenue for road right-of-way) and approximately 1.5 miles of offsite impacts.

The residential portion of the Project will be surrounded by a 6 foot high tubular steel fence, 6 foot high block wall, or combination block wall/steel fence. The Project includes details for walls and fences within the site and around the perimeter of the site as well as sign plans, fountain wall, dog park gates, vehicular gates, and access gates for residential access.

The Project will also be required to trench approximately 1.5 miles offsite to connect to existing Riverside Public Utilities electric facilities. Trenching will occur within existing R OW and will include approximately 0.5 miles in Streeter Avenue from Arlington Avenue to Central Avenue; approximately 0.5 miles in Central Avenue from Streeter Avenue to Hillside Avenue; and approximately 0.5 miles in Hillside Avenue Central Avenue to Mountain View Avenue.

Demolition
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing vacant 192,139 square foot former Sears buildings (Sears building and all appurtenances) and remove existing vegetation including trees. Sears Auto Center is a 1 3,713 square foot structure. The 178,426 s quare foot Sears structure consists of a 90,526 s quare foot basement and 87,900 square foot ground level. A protection fence with windscreen material will be installed around the site during demolition to obscure v iews of the site. The Project will utilize crushed materials from the Project site as engineered fill material.

Construction
Grading of the site would be accomplished with scrapers, motor graders, water trucks, dozers, and compaction equipment. It is anticipated building materials would be off-loaded and installed using small cranes, boom trucks, forklifts, rubber-tired loaders, rubber-tired backhoes, and other small- to medium-sized construction equipment as needed.

It is anticipated that trenching for offsite improvements may be as deep as 7 to 8 feet below ground. There is some existing conduit and vaults within this alignment , but in order to connect to existing facilities, the Project will be required to provide areas of new 6.5-inch conduit and approximately 10 electric vaults sized at 8 feet by 14 feet.

Construction is anticipated to take approximately 27 months and will be built in two phases with the first phase being commercial parcel, and the second phase being the residential parcel. The earthw ork is anticipated to balance with 28,000 cubic feet (cf) of cut and 28,000 cf of fill. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 6 JUNE 2023

1.4 Project Personnel
This report was prepared by the following Dudek Built Environment and Archaeological Staff personnel:

This associated property significance evaluation was prepared by Dudek Architectural Historian Caitlin Greeley, MA.

Ms. Greeley also completed the built environment fieldwork with Allison Lyons, MSHP. Dudek Architectural Historian Claire Cancilla also contributed to this report. This report was r eviewed for quality assurance/quality control by Dudek Historic Built Environment Lead Sarah Corder, MFA.

Archaeological resources assessment was prepared by Heather McDaniel McDevitt, MA, RPA, who served as Principal Investigator and provided general ove rsight of the study, developed the investigative approach and portions of the background context, is primary author of the archaeological components of the report and responsible for quality control and assurance. Ms. McDaniel McDevitt meets the Secretary of the Interior standards.

Dudek staff archaeologist s and technicians Jennifer De Alba, BA, Adriane Gusick, BA, and Brenda Rogers, BA, conducted the pedestrian survey, archival research and wrote portions of the report. Loukas Barton, PhD, RPA contributed to portions of the background context, specifically the prehistoric and ethnographic settings.

Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd Project Location02 ,0001,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Temecula
Blythe
Murrieta
Coachella
La Quinta
Indian
Wells
Lake
Elsinore
IndioSan
Jacinto
Cathedral
City
Norco
Beaumont
Imperial
County
Riverside
County
San
Bernardino
County
San Diego
County
66 395
95 243
18 247
74 94
91 39
241
54 125
206
195
56 330
78 115
173
67 177
58 2
38 76 79
98 138
86 111
605
805
215
10 15
5 210
40 8
405
Project Site
FIGURE 1
5261 Arlington Avenue
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Riverside West Quadrangle Township 2S; Range 5W; Sections 33, Township 3S; Range 5W; Sections 04 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 8 JUNE 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure2_ProjectSite.mxd Arlington Ave
Grand Ave
StreeterAve
Central Ave
Eva Pl
Cathy PlEvelyn Pl
Anita Pl
Sierra St
Canoga Pl
Agnes Pl
SaintJamesCt
Baywood St
Homestead Pl
Juanro Way
RayannCt
Banner Ct
Sheridan Ct
Blanchard Pl
Mead Ct
Jerry LouderDr
Rhonda Rd
Merrill Ave
Wroxton Dr
El Mo lino Ave
Wisteria Dr
Benecia Dr
Clifton Blvd
Nidever Ave
Goldenrod Ln
Portola Way
Lantana St
Arbor Dr
Conestoga Ln
Appleton St
Burlingame Dr
PathfinderRd
Clifford StJerome St
Dean Way
Willard Way
Norman Way
Ensenada Way
Scott Ave
Beatty Dr
Sunnyside Dr
Malibu Dr
AntiochAve
Wayman St
PhoenixAve
Granada Ave
Rochester St
La Jolla DrEl Cajon Dr
Capistrano Way
Rexford Dr
Mountain View Ave
Dewey Ave
Hillside Ave
Walter St
Project Site06 00300
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2
5261 Arlington Avenue
SOURCE: RCIT, Pictometry 2019, Open Street Map 2019
Township 2S; Range 5W; Sections 33, Township 3S; Range 5W; Sections 04 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 10 JUNE 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 11 JUNE 2023

2 Regulatory Setting

2.1 Federal
National Register of Historic Places
While there is no federal nexus for this P roject, the subject property was evaluated in consideration of NRHP designation criteria. The NRHP is the United States’ official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation. Overseen by the National Park Service, under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NRHP was authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks, as well as historic areas administered by the National Park Service.

NRHP guidelines for the evaluation o f historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the accomplishments of all who have made significant contributions to the nation’s history and heritage. Its criteria are designed to guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the NRHP. For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of the following criteria:

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

A. That are as sociated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to these basic evaluation criteria, the NRHP outlines further criteria considerations for significance.

Moved properties; birthplaces; cemeteries; reconstructe d buildings, structures, or objects; commemorative properties; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are generally not eligible for the NRHP. The criteria considerations are exceptions to these rules, and they allow for the following types of resources to be NRHP eligible (NPS 1995, p. 25):

A a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; B a building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; C a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; D a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic events; 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 12 JUNE 2023

E a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived;
F a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
G a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

Once the significance of a resource has been determined, the resource then must be assessed for integrity. Integrity is 1) the ability of a property to illustrate history and 2) possession of the physical features necessary to convey the aspect of history with whic h it is associated (NPS 1995, p. 44). The evaluation of integrity is grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to the property’s significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not. To retain integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the seven aspects of integrity (NPS 1997, pp. 44–45):

• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the histo ric event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. • Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

2.2 State
California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated below. According to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) (1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 13 JUNE 2023

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals assoc iated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)).

The CRHR protects cultural resou rces by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources:
 California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.”  California P ublic Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” It als o defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of an historical resource.  California Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.”  California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.

California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) -(c) and CEQA Guidelines Sec tion 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; preservation-in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).

Under CEQA, a project ma y have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)). An “historical resource” is any site listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR listing criteria are intended to examine whether the resource in question: (a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history a nd cultural heritage; (b) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (d) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 14 JUNE 2023

The term “historical resource” also includes any site described in a local register of historic resources or identified as significan t in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(q)).

CEQA also applies to “unique archaeological resources.” California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines a “unique archaeologic al resource” as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains informat ion needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

All historical resources and unique archaeological resources – as defined by statute – are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). A site or resource that does not meet the definition of “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource” is not considered significant under CEQA and need not be analyzed further (California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).

Under CEQA a significant cultural impact results from a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource [including a unique archaeologi cal resource]” due to the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1); California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:

1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or

2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

California State Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that TCRs must be considered under 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 15 JUNE 2023

CEQA and also provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for the lea d agency. Section 21074 describes a TCR as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and that is either:

On or determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register; or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.

AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, including tribes that may not be fe derally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report.

Section 1 (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change t o a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding proj ect alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applic able) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavati on of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the county coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5(b)). PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discov ered. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC within 24 hours (Section 7050.5(c)). NAHC will notify the “most likely descendant.” With the permission of the landowner, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of notification of the most likely descendant by NAHC. The most likely descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and items associated with Native Americans.

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 16 JUNE 2023

2.3 Local
City of Riverside
City of Riverside Municipal Code Title 20 – Cultural Resources Preservation of Riverside’s cultural resources fosters civic and neighborhood pride, forms the basis for identifying and maintaining community character, and enhances livability within the City. Title 20 of the City Municipal Code provides for the “identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, areas, districts, neighborhoods, streets, works of art, natural features and significant permanent landscaping having special historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic value in the City” (City of Riverside 20.05.010 Purpose; Ord. 7108 Section 1, 2010; Ord. 6263 Section 1 (part), 1996).

20.20.010 Designation criteria (Ord. 7108 Section 1, 2010; Ord. 6263 Section 1 (part), 1996) The criteria to designate, modify the status of, or dedesignate Landmarks, Structures or Resources of Merit and Historic Districts, and to modify or dedesignate Neighborhood Conservation Areas, are set forth in their definitions in Chapter 20.50.

20.50.010 Definitions (Ord. 7248 Section 5, 2014; Or d. 7206 Section 24, 2013; Ord. 7108 Section 1, 2010)
O. Historic District means an area which contains:

A. A concentration, linkage, or continuity of cultural resources, where at least 50 percent of the structures or elements retain significant historic integrity, (a “geographic Historic District”) or B. A thematically-related grouping of cultural resources which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development, and which have been designated or determined eligible for designation as a Historic District by the Historic Preservation Officer or Qualified Designee, Board, or City Council or is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, or is a California Hi storical Landmark or a California Point of Historical Interest (a "thematic Historic District").

In addition to either A. or B. above, the area also:

1. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;

2. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

4. Represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects;

5. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 17 JUNE 2023

7. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association; or

8. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

U. Landmark means any improvement or natural feat ure that is an exceptional example of a historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic heritage of the City, retains a high degree of integrity, and meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Exemplifies or reflect s special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;

2. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

4. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect, or important creative individual;

5. Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;

7. Is one of the last remaining examples in the Ci ty, region, State, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen; or

8. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

An improvement or natural feature meeting one or more of the above criteria, yet not having the high degree of integrity to qualify as a landmark, may qualify as a structure or resource of merit (see subsection “Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,” below).

An improvement or natural feature meeting one or more of the above criteria, yet not formally designated as a landmark by the City Council, may be an eligible landmark.

FF. Structure or resource of merit means any improvement or natural feature which contributes to the broader understanding of the historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic heritage of the City, retains sufficient integrity, and:

1. Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the City

2. Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood, community or area;

3. Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 18 JUNE 2023

5. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory; or

6. An improvement or resource that no longer exhibits the high degree of integrity sufficient for landmark designation, yet still retains sufficient integrity under one or more of the landmark criteria to convey cultural resource significance as a structure or resource of merit.

Historic Preservation Element of the City of Riverside General Plan 2025 In 1994, the City’s General Plan was adopted and included historical preservation goals and policies that addressed preserving the City’s historical and architecturally significant structures and neighborhoods and supporting and enhancing its arts and cultural institutions. In 2007, with the General Plan 2025, the City adopted a new General Plan, while still maintaining a Historic Preservation Element. The proposed project would be consistent with the following objectives and policies from the City’s General Plan 2025 Historic Preservation Element (City of Riverside 2007):
 Objective HP-1: To use historic preservation principles as an equal component in the planning and development process.
 Policy HP-1.3: The City shall protect sites of archaeological and paleontological significance and ensure compliance with all applicable State and federal cultural resources protection and management laws in its planning and project review process.

 Policy HP-1.4: The City shall protect natural resources such as geological features, heritage trees, and landscapes in the planning and development review process and in park and open space planning.  Objective HP-5: To ensure compatibility between new development and existing cultural resources.  Policy HP -5.1: The City shall use its design and plot plan review processes to encourage new construction to be compatible in scale and character with cultural resources and historic districts.  Policy HP-5.2: The City shall use its design and plot plan review processes to encourage the compatibility of street design, public improvements, and utility infrastructure with cultural resources and historic districts.

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 19 NOVEMBER 2022

3 Environmental Setting
The Project site is within California’s Peninsular Range geomorphic province, which is a prominent natural region that extends from the tip of the Baja California Peninsula to the Transverse Ranges (the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains) and includes the Los Angeles Basin, offshore islands (Santa Catalina, Santa Barbara, San Nicholas, and San Clemente), and continental shelf. The eastern boundary is the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province (California Geological Survey 2002; Morton and Miller 2006). The City of Riverside is surrounded by a series of hills and small mountains. These hills and mountains are between the two dominant San Jacinto and Santa Ana mountain ranges. They include La Sierra/Norco Hills, Mount Rubidoux, Box Springs Mountains, and the many smaller ranges south of the City (City of Riverside 2007). Two major waterways converge less than 1-mile north of the Project vicinity: the Santa Ana River and Tequesquite Arroyo. The natural vegetation within the Project vicinity prior to European colonization would have consisted of annual and perennial herbs, such as various species of sand verbena, thorn mint, and yarrow, as well as annual grasses, shrubs, and trees such as goldenhead, maple, broom, and fir (Calflora, 2022). The Project site is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 787 feet above mean sea level gently sloping to the northwest (Google 2023).

Review of Soils
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022a), the Project site is comprised of two soil types: Buchenau loam, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 2 percent slopes (57.1 percent) within the northern portion of the Project site, and Hanford coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slope s (42.9 percent) within the southern portion . The Buchenau series is characterized by moderately well drained soils formed on alluvial fans derived from mixed sources. The Hanford series is characterized as very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic sources. Typical pedons for the Buchenau and Hanford series extend approximately 5 feet below ground surface (USDA 2022b).

A review of the USGS mineral resources (USGS 2022) online spatial data for geology indicates that existing development is underlain by Older Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits, generally dating to the Pleistocene geologic age. Terminal Pleistocene-era alluvial formations do have the potential to support the presence of buried archaeological resources. These soils are associated with the period of prehistoric human use and represent ongoing processes of development that have the potential to preserve cultural material in context.

Geotechnical Report Review
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. (Alta) prepared the geotechnical report Geotechnical Investigation, 5261 Arlington Avenue, City of Riverside, California (2020), to evaluate the subsurface conditions of the Project parcel prior to construction. The report provides the results of nine (9) subsurface exploratory borings (B-01 through B-09) and three (3) infiltration tests (P-01 through P-03), collectively referred to as subsurface borings. The subsurface borings were dispersed evenly throughout the Project parcel (Exhibit 1) and were completed to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater was encountered between 41 feet and 43 feet below ground surface within four (4) borings (B-02, B-04, B-07, and B-08).
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 20 JUNE 2023

Exhibit 1. Subsurface exploratory boring locations

Source: Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. 2020

Subsurface exploratory borings revealed relatively uniform soil characteristics throughout the Project parcel consisting of undocumented artificial fill soils underlain by natural undisturbed alluvial fan deposits. Table 1 below provides a summary of the individual subsurface exploratory borings. In general, undocumented artificial fill was encountered across the site to a depth of 2 feet to 7 feet below ground surface trending deeper within the west half of the Project parcel . Within the northern portion of the Project parcel, which contains five (5) exploratory borings (B-04, B-05, B-06, P-01, and P-02), old alluvial fan deposits were observed directly underlying artificial fill

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 21 JUNE 2023

from depths as shallow as 2.5 feet below ground surface . The remaining seven (7) exploratory borings within the southern half of the Project parcel (B -01, B -02, B -03, B -07, B -08, B -09, an d P -03), encountered artificial fill underlain by young alluvial fan deposits underlain by older alluvial fan deposits. Soils were defined by the following characteristics:
 Undocumented artificial fill: encountered to depths ranging from 2 feet to 7 feet below ground surface and mainly consisting of brown silt, clayey silt, and sandy silt in a dry to slightly moist, moderately firm to very stiff condition.
 Young alluvial fan deposits: encountered to a depth of 20 feet below ground surface and mainly consisting of light brown, brown, and tannish brown silty clay, clayey silt, sandy silt, and sand, in a dry to slightly moist, firm to very stiff/dense condition.
 Old alluvial fan deposits: encountered to a depth of 51.5 feet at termination of boring and mainly consisting of gray, tan, light brown, and brown clayey sand, silty sandy, sand, and gravelly sand in a dry to wet, medium dense to very dense condition.

Table 1. Summary of Subsurface Exploratory Borings — Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. 2020
Boring
Number
Artificial Fill -
Undocumented
Young Alluvial Fan
Deposits
Old Alluvial Fan
Deposits Groundwater
B-01 6 inches* - 5 feet 5 feet – 20 feet 20 feet – 26 feet** None encountered B-02 8 inches* – 3.5 feet 3.5 feet – 15 feet 15 feet – 51.5 feet** 42 feet B-03 6 inches* - 5 feet 5 feet – 10 feet 10 feet – 26 feet** None encountered B-04 6 inches* - 4 feet None encountered 4 feet – 51.5 feet** 43 feet B-05 7 inches* - 2.5 feet None encountered 2.5 feet – 26 feet** None encountered B-06 5 inches* - 5 feet None encountered 5 feet – 26 feet** None encountered B-07 7 inches* - 5 feet 5 feet – 10 feet 10 feet – 51.5 feet** 42.5 feet B-08 6 inches* - 5 feet 5 feet – 15 feet 15 feet – 51.5 feet** 41 feet B-09 8 inches* - 7 feet 7 feet – 20 feet 20 feet – 26 feet** None encountered P-01 8 inches* - 2 feet None encountered 2 feet – 5 feet** None encountered P-02 7 inches* - 2 feet None encountered 2 feet – 5 feet** None encountered P-03 Surface – 6.5 feet 6.5 feet – 10 feet**
*Top inches composed of asphaltic concrete over base
**Denotes terminated depth of subsurface exploratory boring and not a change in soil designation

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 22 JUNE 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 23 JUNE 2023

4 Research and Field Methodology

4.1 CHRIS Records Search
On September 3, 2020, Eastern Information Center (EIC) completed a records search of the CHRIS database for the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius. At the time the CHRIS records search was requested, the 1.5 miles utility line had not been added to the study area and only approximately one-half of the utility line was captured in the record search results.. A supplemental records search request was submitted on February 9, 2023 to capture the project area west of Phoenix Avenue. To date, Dudek has not received the supplemental records search results and due to limitations incurred by COVID and reduced staff at the EIC, the arrival of the results are unknown. Dudek reviewed the EIC records to determine whether the implementation of the Project would have the potential to impact known and unknown cultural resources. The search identified and collected the records for any previously recorded cultural resources and cultural resource studies and reviewed the following lists in an effort to identify resources meeting the respective criteria for the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list. With respect to built environment resources, Dudek also reviewed the Built Environment Resources Database, California Inventory of Historical Resources (1976); Historical Maps; Local Inventories; and General Land Office and/or rancho plat maps. The records search results of maps, records, reports and a bibliography of all resources and prior cultural resource studies identified within 0.5 -mile of the Project site are included in Confidential Appendix A.

Previously Conducted Cultural Resource s Investigations The CHRIS records indicate that five (5) previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the

0.5-mile radius of the Project site. These investigations were conducted between 1980 and 2010. None of these studies directly address the Project site. This suggests that the Project site has not been subject to evaluation for the presence of cultural resources prior to its current development. Table 2, below, provides reference information for the five (5) previously conducted cultural resources investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project site.

Table 2. Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site
EIC ID Author Year Report Title
Proximity to
Project Site
RI-00939 Swenson, James D. 1980 Letter Report: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 33, City of
Riverside for Senior Citizens Center
Outside
RI-05899 Love, Bruce and Bai “Tom”
Tang
2002 Historic Building Evaluation, 4922
and 4948 Arlington Avenue, City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Outside
RI-06006 Tang, Bai “Tom”, Michael
Hogan, Josh Smallwood,
and Daniel Ballester
2003 Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey Report, Tentative Tract Map
No. 31333, 4928, & 4962, Dewey
Avenue, City of Riverside, Riverside
County, California
Outside
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 24 JUNE 2023

Table 2. Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site
EIC ID Author Year Report Title
Proximity to
Project Site
RI-08229 McKenna, Jeanette, A. 2009 A Summary Report on the Proposed Improvements for the Ramona High
School Campus in the City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Outside
RI-08600 McKenna, Jeanette, A. 2010 Addendum Studies: A Summary Report on the Proposed
Improvements for the Ramona High
School Campus in the City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Outside

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The CHRIS records indicate that no previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within or adjacent to the Project site. Nine (9) resources have been recorded within the surrounding 0.5-mile records search area. The identified cultural resources include one (1) historic-period archaeological site (CA-RIV-6403H/P-33-009544) and eight (8) historic-period built environment resources (P-33-011634, P-33-011635, P-33-012177, P-33-012178, P- 33-012179, P-33-012180, P-33-012181, and P-33-012182). No prehistoric sites or resources documented to be of specific Native American origin have been previously recorded within the records search area or the Project site.

The eight (8) built environment resources consist of single-family residential properties built between the early to mid-twentieth century. All are either listed locally or eligible for local listing. The historic-period archaeological site is discussed in the following paragraph. Table 3, below, provides further details on all previously recorded cultural resources within the records search area.

CA-RIV-6403H/P-33-009544. The historic-period archaeological site measures 85 feet by 10 feet at an elevation of 775 feet above mean sea level. The site is located approximately 0.1 mile (528 feet) northwest of the Project parcel and within approximately 200 feet east of the offsite improvement along Streeter Avenue. M. Hogan and N.

Johnson originally formally recorded CA-RIV-6403H/P-33-009544 in 1999. The site is documented as consisting of three (3) deteriorating concrete slabs and a light scatter of smokey glass fragments identified within a heavily disturbed and vacant property. Hogan posits that the slabs and artifact scatter are related to a structure depicted on a 1942 historical map that is in the same location as the site. The resource feature was determined not significant under CEQA and ineligible for listing on the CRHR. The desktop survey of aerial images conducted for the current study indicates that this resource has since been destroyed and the property redeveloped with a community complex. No subsurface excavations were conducted, and as a result, the horizontal and vertical extent of the resource is unknown.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 25 JUNE 2023

Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site Designation Resource Description Recorded By NRHP /CRHR Eligibility Approximate
Distance
from Site

CA-RIV-
6403H/P-33-
009544
Historic-period
archaeological site:
remnants of concrete
slabs associated with a
previously extant
structure noted on 1942
historical map
1999 (Johnson,
N. and M.

Hogan)
6Z: Found ineligible for
NRHP, CRHR, or Local
designation through survey
evaluation

0.1 mile
northwest
P-33-011634 Built Environment: single-
family property at 4922
Arlington Avenue built
1936
2002 (Tang, Bai
“Tom”)
5S1: Listed or designated
locally

City of Riverside “Structure
of Merit”

0.3 mile east
P-33-011635 Built Environment: single-
family property at 4948
Arlington Avenue built
1937
2002 (Tang, Bai
“Tom”)
5S1: Listed or designated
locally

City of Riverside “Structure
of Merit”

0.3 mile east
P-33-012177 Built Environment: single-
family property at 6735
Capistrano Way built ca.
1950
2000 (Tibbet,C.) 5D3: Appears to be a
contributor to a district that
appears eligible for local
listing or designation
through survey evaluation

Contributor to Hardman
Tracts Historic District, an
eligible but not formally
designated historic district.
<0.1 mile
north
P-33-012178 Built Environment: single-
family property at 6755
Capistrano Way built ca.
1950
2000 (Tibbet,C.) 5D3: Appears to be a
contributor to a district that
appears eligible for local
listing or designation
through survey evaluation

Contributor to Hardman
Tracts Historic District, an
eligible but not formally
designated historic district.
<0.1 mile
north
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 26 JUNE 2023

Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site Designation Resource Description Recorded By NRHP /CRHR Eligibility Approximate
Distance
from Site
P-33-012179 Built Environment: single-
family property at 6765
Capistrano Way built ca.
1949
2000 (Tibbet,C.) 5D3: Appears to be a
contributor to a district that
appears eligible for local
listing or designation
through survey evaluation

Contributor to Hardman
Tracts Historic District, an
eligible but not formally
designated historic district.
<0.1 mile
north
P-33-012180 Built Environment: single-
family property at 6710
Streeter Avenue built ca.
1927
2000 (Tibbet,C.) 5S3: Appears to be
individually eligible for local
listing or designation
through survey evaluation

0.1 mile
north
P-33-012181 Built Environment: single-
family property at 5218
Central Avenue built
1927
2000 (Tibbet,C.) 5S3: Appears to be
individually eligible for local
listing or designation
through survey evaluation

0.1 mile
north
P-33-012182 Built Environment: single-
family property at 5181
Sierra Street built ca.
1948
2000 (Tibbet,C.) 5S3: Appears to be
individually eligible for local
listing or designation
through survey evaluation
<0.1 mile
north

4.2. Review of Academic Literature
1938 Kirkman -Harriman Historical Map
Dudek cultural resources specialists reviewed sources commonly identified though Tribal consultation, notably the 1938 Kirkman-Harriman Historical Map (Exhibit 2). Based on this map, the Project site is approximately 15 miles southwest of the San Bernardino Mountains, approximately 10 miles northeast of the Santa Ana Mountains, and approximately 5 miles south of the Jurupa Hills. The Project parcel is mapped 0.2-mile south of the historical route of the Santa Ana River and the utility line terminates adjacent to the southern bank of the Santa Ana River’s historical route. In this portion of the map, the Santa Ana River and the Project site are encircled by two roadways.

Approximately 1.5 miles t o the north of the Project parcel and 1.3 miles north of the proposed utility line is an unnamed northeast southwest trending road. To the south, the northeast southwest trending “Spanish Town Road” intersects the Project site. Within the land between the roadways are two (2) unnamed Native American villages.

The villages are north of the Santa Ana River and equidistant from the Project site, approximately 4.5 miles to the east and west.

While the “Spanish Town Road” as mapped intersects the Project site, no archaeological evidence of this feature was provided in the CHRIS records search results or review of other archaeological information. Additionally, the CHRIS results contained no archaeological evidence of the Native American villages within proximity to the Project site. This is likely because the nearest mapped villages are located outside the Project’s 0.5-mile records search radius. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 27 JUNE 2023

It should be noted that this map is highly generalized due to scale and age and may be somewhat inaccurate with regards to distance and location of mapped features. Additionally, this map was prepared based on review of historic documents and notes more than 100 years following secularization of the missions (in 1833). Although the map contains no specific primary references, it matches with the details documented by the Portolá expedition (circa 1769–1770). The map is a valuable representation of post-colonization mission history; however, it is limited to a specific period of Native American history and substantiation of the specific location and uses of the represented individual features should be verified by archaeological records and/or other primary documentation.

4.3 Native American Coordination
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Land File
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources within or near the Project, on February 8, 2023, Dudek requested a search of the SLF maintained by the NAHC. The results of the SLF are negative. In compliance with AB 52, the City of Riverside has contacted all NAHC-listed traditionally geographically affiliated tribal representatives Exhibit 2. 1938 Kirkman-Harriman Historical Map

Source: Kirkman-Harriman 1937 Pictorial and Historical Map of San Bernardino: 1860-1937 AD

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 28 JUNE 2023

that have requested project notification. Documents related to the NAHC SLF search are included in Confidential Appendix B.

It should be noted that Sacred Land Files maintained by the NAHC represent a curation of “ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California ” (NAHC 2 021) provided by Tribal entities and Native American representatives. For various reasons, Tribal entities and Native American representatives do no not always report sacred lands or tribal cultural resources ( TCRs) to the NAHC ; as such, the NAHC’s SLF is not necessarily a comprehensive list of known TCRs, and searches of the SLF must be considered in concert with other research and not used as a sole source of information regarding the presence of TCRs. Additionally, results of the SLF provided relate to t he general regional area within and surrounding the Project site and do not necessarily equate to the existence of resources within the specific area occupied by the Project site.

Assembly Bill 52
The Project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to TCRs as part of the CEQA process, and that the lead agency notify California Native American Tribal representatives that have requested notification who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project site.

All records of correspondence related to AB 52 notification and any subsequent consultation are on file with the City. A summary of the consultation record is provided and addressed in the tribal cultural resources section of the CEQA document developed for the Project.

4.4 Building Development and Archival Background
Research
Previous Studies
City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program , Section 5.5 Cultural Resources Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program (certified 2007), Section 5.5 Cultural Resources (City of Riverside 2007), documents cultural resources impacts related to the adoption and implementation of the General Plan. Included are sensitivity maps for archaeological and prehistoric cultural resources. The Project site falls within an area classified as “Unknown.” Unknown areas are defined as follows:
 Primarily areas urbanized prior to the mid-1970s, as well as extant citrus groves surrounding the urbanized, built environment.
 Areas confined to the City’s downtown area that were urbanized during the early and mid-1900s where the current environmental conditions may not reflect the original environmental conditions.  Areas may contain buried archaeological deposits dating to the City’s prehistoric and historical periods.  Historical archaeological resources, such as buried hollow features containing historical refused deposits, are often associated with standing historical structures or the former location of historical structures. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 29 JUNE 2023

City of Riverside Modernism Historic Context Statement
In 2009, the City of Riverside completed a Historic Context Statement and Survey addressing Modernism. This context is:
 2009, Teresa Grimes and Christina Chiang. City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Riverside Historic Preservation Program.

The Sears department store and auto center building at 5231 Arlington Avenue was identified, recorded, and evaluated as a historical resource as part of this study. The subject property was assigned status codes of 3CS:

Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation and 5S3: Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. The subject property was not found eligible for the National Register as it was not yet 50 years of age at the time of the Riverside Modernism Historic Context Statement’s completion and did not meet NRHP eligibility criterion considerations. The corresponding DPR form is included in Appendix C: Previous Evaluation.

Building Development and Archival Research
Building development and archival research were conducted for the subject property in an effort to establish a thorough and accurate historic context for the signi ficance evaluations and to confirm the building development history of the subject property.

City of Riverside Building Permits
Dudek obtained building permits from the City of Riverside website. The permits received included building, plumbing, and electrical. Table 4 summarizes the building permits for the subject property. Illegible permits were excluded.

Table 4. Building Permits for 5261 Arlington Avenue
Permit
Number Year Description of Work Owner
Arch itect (A) /
Builder (B) /
Contractor (C) Cost
4534 1963 Construct commercial
building
Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Charles Luckman
Associates (A);
Lingrerot S M. C (B)
$2,300,000
7528 1964 Construction of new
building for key shop
Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Owner (C) $900
7146 1964 Signs Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Crown Signs + Neon
Company (C)
$5,000
5825 1968 Extend roof Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Illegible $300
3908 1968 60’ x 12’ patio cover Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Illegible $1,440
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 30 JUNE 2023

Table 4. Building Permits for 5261 Arlington Avenue
Permit
Number Year Description of Work Owner
Arch itect (A) /
Builder (B) /
Contractor (C) Cost
53975 1989 Interior demolition only Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Illegible None listed
C63964 1991 Tenant improvement (not
specified)
Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Illegible $26,000
924714 1992 Four exterior illuminated
signs: two Sears signs,
and two auto center
signs
Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Swain Sign Inc (C) $12,000
942426 1994 Demolition of 2,100
square foot canopy and
slab
Sears
Roebuck &
Co
RAS Builders Inc (C) $4,500
991829 1999 Mechanical Sears
Roebuck &
Co
DSG Mechanical
Corporation (C)
$125,000
991963 1999 Interior remodel Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Industrial Contracting
Engineers (C)
$115,000
000198 2000 Resurface existing four
signs and one new wall
sign (merchandise
pickup)
Sears
Roebuck &
Co
Certified Sign (C) $2,700
021431 2002 Chiller replacement;
pump; electrical;
mechanical; plumbing
Sears
Roebuck &
Co (tenant)
Peterson Hydraulics
Inc (C)
$8,000
012438 2002 Above ground oil storage
tank
Attn D PRC Mechanical (C) $65,000
041900 2004 Tear off and reroof Attn D Western Single Ply (C) $157,500 056075 2005 Electrical work for Avis
Rental Counter and
external sign
Attn D William R. Meixner &
Sons (C))
$2,500

Museum of Riverside
Dudek contacted the Museum of Riverside for information about the subject property on May 10, 2022. As of October 4, 2022, Dudek has not received a reply from the Museum of Riverside.

Riverside Archives
Dudek contacted the Riverside Archives on May 10, 2022, and again on June 7, 2022, for information pertaining to the subject property. As of June 13, 2022, there was no response from the Riverside Archives. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 31 JUNE 2023
Riverside Historical Society
Dudek contacted the Riverside Historical Society for information about the subject property on May 10, 202 2.

Dudek emailed the Riverside Historical Society on June 7, 2022, for more information pertaining to the history of the subject property. On June 9, 2022, Glenn Wenzel emailed to say they have no staff, but they have forwarded the request of information to several of their members. As of June 13, 2022, Dudek has not received a reply from members of the Riverside Historical Society.

Historical Newspaper Search
Dudek reviewed histo rical newspapers covering the subject property history and general Riverside history to understand the history and development of the area surrounding the subject property. All information obtained from the historical newspaper search was incorporated into the Definition of Area History (section 6 of this report).

Historic al Topographic Maps
Dudek consulted historical topographic maps through the Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) to better understand any natural or human -made changes to the Project site and surrounding area over time.

Topographic maps depict elevation of the study area as well as the areas surrounding it and illustrate the location of roads and some buildings. Although topographic maps are not comprehensive, they are anot her tool in determining whether a study area has been disturbed and at times to what approximate depth. The review of available topographic maps includes the following years: 1901, 1905, 1911, 1927, 1939, 1942, 1955, 1960, 1962, 1969, 1975, 1981, 2012, 2015, and 2018 (NETR 2022a). Table 5, below, summarizes the results of the topographic maps review of the proposed Project site and surrounding properties for all available years.

While topographic maps are informative, they do not illustrate the minute changes that can occur to a landscape overtime and at times, are inconsistent with what is depicted year to year. Most often, structures depicted in topographical maps are limited to those with community or social significance (e.g., Firehouses or Hospital s), including additions or changes to roads and/or waterways. Nonetheless, the information gathered contributes to the understanding of the chronological development of a study area.

Table 5. Historical Topographic Map Review of the Project Site Map Date Observations and Findings
1901, 1905, 1911, 1927,
1939, 1942
The Project site is within the developing city grid. An east west trending road bisects the northern portion of the Project parcel. A single structure is within the Project parcel just north of the unnamed road.
1955, 1960, 1962 The map has been updated significantly by this time. The grid is expanding in all directions and infilling with single-family neighborhoods. The Project site is bordered by Arlington Avenue to the south, Streeter Street to the west, Sierra Street to the north, and residential neighborhood to the east. Directly north, west, and south is minorly developed with a few clusters of residential housing interspersed among orchards. Within the Project parcel are approximately five (5) structures along the eastern and southern boundaries.
1969, 1975, 1981 All structures aside from one along Streeter Avenue have been removed and replaced by the subject property. The Project parcel is fully developed at this time. 2012, 2015, 2018 The maps during these years no longer plot buildings, though buildings and structures are still extant on the Project site.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 32 JUNE 2023

Historical Aerial Photographs
A review of historical aerial photographs for the Project site was conducted as part of the archival research effort from the following years: 1931, 1938, 1948, 1954, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018. Through careful comparative review of historical aerials, changes to the landscape of a study area may be revealed. Disturbance to the study area is specifically important as it helps determine if soils within the study area are capable of sustaining intact archaeological deposits. Additionally, historical aerials have the potential to reveal whether a study area was subjected to alluvial deposits by way of flooding, debris flows or mudslides, as well as placement of artificial or foreign fill soils that may have buried intact archaeological deposits.

Table 6, below, summar izes the results of the aerial photograph review of the Project site and surrounding properties for all available years (NETR 2022b; UCSB 2022). 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 33 JUNE 2023

Table 6. Historical Aerial Photograph Review of the Project Site Photograph Year Observations and Findings
1931 The first available aerial of the Project site is a 1931 photograph that shows the subject property and the surrounding area as farmland with small residences. The Project parcel is developed with one small residence surrounded by farmland. The land surrounding the Project parcel is divided into rectangles with a series of roads running north to south and east to west.
1938 The 1938 aerial photograph shows the Project parcel divided into four areas with a single residence located at the south end of the parcel. The surrounding area is partially developed with residences.
1948 The 1948 aerial photograph shows the Project parcel and surrounding area as farmland. Three residences are within the Project parcel. Residential development continues in the surrounding area.
1954 The Project parcel has four residences on site. The surrounding area is developed with residential tracts.
1963 The subject property has changed considerably between 1954 and 1963.

Demolition of three residences on site has taken place. One residence remains on site, with the construction of a foundation for the future Sears department store and auto center building. The majority of the Project parcel has been stripped and graded.
1966 By 1966, the entire property has redeveloped from farmland and small residences to a commercial property with large sections of surface parking and ornamental trees that dot the perimeter of the buildings and parcel. The subject property displays the Sears department store and auto center building. The cross streets of the Project parcel, Arlington Avenue and Streeter Street, are widened.

The area surrounding the Project parcel has developed with residential tracts to the north, west, and east, and with commercial development to the south. 1967 No discernible changes to the Project parcel.
1985 There are no discernible changes to the Project parcel. The parcel adjacent to the southwest corner of the Project was developed with a small commercial building, current Bank of America.
1994 No discernible changes to the Project parcel.
2002 The single remaining residence on site has been razed and replaced with parking. 2005,2009, 2010, 2012,
2014, 2016, 2018
There are no discernible changes to the subject property. North and south of the subject property is fully developed with residential tracts.

4.5 Pedestrian Survey
Field Methods
Dudek staff archaeologist Brenda Lee Rogers, BA, conducted an archaeological pedestrian survey of the Project site on February 7, 2023. Based on the existing Project site conditions, survey techniques were adjusted in accordance with the various levels of development and observable ground surface. Dudek employed an opportunistic survey approach due to the heavily developed nature of the Project site. The survey focused on identifying exposed ground surface within landscaped areas and edges of pavement. All available ground surface was inspected for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool -making debris, groundstone tools, ceramics, 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 34 JUNE 2023

fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, features indicative of structures and/or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics, building materials).

Dudek Architectural Historian Caitlin Greeley, MA, and Allison Lyons, MSHP, conducted an intensive level survey of 5261 Arlington Avenue for historic built environment resources on May 11, 2022. The survey entailed walking only the exterior of the buildings on the subject property, documenting the property with notes and phot ographs, specifically noting character -defining features, spatial relationships, observed alterations, and examining any historic landscape features on the property.

All fieldwork was documented using field notes and an Apple Generation 6 iPad (iPad) equipped with ESRI Collector and Avenza PDF Maps software with close- scale georeferenced field maps of the Project site. Location -specific photographs were taken using the iPad’s 8-mega-pixel resolution camera. All field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on file at Dudek’s Pasadena, California office. All field practices met the Secretary of Interior’s standards and guidelines for a cultural resources inventory.

Field Results
The archaeological survey was confined to the edges of the Project site, along the sidewalks on Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue, as well as within landscaped features that remain within the Project parcel . The exposed ground along the exterior edges provided fair to good visibility, but comprised approximately 1 percent of the Project site. Areas that contained observable exposed ground surface showed heavily disturbed fill soils. The remainder of the Project site is developed land consisting of asphalt parking lot and vacant buildings. Dudek did not conduct an archaeological pedestrian survey of this portion of the Project site given the lack of available exposed ground surface. No historic-period archaeological material or material of Native American origin was identified during the survey.

Dudek identified one building over 45 years old. The following sections provide a detailed physical description of the entire property and the associated significance evaluation of the Sears department store building and auto center under all applicable national and state designation criteria and integrity requirements.

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 35 JUNE 2023

5 Architectural Description
The subject property is comprised of a large commercial building connected to an auto center surrounded by a paved parking lot (See Figure 2. Project site). The Sears department store building is positioned in the middle of the parcel with the Sears auto center building is to the west.

Sears (19 64)
The Sears department store building is a two -story Mid-Century Modern commercial building completed in 19 64 (Exhibit 3). The two-story department store is rectangular in plan with a flat roof and is clad in concrete, brick, tile, and stone. The primary (south) elevation faces Arlington Avenue. It features an asymmetrical massing, horiz ontal planes, and contrasting materials of stone and tile with rectangular roof overhangs that wrap around the building.

Palm trees are integrated into the overhangs located at the corners of the elevation. Above the horizontal plane is textured tile and a n outline of a Sears sign that has been removed. The elevation features two entrances which have been boarded up with plywood. The entrances flank a rock wall and have no windows. The rear (north) elevation features a folded plate canopy supported by six posts and a breezeblock patio that wraps around to the side (west) elevation (Exhibit 4). The elevation has an asymmetrical arrangement of two doors and no windows. At the left of the elevation is a sloping loading area with five cargo bays. The side (west) elevation is clad in brick and concrete. The elevation is flat plane with a recessed alcove. The horizonal canopy bisecting the elevation has trees integrated at the corners of the elevation. It features an asymmetrical fenestration of one entrance that has been boarded up and no windows. An awning on the side (west) elevation of the building extends to the Auto Center. The side (east) elevation is clad in brick and has two entrances which have been covered with plywood. The entrances flank a rock wall with a horizontal canopy running along the elevation with rectangular canopies at the corners with palm trees incorporated into the design. Above the horizontal plane of the canopy is blank brickwork.

Sears Auto Center (19 64)
Located to the west of the Sears department store building is the Auto Center. It has a rectangular plan, a flat roof, and is clad in metal sheet and brick. The primary (south) elevation features an asymmetrical arrangement of six garage doors next to a recessed alcove which has bee n boarded up (Exhibit 5). A horizontal plane extends along the elevation above the garage doors. The side (west) elevation features a rock -clad wall which forms a parapet with palm trees in front of it (Exhibit 6). The side (east) elevation has a recessed entrance which has been boarded up, with brick at the base of the elevation. The rear (north) elevation features a recessed alcove with a brick base, six bays of garage doors, and a horizontal canopy that extends along the elevation above.

Paved parking lots with landscaped meridians surround the buildings. Palm trees line the perimeter of the buildings and property, lining the edge of the subject property along Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue.

Identified Alterations
The following alterations to the Sears department store building were observed during the intensive -level survey.

Unless indicated, the dates of these alterations are unknown:
 Original SEARS signage has been moved, replaced, then removed 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 36 JUNE 2023

Exhibit 3. Primary (south) elevation, view looking northwest

Source: Dudek 2022, IMG_0566.

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 37 JUNE 2023

Exhibit 4. Rear (north) and side (west) elevations, view looking southeast

Source: Dudek 2022, IMG_0535

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 38 JUNE 2023

Exhibit 5. Primary (south) elevation of Auto Center, view looking north

Source: Dudek 2022, IMG_0522

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 39 JUNE 2023

Exhibit 6. Side (west) and primary (south) elevations of Auto Center, view looking northeast

Source: Dudek 2022, IMG_0527

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 40 JUNE 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 41 NOVEMBER 2022

6 Definition of Area History

6.1 Prehistoric Overview
Evidence for continuous human occupation in Southern California spans the last 10,000 years. Various attempts to parse out variability in archaeological assemblages over this broad period have led to the development of several cultural chronologies; some of these are based on geologic time, most are based on temporal trends in archaeological assemblages, and others are interpretive reconstructions. To be more inclusive, this research employs a common set of generalized terms used to describe chronological trends in assemblage composition:

Paleoindian (pre-5500 BC), Archaic (8000 BC–AD 500), Late Prehistoric (AD 500–1769), and Ethnohistoric (post- AD 1769).

Paleoindian Period (pre -5500 BC)
Evidence for Paleoindian occupation in the region is tenuous. Our knowledge of associated cultural pattern(s) is informed by a relatively sparse body of data that has been collected from within an area extending from coastal San Diego, through the Mojave Desert, and beyond. One of the earliest dated archaeological assemblages in the region is located in coastal Southern California (though contemporaneous sites are present in the Channel Islands) derives from SDI-4669/W-12 in La Jolla. A human burial from SDI- 4669 was radiocarbon dated to 9,590–9,920 years before present (95.4% probability) (Hector 2006). The burial is part of a larger site complex that contained more than 29 human burials associated with an assemblage that fits the Archaic profile (i.e., large amounts of ground stone, battered cobbles, and expedient flake tools). In contrast, typical Paleoindian assemblages include large stemmed projectile points, high proportions of formal lithic tools, bifacial lithic reduction strategies, and relatively small proportions of ground stone tools. Prime examples of this pattern are sites that were studied by Emma Lou Davis (1978) on Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake near Ridgecrest, California. These sites contained fluted and unfluted stemmed points and large numbers of form al flake tools (e.g., shaped scrapers, blades). Other typical Paleoindian sites include the Komodo site (MNO -679)—a multi-component fluted point site, and MNO-680—a single component Great Basined Stemmed point site (see Basgall et al. 2002). At MNO-679 and -680, ground stone tools were rare while finely made projectile points were common.

Warren et al. (2004) claimed that a biface manufacturing tradition present at the Harris site complex (SDI-149) is representative of typical Paleoindian occupation in the San Diego region that possibly dates between 10,365 and 8200 BC (Warren et al. 2004). Termed San Dieguito (see also Rogers 1945), assemblages at the Harris site are qualitatively distinct from most others in region because the site has large numbers of finely made bifaces (including projectile points), formal flake tools, a biface reduction trajectory, and relatively small amounts of processing tools (see also Warren 1968). Despite the unique assemblage composition, the definition of San Dieguito as a separate cultural tradition is hotly debated. Gallegos (1987) suggested that the San Dieguito pattern is simply an inland manifestation of a broader economic pattern. Gallegos’s interpretation of San Dieguito has been widely accepted in recent years, in part because of the difficulty in distinguishing San Dieguito components from other assemblage constituents. In other words, it is easier to ignore San Dieguito as a distinct socioeconomic pattern than it is to draw it out of mixed assemblages.

The large number of finished bifaces (i.e., projectile points and non-projectile blades), along with large numbers of formal flake tools at the Harris site complex, is very different than nearly all other assemblages throughout the 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 42 JUNE 2023

region, regardless of age. Warren et al. (2004) made this point, tabulating basic assemblage constituents for key early Holocene sites. Producing finely made bifaces and formal flake tools implies that relatively large amounts of time were spent for tool manufacture. Such a strategy contrasts wi th the expedient flake-based tools and cobble- core reduction strategy that typifies non-San Dieguito Archaic sites. It can be inferred from the uniquely high degree of San Dieguito assemblage formality that the Harris site complex represents a distinct economic strategy from non- San Dieguito assemblages.

San Dieguito sites are rare in the inland valleys, with one possible candidate, RIV-2798/H, located on the shore of Lake Elsinore. Excavations at Locus B at RIV -2798/H produced a toolkit consisting predominately of flaked stone tools, including crescents, points, and bifaces, and lesser amounts of groundstone tools, among other items (Grenda 1997). A calibrated and reservoir -corrected radiocarbon date from a shell produced a date of 6630 BC.

Grenda (1997) suggested this site represents seasonal exploitation of lacustrine resources and small game and resembles coastal San Dieguito assemblages and spatial patterning.

If San Dieguito truly represents a distinct socioeconomic strategy from the non -San Dieguito Archaic processing regime, its rarity implies that it was not only short-lived, but that it was not as economically successful as the Archaic strategy. Such a conclusion would fit with other trends in Southern California deserts, where hunting-related tools were replaced by processing tools during the early Holocene (see Basgall and Hall 1990).

Archaic Period (8000 BC – AD 500)
The more than 2,500-year overlap between the presumed age of Paleoindian occupations and the Archaic period highlights the difficulty in defining a cultural chronology in Southern California. If San Dieguito is the only recognized Paleoindian component in the coastal Southern California, then the dominance of hunting tools implies that it derives from Great Basin adaptive strategies and is not necessarily a local adaptation. Warren et al. (2004) admitted as much, citing strong desert connections with San Dieguito. Thus, the Archaic pattern is the earliest local socioeconomic adaptation in the region (see Hale 2001, 2009).

The Archaic pattern, which has also been termed the Millingston e Horizon (among others), is relatively easy to define with assemblages that consist primarily of processing tools, such as millingstones, handstones, battered cobbles, heavy crude scrapers, incipient flake-based tools, and cobble-core reduction. These assemblages occur in all environments across the region with little variability in tool composition. Low assemblage variability over time and space among Archaic sites has been equated with cultural conservatism (see Basgall and Hall 1990; Byrd and Reddy 2002; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 2004). Despite enormous amounts of archaeological work at Archaic sites, little change in assemblage composition occurred until the bow and arrow was adopted around AD 500, as well as ceramics at approximately the same time (Gr iset 1996; Hale 2009). Even then, assemblage formality remained low. After adoption of the bow, small arrow points appear in large quantities and already low amounts of formal flake tools are replaced by increasing amounts of expedient flake tools. Similarly, shaped millingstones and handstones decreased in proportion relative to expedient, unshaped ground stone tools (Hale 2009). Thus, the terminus of the Archaic period is equally as hard to define as its beginning because basic assemblage constituents and patterns of manufacturing investment remain stable, complemented only by the addition of the bow and ceramics.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 43 JUNE 2023

Late Prehistoric Period (AD 500 –1769)
The period of time following the Archaic and before Ethnohistoric times (AD 1769) is commonly referred to as the Late Prehistoric (Rogers 1945; Wallace 1955; Warren et al. 2004); however, several other subdivisions continue to be used to describe various shifts in assemblage composition. In general, this period is defined by the addition of arrow points and ceramics, as well as the widespread use of bedrock mortars. The fundamental Late Prehistoric assemblage is very similar to the Archaic pattern, but incl udes arrow points and large quantities of fine debitage from producing arrow points, ceramics, and cremations. The appearance of mortars and pestles is difficult to place in time because most mortars are on bedrock surfaces. Some argue that the Ethnohistoric intensive acorn economy extends as far back as AD 500 (Bean and Shipek 1978). However, there is no substantial evidence that reliance on acorns, and the accompanying use of mortars and pestles, occurred before AD 1400. Millingstones and handstones persisted in higher frequencies than mortars and pestles until the last 500 years (Basgall and Hall 1990); even then, weighing the economic significance of millingstone-handstone versus mortar-pestle technology is tenuous due to incomplete information on archaeological assemblages.

6.2 Ethnographic Overview
The history of the Native American communities prior to the mid -1700s largely relies on later mission -period and early ethnographic accounts. The first records of the Native American inhabitants of the region come predominantly from European merchants, missionaries, military personnel, and explorers. These brief, and generally peripheral, accounts were prepared with the intent of furthering respective colonial and economic aims, often combined with observations of the landscape. They were not intended to be unbiased accounts regarding the cultural structures and community practices of the newly encountered cultural groups. The establishment of the missions in the region brought more extensive documentation of Native American communities, though these groups did not become the focus of formal and in-depth ethnographic study until the early twentieth century (Bean and Shipek 1978; Boscana 1846; Geiger and Meighan 1976; Harrington 1934; Laylander 2000; Sparkman 1908; White 1963). The principal intent of these researchers was to record the precontact, culturally specific practices, ideologies, and languages that had survived the destabilizing effects of missionization and colonialism. This research, often understood as “salvage ethnography,” was driven by the understanding that traditional knowledge was being lost due to the impacts of modernization and cultural assimilation. Alfred Kroeber applied his “memory culture” approach (Lightfoot 2005, p. 32) by recording lan guages and oral histories within the region. Ethnographic research by Dubois, Kroeber, Harrington, Spier, and others during the early twentieth century seemed to indicate that traditional cultural practices and beliefs survived among local Native American communities.

It is important to note that even though there were many informants for these early ethnographies who were able to provide information from personal experiences about native life before the Europeans, a significantly large proportion of these informants were born after 1850 (Heizer and Nissen 1973); therefore, the documentation of pre-contact, aboriginal culture was being increasingly supplied by individuals born in California after considerable contact with Europeans. As Robert F. Heizer (1978) stated, this is an important issue to note when examining these ethnographies, since considerable culture change had undoubtedly occurred by 1850 among the Native American survivors of California. This is also a particularly important consideration for studies focused on TCRs, where concepts of “cultural resource” and the importance of traditional cultural places are intended to be interpreted based on the values expressed by present-day Native American representatives and may vary from archaeological values (Giacinto 2012).
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 44 JUNE 2023

Based on ethnographic information, it is believed that at least 88 different languages were spoken from Baja California Sur to the southern Oregon state border at the time of Spanish contact (Johnson and Lorenz 2006, p. 34). The distribution of recorded Native American languages has been dispersed as a geographic mosaic across California through six primary language families (Golla 2007).

Victor Golla has contended that one can interpret the amount of variability within specific language groups as being associated with the relative “time depth” of the speaking populations (Golla 2007, p. 80) A large amount of variation within the language of a group represents a greater time depth then a group’s language with less internal diversity.

One method that he has employed is by drawing comparisons with historically documented changes in Germanic and Romantic language groups. Golla has observed that the “absolute chronology of the internal diversification within a language family” can be correl ated with archaeological dates (2007, p. 71). This type of interpretation is modeled on concepts of genetic drift and gene flows that are associated with migration and population isolation in the biological sciences.

The tribes of this area have traditiona lly spoken Takic languages that may be assigned to the larger Uto –Aztecan family (Golla 2007, p. 74). These groups include the Gabrielino, Cahuilla, and Luiseño Golla has interpreted the amount of internal diversity within these language-speaking communities to reflect a time depth of approximately 2,000 years. Other researchers have contended that Takic may have diverged from Uto–Aztecan ca. 2600 BC–AD 1, which was later followed by the diversification within the Takic speaking tribes, occurrin g approximately 1500 BC–AD 1000 (Laylander 2010).

Gabrielino (Gabrieleño)/Tongva
The archaeological record indicates that the Gabrielino arrived in the Los Angeles Basin around 500 B.C.

Surrounding native groups included the Chumash and Tataviam to the northwest, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast.

The names by which Native Americans identified themselves have, for the most part, been lost and replaced by those derived by the Spanish people administering the local Missions. These names were not necessarily representative of a specific ethnic or tribal group, and traditional tribal names are unknown in the post -Contact period. The name “Gabrielino” was first established by the Spanish from the San Gabriel M ission and included people from the established Gabrielino area as well as other social groups (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925).

Many modern Native Americans commonly referred to as Gabrielino identify themselves as descendants of the indigenous people living across the plains of the Los Angeles Basin and refer to themselves as the Tongva (King 1994). This term is used here in reference to the pre-Contact inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants.

The Tongva established large, permanent villages along rivers and streams, and lived in sheltered areas along the coast. Tongva lands included the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina and stretched from the foothills of the San Gabrie l Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Tribal population has been estimated to be at least 5,000 (Bean and Smith 1978), but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a much larger population, approaching 10,000 (O’Neil 2002). Archaeological sites composed of villages with various sized structures have been identified through the Los Angeles Basin. Within the permanent village sites, the Tongva constructed large, circular, domed houses made of willow poles thatched with tule, each of which could hold upwards of 50 people (Bean and Smith 1978). Other structures constructed throughout the villages probably 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 45 JUNE 2023

served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and communal granaries. Cleared fields for races and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Tongva villages (McCawley 1996).

The largest, and best documented, ethnographic Tongva village in the Gabrieleño territory was likely that of Yanga (also known as Yaangna, Janga, and Yabit), which was in the vicinity of the downtown Los Angeles (McCawley 1996:
56-57; NEA and King 2004). This village was reportedly first encountered by the Portola expedition in 1769. In 1771, Mission San Gabriel was established. Yanga provided a large number of the individuals to this mission; however, following the founding of the Pueblo of Los Angeles in 1781, opportunities for local paid work became increasingly common, which had the result of reducing the number of Native American neophytes from the immediately surrounding area (NEA and King 2004). Mission records indicate that 179 Gabrieleno inhabitants of Yanga became members of San Gabriel Mission (NEA and King 2004: 104). Based on this information, Yanga may have been the most populated village in the Western Gabrieleno territory. Second in size, and less thoroughly documented, the village of Cahuenga was located just north of the Cahuenga Pass.

The Tongva subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the tribe exploited mountains, foothil ls, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Like that of most native Californians, acorns were the staple food (an established industry by the time of the early Intermediate Period). Acorns were supplemented by the roo ts, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Fresh water and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, and insects, as well as large and small mammals, were also consumed (Bean and Smith 1978:54 6; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).

Tools and implements used by the Tongva to gather and collect food resources included the bow and arrow, traps, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. Trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands Groups was conducted using plank canoes as well as tule balsa canoes. These canoes were also used for general fishing and travel (McCawley 1996). The collected food resources were processed food with hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Blackburn 1963; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).

The Chinigchinich religion, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures, was the basis of religious life at the time of Spanish contact. The Chinigchinich religion not only provided laws and institutions, but it also taught people how to dance, which was the primary religious act for this society. The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the Southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built. This religion may be the result of a mixture of native and Christian belief systems and practices (McCawley 1996).

Inhumation of deceased Tongva was the more common method of burial on the Channel Islands while neighboring mainland coast people performed cremation (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996). Cr emation ashes have been found buried within stone bowls and in shell dishes (Ashby and Winterbourne 1966), as well as scattered among broken ground stone implements (Cleland et al. 2007). Supporting this finding in the archaeological record, ethnographic descriptions have provided an elaborate mourning ceremony. Offerings varied with the sex and status of the deceased (Johnston 1962; McCawley 1996; Reid 1926). At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased during the post-Contact period (McCawley 1996). 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 46 JUNE 2023

Cahuilla
The name “Cahuilla” is possibly derived from a native word meaning a “master, boss” (Bean 1978: 575). ‘Ivi’lyu’atam is the traditional term for the linguistically and culturally defined Cahuilla cultural nationality, and “refers to persons speaking the Cahuilla language and recognizing a commonly shared cultural heritage” (Bean 1972: 85). Some scholars (e.g., Moratto 1984: 559) suggest that the Cahuilla migrated to southern California about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, most likel y from southern Sierra Nevada ranges of east –central California with other related socio-linguistic groups (i.e. the Takic speakers). The Cahuilla then settled in a territory that extended west to east from the present-day City of Riverside to the central portion of the Salton Sea in the Colorado Desert, and south to north from Lake Elsinore to the San Bernardino Mountains. While 60% of Cahuilla territory was located in the Lower Sonoran Desert environment, 75% of their diet from plant resources was acquired in the Upper Sonoran and Transition environmental zones (Bean 1978: 576).

The Cahuilla had three primary levels of socio-political organization (Bean 1978). The highest level was the cultural nationality, encompassing everyone speaking a common language. Next were the two patrimoieties of the Wildcats (tuktum) and the Coyotes (‘istam). Every clan of the Cahuilla fell into one or the other of these moieties. The third basic level consisted of the numerous political–ritual–corporate units called sibs, or patrilineal clans (Bean 1978).

While anthropologists have designated groups of Cahuilla clans by their geographical location into Pass, Desert, and Mountain, suggesting dialectic and ceremonial differences between these groupings, these social and linguistic areas were more a result of proximity than actual social connections. In reality, there was a continuum of minor differences from one clan to the next. Lineages within a clan cooperated in defense, in community subsistence activities, and in religious ce remonies. While most lineages owned their own village site and particular resource area, much of the territory was open to all Cahuilla people.

Cahuilla villages were usually located in canyons or on alluvial fans near a source of accessible water, such a s springs or where large wells could be dug. Each family and lineage had their houses (kish ) and granaries for the storage of food, and ramadas for work and cooking. There would often be sweat houses and song houses (for non- religious music). Each community also had a separate house for the lineage or clan leader. There was a ceremonial house, or kíš ?ámnawet, associated with the clan leader, where major religious ceremonies were held. Houses and ancillary structures were often spaced apart, and a “village” could spread out over a mile or two.

A wide variety of tools and implements were employed by the Cahuilla to gather and collect food resources. For the hunt, these included the bow and arrow, traps, nets, slings and blinds for hunting land mammals and bi rds, and nets for fish in Holocene-epoch Lake Cahuilla. Rabbits and hares were commonly taken with the throwing stick, but communal hunts for these animals utilized tremendously large nets and clubs for mass -capture. Foods were processed with a variety of tools, including portable stone mortars, bedrock mortars and pestles, basket hopper mortars, manos and metates, bedrock grinding slicks, hammerstones and anvils, woven strainers and winnowers, leaching baskets and bowls, woven parching trays, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was consumed from a number of woven and carved wood vessels and pottery vessels. The ground meal and unprocessed hard seeds were stored in large finely woven baskets, and the unprocessed mesquite beans were stored in large granaries woven of willow branches and raised off the ground on platforms to keep it from vermin.

Pottery vessels were made by the Cahuilla, and also traded from the Yuman-speaking groups across the Colorado River and to the south.

By 1819, several Spanish mission outposts, known as asistencias, were established near Cahuilla territory at San Bernardino and San Jacinto, but interaction with Europeans was not as intense in the interior Cahuilla region as it 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 47 JUNE 2023

was for coastal groups. The topography and lack of water also made the area less attractive to colonists than the coastal valley regions. By the 1820s, however, the Pass Cahuilla were experiencing consistent contact with the ranchos of Mission San Gabriel, while the individuals and families of the Moun tain branch of the Cahuilla were frequently employed by private rancheros and were also recruited to Mission San Luis Rey.

By the 1830s, Mexican ranchos were located near Cahuilla territory along the upper Santa Ana and San Jacinto rivers, thus introducing the Cahuilla to ranching and an extension of traditional agricultural techniques. The Bradshaw Trail was established in 1862 and was the first major east –west stage and freight route through the Coachella Valley. Traversing San Gorgonio Pass, the trail connected gold mines on the Colorado River with the coast.

Bradshaw based his trail on the Cocomaricopa Trail, with maps and guidance provided by local Native Americans.

Journals by early travelers along the Bradshaw Trail told of encountering Cahuilla villages and walk-in wells during their journey through the Coachella Valley.

The continuing expansion of immigrants into the region introduced the Cahuilla to European diseases. The single worst recorded event was a smallpox epidemic in 1862 –63. By 1891, only 1,160 Cahuilla remained in their traditional territory, down from a population of 6,000 –10,000 (Bean 1978). By 1974, approximately 900 people claimed Cahuilla descent, most living on reservations.

Between 1875 and 1891, the United States established ten reservations for the Cahuilla within their territory (Agua Caliente, Augustine, Cabazon, Cahuilla, Los Coyotes, Morongo, Ramona, Santa Rosa, Soboba, and Torres-Martinez).

Four of the reservations are shared with other groups, including the Chemehuevi, Cupeñ o, and Serrano (Bean 1978).

Luiseño
The Luiseño language belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic language branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family.

Luiseño is a term given to Native Americans under the administration of Mission San Luis Rey, and later applied specifically to the Payomkawichum ethnic nation who were present in the region where the mission was founded.

Meaning the “western people,” the name Payomkawichum can also be applied to the closely related coastal Luiseño who lived north of the mission.

Luiseño territory was situated in the north half of San Diego County and the western edge of Riverside County. Their lands encompassed the southern Santa Margarita Mountains and the Palomar Mountains, and their foothills to the Pacific Ocean. The territory extended eastward into the San Jacinto Valley and the western foothills o f the San Jacinto Mountains. Their neighbors to the southwest were the Juaneño (Acjachemen) who spoke a Luiseño dialect; the Cahuilla and Cupeño to the east who spoke other Takic Cupan languages; and the Ipai (Kumeyaay) to the south who spoke a California -Delta Yuman language. Today, many contemporary Juaneño and coastal Luiseño identify themselves as descendants of the indigenous people living in the local area, termed the Acjachemen Nation.

The Luiseño resided in permanent villages and associated seasonal camps. Village population ranged from 50 – 400 with social structure based on lineages and clans. A single lineage was generally represented in smaller villages, while multiple lineages and a dominant clan presided in larger villages. Each clan/village owned a resource territory and was politically independent, yet maintained ties to others through economic, religious, and social networks in the immediate region. There were contact period villages in the vicinity of this segment, near the towns of Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, but researchers have been unable to place rancheria names from the mission registers with these locations.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 48 JUNE 2023

Like other Indigenous California groups, the primary food staple was the acorn (Bean and Shipek 1978), supplemented by other plant resources, fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and marine and terrestrial mammals. Villages were situated near reliable sources of water, needed for the daily leaching of milled acorn flour. Other plant foods included pine nuts and grass seeds, manzanita, sunflower, sage, chia, lemonade berry, wild rose, holly-leaf cherry, prickly pear, and lamb’s quarter. Large and small prey included deer, antelope, rabbit, jackrabbit, wood rat, mice, and ground squirrel, as well as quail, ducks, and other birds. Fish, such as trout, were caught in rivers and creeks.

The first direct European contact with the Luiseño occurred in July 1769 with the Spanish expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá. During the next six years, eight missions and forts were founded north and south of Luiseño territory. In 1776, Mission San Juan Capistrano was founded less than 10 miles north, and the populations of five northern Luiseño villages had been halved within 15 years. In 1798, Mission San Luis Rey was established within Luiseño territory, and the proselytizing among the Payomkawichum began in earnest. The Luiseño were not forcibly removed to the mission and consequently, the disruption of traditional lifeways and deaths from introduced diseases were not as devastating as they were for many other Indigenous Californian groups.

Several Luiseño leaders signed the statewide 1852 treaty, locally known as the Treaty of Temecula (an interior Luiseño village), but the U.S. Congress never ratified it. By 1875, however, reservations for the Luiseño were established in the Palomar Mountains and nearby valleys, including Pala, Pauma, Rincon, Pechanga, La Jolla, and San Pasqual. No reservations were established for the remaining coastal people, whose lands had already been usurped by the Mexican ranchos.

6.3 Historic Period Overview
The written history of the State of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769 – 1821), Mexican Period (1821 –1846), and American Period (1846– present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican–American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

Spanish Period (1769 –1821)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of southern California between the mid-1500s and mid- 1700s. In search of the legendary Northwest Passage, Juan Rodríquez Cabríllo stopped in 1542 at present-day San Diego Bay. With his crew, Cabríllo explored the shorelines of present Catalina Island as well as San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays. Much of the present California and Oregon coastline was mapped and recorded in the next half - century by Spanish naval officer Sebastián Vizcaíno. Vizcaíno’s crew also landed on Santa Catalina Island and at San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays, giving each location its long -standing name. The Spanish crown laid claim to California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885; Gumprecht 1999).

More than 200 years passed before Spain began the colonization and inland exploration of Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspar de Portolá marks the beginning of California’ s Historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. With a band of 64 soldiers, missionaries, Baja (lower) California Native Americans, and Mexican civilians, Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego, a fortified military outpost, as the 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 49 JUNE 2023

first Spanish settlement in Alta California. In July of 1769, while Portolá was exploring southern California, Franciscan Fr. Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá at Presidio Hill, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823.

The Portolá expedition first reached the present-day boundaries of Los Angeles in August 1769, thereby becoming the first Europeans to visit the area. Father Crespi named “the campsite by the river Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de la Porciúncula” or “Our Lady the Queen of the Angeles of the Porciúncula.” Two years later, Friar Junípero Serra returned to the valley to establish a Catholic mission, the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, on September 8, 1771 (Kyle 2002). In 1795, Father Fermin de Lasuén ordered a report to identify potential new mission sites. As a result, the Francisco Reyes Rancho was proposed as the site for the new Mission San Fernando Rey de España (Perkins 1957). Mission San Fernando Rey de España was established nearly 30 years later on September 8, 1797. The mission, founded in 1797, was ultimately lo cated elsewhere; however, Mission San Fernando Rey de España acquired the headwaters of the Santa Clara River east from Piru and named the land Rancho San Francisco. Shortly thereafter, many of the local Tataviam people were removed from their homeland and relocated to the mission where many of their traditional lifeways were no longer feasible.

Mexican Period (1821 –1846)
A major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California was the construction of missions and associated presidios to integrate the Nati ve American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns, but just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles). Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Dallas 1955).

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions (enacted 1833) following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos.

During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities.

American Period (1846 –Present)
War in 1846 between Mexico and the United States precipitated the Battle of Chino, a clash between resident Californios and Americans in the San Bernardino area. The Mexican -American War ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ushering California into its American Period. The tenth article of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo addressed the status of the titles to private land grants in the territories that were acquired by 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 50 JUNE 2023

the United States from the Mexican government. An excerpt of the response from the commissioners of the United States regarding the tenth article, signed on May 26, 1948, is provided here:
…with full powers from their Government to make to the Mexican Republic suitable explanations in regard to the amendments which the Senate and Government of the said United States have made in the treaty of peace…The American Government by suppressing the Xth article of the treaty of Guadelupe did not in any way intend to annul the grants of lands made by Mexico in the ceded territories. ***Conformably to the law of the United States, legitimate titles to every description of property, personal and real, existing in the ceded territories are those which are legitimate titles under the Mexican law in California *** up to the 13th of May, 1846 *** [Baker 1914: 236] Following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and subsequently, the admission of California as a state in 1850 with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as U.S. Territories (Waugh 2003), the Congress of the United States established the Board of Land Commissioners, to determine which private lands granted by the Mexican government prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, would be honored.

The California Land Act of 1851 became law on March 3, 1851. The California Land Act of 1851 was comprised of a three-member Board of Land Commission, an entity responsible for determining the validity of prior Spanish and Mexican land grants (State Lands Commission 1982). Essentially, under this Act, private landowners or grantees of land granted by the Spanish and Mexican government had the burden of proving their claim of ownership by presenting their titles for confirmation before the Board of Land Commissioners (State Lands Commission 1982).

Following the initial confirmation of a private land claim by the Board of Land Commissioners, the claims were subjected to appeals to the District Court and Supreme Court until the Board of Land Commissioners confirmation was either upheld or reversed (State Lands Commission 1982). In addition to this process, a survey of the land was to be performed at the expense of the claimant and once this step was completed, the claimant would petition the General Land Office for a final patent; however, given the time and expenses involved with seeing a claim through to the end, some claimants would be forced to sell the land (State Lands Commission 1982).

The California State Surveyor-General, James T. Stratton, documented the list of private land claims within California in his incomplete report for August 1, 1879 to August 1, 1880 titled “Report of Spanish or Mexican Grants in California.” The California State Lands Commission took over the role of updating and completing the list following the shutdown of the Surveyor-General’s office in August 1929. The format for the listing involves: county names in alphabetical order; the patented private land claim (ranchos); the name of the final patentee (claimant or confirmee); date of patent or date the rancho was confirmed; acreage; and the public land survey system area (Township, Range, and Meridian). Records held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the final authority confirming ownership, were referenced to address conflicts with the list information (State Lands Commission 1982). Ultimately, a total of 71 patents recorded in Los Angeles County between 1858 and 1923 are associated with entries issued by the United States co nfirming the titles to the private land grants (State Lands Commission 1982: 49-58). The largest patented grant was the Ex -Mission San Fernando, which was granted to Eulogio F. de Celis on January 8, 1873 as number 410 on the Rancho Plat assigned by the BLM, and encompassed a total area of 116,858.46 acres (State Lands Commission 1982: 46).

Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the southern California economy through 185 0s. The Gold Rush began in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom. Cattle were at first driven along major trails or roads 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 51 JUNE 2023

such as the Gila Trail or Southern Overland Trail, then were transported by trains when available. The cattle boom ended for southern California as neighbor states and territories drove herds to northern California at reduced prices.

Operation of the huge ranchos became increasingly difficult, and droughts severely reduced their productivity (Cleland 2005).

Development of Riverside
In March of 1870, John Wesley North issued a circular entitled “A Colony for California” to promote the idea of founding an agriculture-based colony in California. Prospective investors met in Chicago on May 18, 1870, forming the Southern California Colony Association. This success prompted North to head to Los Angeles, where he arrived on May 26, 1870, with the intention of settling the colony near Los Angeles. However, the Association directors decided on the Jurupa Rancho along the banks of t he Santa Ana River, purchasing it from the California Silk Association in August 1870. By the end of the year, present -day Riverside was surveyed and platted with 10-acre parcels and a one -square-mile townsite. North then assumed residence on site for the purpose of surveying and developing the colony. He envisioned small-scale farmers growing fruits appropriate to paradise: oranges, lemons, figs, walnuts, olives, almonds, grapes, sweet potatoes, sorghum, and sugar beets. The community was originally called “Yurupa” but the name was changed to “Riverside” in December of 1870. The town grew quickly after 1870, reaching over 1,000 residents in its first decade. Between 1880 and 1890, the City’s population grew from approximately 1,350 to 4,600 residents and grew from its original one-square-mile town center to nearly 56 square miles by 1883. In 1883, the City of Riverside was incorporated (Grimes and Chiang 2009; Howell -Ardila 2018; Stonehouse 1965; Patterson 1971).

The citrus industry increased dramatically during the 1880s, with the promotion of the area emphasizing the potential profitability of agriculture. Of particular note was the introduction of the navel orange to the budding California citrus industry. Two navel orange trees from Brazil’s Bahia Province were gifted to Eliza Tibbets by William Saunders, horticulturist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Eliza and her husband, Luther, brought the trees to the Riverside colony and planted them in 1873. These parent trees produced sweet-tasting seedless fruits, sparking the interest of local farmers and becoming so popular that the fruits from these trees eventually became known as “Riverside Navel.” The fruit’s popularity helped establish Riverside as a national leader in cultivating oranges and within Riverside created a new economic class: the “orchard aristocrats” (Howell -Ardila 2018: 23) One of the two original parent navel orange trees is still extant, growing near the intersection of Arlington and Magnolia Avenue, and is “mother to mi llions of navel orange trees the world over”; the tree is designated as California Historical Landmark No. 20 (Caltrans 2007; Howell-Ardila 2018; Hurt 2014).

North originally intended that the colony would build, own, and operate its own irrigation system , but the desert mesa location made such a venture prohibitively expensive. Thus, the Southern California Company Association joined forces with the Silk Center Association to develop the irrigation project. After completing a canal survey, work began in October 1870 to construct the Upper Riverside Canal. This was in direct conflict with the water rights of farmers and ranchers in San Salvator, renamed by white Riverside settlers as “Spanishtown.” Shortly after, by 1878, a second canal was constructed and the Riverside Canal Company was formed, only to be superseded by the Riverside Water Company in 1886. Further growth in the region led to the construction of a third major canal, called the “Gage Canal,” built by 1888. The development of a stable water supply bolstered the booming citrus industry in Riverside. By 1895, around 20,000 acres of navel orange groves had been planted, and the citrus industry became the primary economic influence for the region well into the turn of the century. This rapid growth of such a vibrant citrus industry led to Riverside becoming the wealthiest city per capita in the United States by 1895. The growing citrus industry was in turn stimulated by another major factor that would strongly influence the cultural 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 52 JUNE 2023
development of Ri verside: the advent of the railroad in Southern California (Bailey 1961; Howell -Ardila 2018; Stonehouse 1965).

The initial rail line developed in the region around 1882 was the California Southern Railroad, which then connected with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (ATSF) transcontinental line in 1885. In 1887, C.W. Smith and Fred Perris of the California Southern Railroad and J.A. Green incorporated the Valley Railway as a regional line for Riverside.

The San Jacinto Valley Railroad was constructed the next year, in 1888; it traveled southeast from Perris, then east across the valley to San Jacinto. With the combination of rail transportation, the packing industry, and cold storage facilities, Riverside was able to yield over one-half million boxes of oranges by 1890 (George and Hamilton 2009; Patterson 1971).

At the end of the nineteenth century, counties were established, and the area today known as Riverside County was divided between Los Angeles County and San Diego County. In 1853, the eastern part o f Los Angeles County was used to create San Bernardino County. Between 1891 and 1893, several proposals and legislative attempts were put forth to form new counties in Southern California. These proposals included one for a Pomona County and one for a San Jacinto County; however, no proposals were adopted to create Riverside County until the California Board of Commissioners filed the final canvas of the votes, and the measure was signed by Governor Henry H. Markham on March 11, 1893 (Brown and Boyd 1922).

In 1917, the U.S. War Department began building up its strength in anticipation of involvement in World War I and announced plans for several new military bases. A group of local Riverside business owners and investors received approval to construct the Alessandro Flying Training Field, which opened on March 1, 1918. March Field served as a base for primary flight training courses. While initial demobilization began after World War I, March Field remained an active Army Air Service station, and then as a U.S. Army Air Corps installation throughout the interwar period. However, with the United States’ entrance into World War II, March Field quickly became a major training installation of the U.S.

Army Air Forces for the Pacific Theater. Following the end of World War II in 1945 and the establishment of the U.S. Air Force in 1947, March Field was renamed March Air Force Base (Grimes and Chiang 2009; Patterson 1971).

After World War II, Riverside diversified its economy, developing a significant manufacturing se ctor. Largely light industry, the manufacturing sector generated a range of products, including aircraft components, automotive parts, gas cylinders, electronic equipment, food products, and medical devices. As the county seat and largest city in the region, Riverside also houses numerous legal, accounting, brokerage, architectural, engineering, and technology firms, as well as banking institutions. In 1953, the Press Enterprise reported that Riverside was 14 th among the
fastest-growing cities in the western United States. The City of Riverside, which had not expanded since its original limits were established in 1883, began annexing new areas to the city in 1954 (Grimes and Chiang 2009).

In 1947, a group of citrus growers and Riverside community organizers lobbied the University of California (UC) Regents to establish a liberal arts college at the UC Citrus Experimentation Station. As a result, the University of California Riverside campus opened in 1954 and was added to the UC system i n 1959. The neighborhood surrounding UC Riverside was annexed just a few years later in 1961.

New highway development also marked the post-war years. Prior to World War II, U.S. Route 395 and State Routes (SR-) 60 and 18 were the only highways through Riverside. In 1957, U.S. 395 was part of an interstate improvement project and became Interstate 215, and the Riverside Freeway (CA Route 91) was added in 1961 connecting Riverside and Gardena. The Pomona Freeway (CA Route 60) was also improved into a four-to-six-lane highway, also opening in 1961. Riverside’s interconnectivity of both rail and highway, coupled with inexpensive real estate, also 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 53 JUNE 2023

attracted more manufacturing industries to Riverside after World War II. Examples of such post-war industries were the Loma Linda Food Company, Food Machinery Corporation, Hunter-Douglas Corporation, Rohr Aircraft Company, Bourns Incorporated, and Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation. These included electronic and aerospace industries as well as industrial agribusiness and food shipping (Grimes and Chiang 2009).

During the post -World War II era, shifts in commercial development occurred due to automobile culture and sprawling residential development. Downtown centers became deserted as the focus moved to shopping centers to serve sprawl. Companies in Riverside that developed residential tracts also developed early shopping centers, in the 1950s. Large department stores were developed away from the downtown area to be closer to residential areas.

Riverside had branches of national department store chains including J. C. Penny, Montgomery Ward, and Sears, Roebuck, and Company that accommodated shoppers in residential areas.

In recent years, Riverside has given much attention to diversifying its economy beyond the citrus industry, creating a sustainable community encompassing an area of nearly 7,200 square miles and boasting a population of 1.3 million people (2010 Census). Despite changes in the regional economic focus and the general shifts in social movements in California over the last decade, Riverside has consistently been one of the, if not the, fastest-growing areas in the country (Grimes and Chiang 2009).

History of the Subject Property
Historic aerial images show the subject property was primarily citrus orchards and farmland between 1931 and 1963, with small residences on site. The residences on site were demolished to make way for the construction of a Mid-Century Modern department store designed by architect Charles Luckman. The general contracting firm was Los Angeles based Lindgren & Swinerton. In 1963, groundbreaking ceremonies for the subject property, the Sears department store building, took place with special guests including building’s architect, Charles Luckman, Riverside store manager T.C. Hujar, Sears California zone manager H.E. Rademacher, and Mayor Dales of Riverside in attendance. The project would include a 184,754 square -foot department store and 24,294 -square-foot auto service station accommodating 24 cars for service and 1,722 parking spaces (Exhibit 5). On May 6, 1964, Sears opened its new department store at 5261 Arlington Avenue , moving its storefront from its former downtown Riverside location (Grimes and Chiang 2009; NETR 1931, 1963; Daily Record 1964; Colton Courier 1963a, Colton Courier 1963b).
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 54 JUNE 2023

The period after World War II until the 1970s was one of expansion for the Sears department store chain. The subject property is typical of post -World War II Sears stores and features a large, functional, windowless, free - standing building with twelve entrances, surrounded by a generous parking lot on all sides . All incoming and outgoing truck traffic was managed via a large ramp leading directly to the building’s basement level, located at the north elevation of the department store. The Sears department store building in Riverside included an automobile service center. Building materials included concrete, brick, stone, stainless steel, aluminum, and glass. Sears stopped installing windows in their stores after the 1930s to control lighting of merchandise from the interior. The functional design of th e building was replicated after World War II for department stores. By the mid-1950s, the number of Sears stores in the United States had passed 700. By 1968, there were two Sears stores in the general area of the subject property: 5261 Arlington Avenue in Riverside (subject property) and 100 Inland Center in San Bernardino.

Sears, Roebuck, and Company maintained ownership of the subject property until the mid-2010s. The department store building property has not undergone changes over time, with the exception of the replacement and removal of Sears signage. In the 1990s, the parking lot of the subject property functioned as a driving school. In 2019, Sears closed operations at the store, and the department store building remains vacant and unoccupied in 2022 (Katzanek 2019; San Bernardino County Sun 1990; San Bernardino County Sun 1968; Colton Courier 1963b; Grimes and Chiang 2009; Howard 2017).

Exhibit 7. 1963 architect’s rendering of the subject property

Source: The Colton Courier 1963

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 55 JUNE 2023

7 Statement of Significance

7.1 Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern
(1940-1975)
Mid-Century Modern style is reflective of International and Bauhaus styles popular in Europe in the early twentieth century. Early Modernists, including Rudolph Schindler, Richard Neutra, and Frank Lloyd Wright brought many elements of these design aesthet ics and material experimentation to Southern California in the 1920s. The development of the Mid-Century Modern style in the United States was largely fostered by World War II. Prominent European practitioners of the International and Bauhaus styles, namely architects Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, fled to the United States during World War II. The United States became a manufacturing and industrial leader. Materials and aesthetics evolved to reflect modern innovations that dominated design an d construction following the war.

Mid-Century Modern design was embraced intellectually as a departure from the past, but it was economically appealing for its ability to be mass -produced with standardized, affordable, and replicable designs that could accommodate many programmatic needs and site requirements. There was a need for a style that could meet the demand for mass construction of many property types – from residences to schools to offices – and convey the modern sensibility of an era that valued a departure from the past; middle -class growth; economic efficiency; and new material technology. Practitioners of the style were focused on the most innovative materials and techniques.

The Mid-Century Modern style was widely adopted in the building boom that followed World War II, particularly in the newly sprawling developments radiating from Southern California’s major urban centers. The Case Study House program made Los Angeles a center of experimentation within the style, and the influence of new modern designs radiated outwards to communities outside of Los Angeles such as Riverside, where the characteristics of Mid - Century Modern design could be appropriated for massive scale production. Mass -produced Mid-Century Modern building materials like concrete, wood, steel, and glass made it the perfect style for growing cities.

In Riverside, the Mid-Century Modern style was applied to commercial, civic, educational, and residential buildings.

Examples of the style in the city include many of the buildings in the Magnolia Center area, as well as Brockton Square (1960), a complex of professional offices. Post and beam construction was common for residential buildings in Riverside, an example of which is the 1960 Clinton Mar house located at 6816 Hawarden Drive, an area that also contains other custom designed Mid-Century Homes. Many Modernist architects worked in Riverside, including early modernist Irving Gill , William Pereira, Charles Luckman, Clinton Marr, Bob Brown, William Lee Gates, Jack Burg, and Herman Ruhnau, who had the largest architectural practice in Riverside.

Mid-Century Modern is characterized by more solid wall surfaces as opposed to large planes of glass and steel that characterize the International Style (and its successors, including Corporate Modern). Stacked bond brick walls are a common feature of commercial and institutional (primarily educational) buildings in the Mid-Century Modern style.

While Mid-Century Modern architecture uses industrial materials and geometric forms, th e style often references local vernacular traditions, particularly in the use of wood and the relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces.

In residential buildings, post -and-beam construction with exposed wood structural systems is a common design 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 56 JUNE 2023
element. Residential and low -scale commercial buildings exhibit flat roofs, deep overhangs, open floor plans, extensive use of glass, indoor/outdoor flow, and concrete slab foundations. The designs rarely incorporate applied ornamentation or references to historical styles. As a result, many industrial buildings in the style are often “decorated boxes,” plain buildings with applied ornament to suit the era and appear more modern without reflecting the activity inside the building. Commercial buildings of this style incorporated new elements such as sleek Modern signage, aluminum awnings, and canopies, deeply recessed and or angled vestibules, floor-to-ceiling window walls, integrated planters, and projecting vertical elements. Many property types exhibit the char acteristics of the Mid - Century Modern style; however, not all Mid-Century Modern designs rise to the level of significant examples of the architectural style (Grimes and Chiang 2009; ARG 2016; Gebhard and Winter 2003; McAlester 2015; Morgan 2004; Moruzzi 2013).

Characteristics of the Mid -Cen tury Modern style for commercial properties in Riverside as defined by the Modernism HCS :
 Simple geometric forms
 Post-and-beam construction
 Flat or low-pitched gabled roofs
 Flush mounted steel framed windows or large single-paned wood-framed windows  Exterior staircases, decks, patios, and balconies
 Brick or stone often used as primary or accent material

7.2 Postwar Department Store Typology
After World War II, Americans, and particularly Southern Californians, became heavily reliant on automobile travel and were no longer restricted to shopping in downtown urban centers. New settlement patterns away from urban centers introduced new building types around residential tracts, including the department store. Stores located outside downtowns had lower overhead, rent, and taxes, making these locations attractive options for developers to build larger buildings than those in downtown areas. Additionally, developers were able to dedicate more land for parking, which had become a major complaint of shoppers in urban areas. To attract motorists, developers began to construct large stand-alone stores and offered a generous amount of off-street parking (Longstreth 1998:
222, 2010: 171; HRG 2007: 36).

Large major free-standing department store chains included the May Co mpany, Sears, Macy’s, JC Penney, and Bullock’s. In the 1930s, Sears transitioned from a storefront with windows to a windowless design, which became a prominent feature of the chain. Due to the automobile -focused culture of Southern California , major chains constructed large stand-alone buildings away from the original, historic downtown business blocks with storefronts (Prosser 2017).

Characteristics of the department store typology:
 Large surface parking lots surrounding the building
 Disconnection from the street
 Windowless design
 Free-standing building
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 57 JUNE 2023
 One to two stories in height
 Boxlike massing
 Located outside urban centers
 Architectural styles including Mid-Century Modern, Vernacular Modern, and New Formalist

7.3 Sears Building Architect: Charles Luckman
Charles Luckman trained as an architect at the University of Illinois. After graduating in 1931, he became the President of the Pepsodent toothpaste company in 1939. He then became president of Lever Brothers and had a hand in planning the Lever House building in New York City, one of the first commercial towers with a glass curtain wall. In 1950, Luckman moved to Los Angeles and started an architecture practice with William Pereira, creating the Los Angeles-based architecture firm, Pereira & Luckman, which was prolific. Together they designed primarily commercial and civic properties between 1950 and 1958, including Los Angeles’ CBS Television City in 1952 . In 1958, the firm became Charles Luckman Associates when Pereira left to open his own practice. Charles Luckman Associates expanded to Chicago, Phoenix, and Boston, where the firm proceeded to design the Prudential Center in Boston, the new Madison Square Garden in New York City, and the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston.

Luckman is recognized as a master architect of post-World War II Modernism. His firm was one of the largest firms in the country by the 1960s. In 1968, Charles Luckman’s son, James, became president of Charle s Luckman Associates. Luckman retired in 1977 though he stayed active in the firm until his death in 1999. (Grimes and Chiang 2009).

In Riverside, Luckman designed two post-war department store buildings in the area including the Sears department store and Auto Center subject property at 5261 Arlington Avenue, and the Broadway at the Tyler Mall.

The Sears building is a standard design for post -war department stores, which includes a one-story building with large surface parking lots surrounding the building. The design of the Broadway is three stories, and its massing includes interwoven boxes. (Grimes and Chiang 2009; Arizona Republic 1972).

Select list of prominent work s by Charles Luckman :
 Robinson’s department store, Beverly Hills (1951)
 CBS Television Center, Los Angeles (1952)
 The Forum, Los Angeles (1967)
 Aon Center, Los Angeles (1973)
 The Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles (1971)  Prudential Center, Boston (1964)
 Madison Square Garden, New York (1968)
 NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston (1962)
 Kennedy Space Center, Florida (1964)
 Broadway at Tyler Mall, Riverside (1970)
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 58 JUNE 2023
I

NTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 59 NOVEMBER 2022
8 Evaluation of Significance
To determine if the proposed Project would impact historical resources under CEQA, the Sears department store and auto center building at 5261 Arlington Avenue was evaluated for historical significance and integrity in consideration of NRHP and CRHR designation criteria and integrity requirements and City of Riverside requirements.

A State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 (DPR) form for the subject property is provided in Appendix D.

8.1 NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance
The subject property at 5261 Arlington Avenue (APN: 226-180-015) appears to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criteria C/3, as demonstrated below.

Criterion A/1: That are associated with events that have made a significa nt contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

While the subject property was part of this broader development trend that moved commercial businesses away from downtowns and toward residential sprawl, there is no indication that the subject property i tself was an important driver of the community’s development and identity or that its contribution to this pattern was particularly significant. The Sears building on the subject property does not appear to be a unique or important example of the company’s mid-twentieth century expansion or shopping trends of this time. The Sears building on the subject property was a typical example of the Sears department stores constructed in suburban areas during this period.

This trend began post-World War II and continued through the 1970s. Over 700 new Sears stores were constructed nationwide by the mid-1950s. The Sears building on the subject property was neither the first nor the last of this development pattern, rather it followed the continuous trend of Sears stores constructed outside of downtown areas.

Archival research did not indicate that the Sears building on the subject property made contributions to the broad patterns of history, rather it followed the typical history of a mid-century department store. Based on the results of archival research and for the reasons outline above, the subject property does not appear to maintain connections with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of national, state, or local history. For these reasons, the property does not appear eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 60 JUNE 2023
Criterion B/2: That are associated with the lives of persons sig nificant in our past .

Archival research did not indicate any such direct association with individuals that are known to be historic figures at the national, state, or local level s and the subject property. As such, the subject property is not known to have any historical associations with people important to the nation’s or state’s past. Due to a lack of identified significant associations with important persons in history, the subject property does not appear eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2.

Criterion C/3: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinct ion.

The Sears building on the subject property at 5261 Arlington Avenue embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction . The department store and auto center was originally constructed in the mid - twentieth century as a Mid-Century Modern department store. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough characteristics of an architectural style to be a true representation of that style. Although there have been minor alterations to the exterior of the subject property, it has not undergone major exterior alterations and the building displays all its character-defining features of its Mid-Century Modern style and exhibits quality of design. The street- facing e levations retain the original design features. The Sears building on the subject property features asymmetrical massing, contrasting stone and tile materials, and landscaping incorporated into the design.

The Sears building on the subject property was designed by Charles Luckman Associates, with Charles Luckman serving as project architect. Charles Luckman was a master mid-century architect who produced a prolific number of building designs in California. The subject property, however, is not a significant representation of his work and does not embody a particular phase in his professional trajectory. Luckman approached architecture as a business more than an art form. He designed many department stores in Southern California throughout his career, including several Robinson’s department stores in the Los Angeles- area at the beginning of his architecture career in the 1950s (with then-partner William Pereira), and buildings such as the former Broadway Plaza Galleria Shopping Mall (1974) in downtown Los Angles in his later career. He would develop a style distinguished by monumental scales and forms that extended beyond the typical plan and prescribed envelope for their function. There are better and more notable examples of Luckman’s work exemplifying this in the region, including the Forum in Inglewood (1967) and the Los Angeles Convention Center (1971).

The subject property is one of only two remaining Mid -Century Modern department stores in Riverside, the other being the Bro adway at Tyler Mall (1969), also designed by Charles Luckman Associates, which has been modernized (Grimes and Chiang 2009: 71).

While The Sears building on the subject property embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern department store, it does not appear to possess high artistic values by articulating a particular concept of design to the extent that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. The last component of Criteria C/3, representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, is the most applicable to districts. The subject property does not appear likely to contribute to a potential historic district, due to t he lack of a cohesive grouping of intact properties in the area.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 61 JUNE 2023

While there are better examples of the Mid-Century Modern department store typology in the United States, the subject property is an excellent and rare example of its type for the City of Riverside and as a result, could rise to the eligibility thresholds for both state and national listing. For these reasons, 5261 Arlington Avenue appears eligible for listing in both the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3 as it embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction as an excellent and rare example of a Mid-Century Modern department store in Riverside.

Criterion D/4: That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The subject property is not significant under Criterion D of the NRHP or Criterion 4 of the CRHR as a source, or likely source, of important historical information nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies.

City of Riverside Statement of Significance
For the reasons discussed in the NRHP and CRH R evaluation above, Dudek recommends the subject property eligible as a City of Riverside landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7, as it is an excellent example of a Mid-Century Modern department store and appears to be one of only two extant Mid -Century Modern department stores in Riverside.

Landmark Criteria

1. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;
As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the subject property exemplifies or reflect s special elements of the City’s architectural merit as an excellent example of the Mid -Century Modern style and the history of Modernism in Riverside.

2. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; As discussed above in Criteria A/1 and B/2, the subject property is not identified with a particular person or historical event significant to local Riverside or state and national history.

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, perio d or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the subject property embodies the characteristics of a distinctive architectural style, period, or method of construction. It is an intact example of a Mid-Century Modern department store and was designed by a master architect, Charles Luckman. It rises to the level of significance necessary to be considered under this criterion.

4. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect, or important creative individual; As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the architecture firm Charles Luckman Associates and project architect Charles Luckman rise to the level of notable designers and architects, however the subject property is not representative 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 62 JUNE 2023

of their work and better examples exemplifying the phases of their career and key design styles exist elsewhere through Southern California and cannot be considered under this criterion.

5. Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the subject property possesses high artistic value and represent s an architectural achievement.

However, compared to other examples, it is not a particularly reflective example and did not influence the growth of Sears buildings. It did not provide timely innovations that could not be found elsewhere in California. Therefore, it should not be considered particularly reflective of the post-war department store planning pattern.

7. Is one of the last remaining examples in the City, region, State, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen; or The subject property is one of many examples of a Mid-Century Modern department store and is common throughout the state. However, it is the only two Mid-Century Modern department stores in the City of Riverside. In 2009, the City of Riverside’s Modernism context noted that the only other example of a 1960s Mid-Century Modern department store building was Broadway at Tyler Mall (1969), also designed by Charles Luckman Associates (Grimes and Chiang 2009: 71). While this building is still extant and its origin al design is recognizable, it has undergone more readily apparent modernization over the years than the subject property. The subject property thus appears to be a rare intact example of its architectural type in the city.

8. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

As discussed above in Criteria D/4 there is nothing to indicate that the subject property is likely to yield information important to Riverside’s history or prehistory.

Integrity Discussion
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, an eligible resource must retain integrity, which is expressed in seven aspects: location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. All properties change over time. Consequently, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity. The essential physical features are those features that define both why a property is significant and when it was significant.

The subject property is sited in its original location located at the intersection of Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue and therefore maintains integrity of location. The setting surrounding the subject property has changed little over time. Therefore, the subject property retains its integrity of setting and feeling. The building has undergone no exterior alterations. Therefore, the subject property retains its integrity in the areas of design, materials, and 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 63 JUNE 2023

workmanship. The subject property conveys its historic character as a Mid-Century Modern department store and therefore maintains integrity of association. In conclusion, the subject property retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, design, workmanship, materials, and association.

Summary of Evaluation Findings
In conclusion, the subject property appears eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria C/3 and under local designation as a City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7 due to architectural merit and integrity. As such, the Sears department store and auto center building at 5261 Arlington Avenue appear to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 64 NOVEMBER 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 65 JUNE 2023
9 Discussion of Potential Impacts

9.1 Archaeological Impacts Assessment
A CHRIS database records search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, background research, including a review of a geotechnical report, and an archaeologica l pedestrian survey were conducted as part of an archaeological resources assessment for this Project. No archaeological or tribal cultural resources were identified within the Project site a result of these efforts. However, at the time the CHRIS records search was requested, the 1.5 miles utility line had not been added to the study area and only a portion of the utility line was captured within the record search results. A supplemental records search request was submitted to capture the project area west of Phoenix Avenue. To date, Dudek has not received the supplemental records search results.

However, the potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils (encountered from 2 feet below ground surface in some areas) to the depths of proposed ground disturbance (approximately 8 feet below ground surface) is considered moderate. The Project site is within a geographical region known for supporting Native American occupation. The Project site is within the vicinity of two unnamed Native American villages and transportation routes as mapped on the 1938 Kirkman Harriman map. Additionally, the Project site is within the Santa Ana River watershed, an area that would provide sustainable resources for habitation. Archival research indicates that the Project site has been occupied since at least the early twentieth century. Initially used as agricultural land, the Project site transitioned to rural residential properties in the early to mid -twentieth century and again to a fully developed commercial property in the 1960s. Development of the Project site may have buried unknown cultural resources associated with Native American use and/or historic-period agricultural or residential properties. Native soils underlying the artificial fill consist of alluvial deposits from the terminal Pleistocene. These soils are considered contemporaneous with human use, and therefore retain the potential to preserve cultural material in context.

Though the archaeological survey was negative for cultural resources, the existing development within the Project site provided little to no observable ground surface for inspection; thus, the negative findings of the archaeological survey are an unreliable indicator of the archaeological sensitivity of the Project site.

With the proper implementation of the prescribed measures, the potential impact to archaeological resources is considered to be less then significant. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. NOTE: since the portion of the utility line not yet addressed by the records search is proposed to be installed primarily within previously disturbed soils, results for this section of the proposed Project are assumed negative and subject to the same findings as those areas addressed by the records search. All other background and archival research were conducted for the utility line footprint with negative results. This report will be updated once the results of the supplemental records search are received. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 66 JUNE 2023

9.2 Built Environment Impacts Assessment
5261 Arlington Avenue was previously determined eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as part of the Riverside Modernism historical resources survey completed in 2009 and w as assigned status codes 3CS and 5S3 as part of the evaluation completed for the survey. Dudek re -evaluated the subject property and determined that the property retains sufficient integrity to be eligible under CRHR and NRHP Criterion C/3 and City of Riverside Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7. Therefore, 5261 Arlington is considered a historical resource under CEQA.

Demolition of Existing Structure
Under CEQA, a significant impact occurs when there is a “substantial adverse change” to the significance of a historical resource. This includes the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. CEQA defines “ materially impaired” as work that alters, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance and justify its inclusion in the CRHR, a local register of historical resources, or an historical resource survey. 5261 Arlington is recommended eligible for the CRHR, NRHP, and as a City of Riverside landmark and is a historical resource under CEQA. Therefore, its demolition would result in a significant unavoidable direct impact to a historical resource and would be considered a substantial adverse change under CEQA. For the demolition of a historical resource, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if a project cannot reduce impacts below a level of significance.

9.3 Management Recommendations
Archaeological Resources Mitigation
Prior to commencement of construction activities for all phases of project implementation, the project applicant/owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and who has experience and is knowledgeable in the prehistoric and historic nature of the City of Riverside as well as the history of the ancestral tribes geographically connected to the P roject site . Additionally, the term “Consulting Tribe/s” used throughout the following mitigation language is defined pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1 as California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site that may have expertise concerning their tribal cultural resources AND have requested and participated in formal AB 52 consultation for the project.

The selected qualified archaeological principal investigator w ill be retained to implement the following mitigation measures:

MM CUL-1 The applicant/owner/developer will retain a qualified archaeological principal investigator, as defined above, to assess information available (final grading and construction plans, geotechnical testing results, as-built plans, etc.) and determine the depth at which native soils exist and would be impacted by project implementation. The depth of native soils shall be included in the Plan so as to guide when cultural (archaeological and Native American) monitoring is appropriate. Impacts 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 67 JUNE 2023

to cultural resource s shall be minimized through implementation of pre - and post- construction tasks. Tasks pertaining to cultural resources include the development of a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Plan). The purpose of the Plan is to outline a program of monitoring occurrence as well as treatment and mitigation in the case of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during ground -disturbing phases (including but not limited to preconstruction site mobilization and testing, grubbing, remo val of soils for remediation, construction ground disturbance, construction grading, trenching, and landscaping) and to provide for the proper identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural resources throughout the duration of the Project. This Plan should define the process to be followed for the identification and management of cultural resources in the Project site during construction.

Existence of and importance of adherence to this Plan should be stated on all P roject site plans intended for use by those conducting the ground disturbing activities. The Plan will also include the conditions under which Native American and archaeological monitoring is required pursuant to MM-CUL-3 and the manner of facilitation.

MM CUL-2 Prior to c ommencement of construction activities for all phases of P roject implementation, the project applicant/owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding inadvertent discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of cultural materials that may be identified during construction of the P roject and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources, tribal cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor, tribal monitor and archaeologist retained for the Project.

MM CUL-3 A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to be present during initial ground disturbance. Initial ground disturbance is defined as initial construction-related earthmoving of sediments from their place of deposition. As it pertains to cultural resource (archaeological or Native American) monitoring, this definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by current project -related construction. The timing of whe n cultural resource monitoring (archaeological and Native American) shall be required shall be outlined in the Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan pursuant to MM -CUL-1. More than one monitor may be required if multiple areas within the Project site are simultaneously exposed to initial ground disturbance causing monitoring to be hindered by the distance (more than 200 feet apart) of the simultaneous activities. A qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and establish monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural dep osits or material. The archaeological monitor will be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 68 JUNE 2023

In the event that potential prehistoric or historical archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop and a qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately to assess the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, data recovery, or monitoring may be warranted. If Native American resources are discovered or are suspected, each of the consulting tribes for the Project will also be notified.

An archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance and submitted to the City for review. This report shall document compliance with approved mitigation, all implemented monitoring efforts, and in clude an appendix with daily monitoring logs. The final report shall be submitted to the City and the EIC.

MM CUL-4 In the event that human remains and associated funerary objects are inadvertently encountered during construction activities, the remains and funerary objects shall be treated in accordance with state and local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of human remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the Project site or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed t o be, Native American, he or she is required to notify the NAHC. The NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant must then complete their inspection a nd determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition and treatment of the human remains.

Consideration of Preservation Alternatives
CEQA requires consideration of feasible alternatives to project-related activities that will result in significant impacts to historical resources. This is typically done as part of the Alternatives Analysis section of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Preservation alternatives to consider include the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Sears department store and auto center building as part of a future Project site development.

The Sears department store and auto center building sits in the middle of a large parking lot with no other currently extant built environment resources on the site. The building could be incorporated into a new site redevelopment plan to provide additional space or facilities for a future redevelopment without requiring the demolition of the historical resource. Due to the large nature of the subject property, there is room to construct new development while retaining the existing historical resource in its present location and integrating the extant building into a new project’s overall design. Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the building should follow the Secretary of th e Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 69 JUNE 2023

If properly executed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of Sears department store and auto center building as part of a new development plan for the lot would reduce project-related impacts to historical resources to a less -than-significant level and meet the preservation objectives of the City of Riverside to protect its important historic resources and encourage public accessibility of resources.

Archival Documentation
Demolition of the Sears department store and auto center building would result in significant unavoidable impacts to a historical resource. The demolition would unavoidably impact its ability to convey significance under CRHR and NRHP Criterion C/3 and City of Riverside Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7. Impacts caused by demolition cannot be reduced to a less than significant level.

The following mitigation is recommended only after a thorough consideration and rejection of alternatives to activities that will result in a significant unavoidable change to historical resources. While the following mitigation will not reduce impacts below a level of significance, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken.

MM CUL-5 Prior to the demolition or rehabilitation of the Sears department store and auto center building at 5261 Arlington Avenue , the City must ensure preparation of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level I or Short Format-like documentation in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. All work shall be conducted by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and/or history (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008) (Qualified Architectural Historian).

The HABS-like documentation shall follow the guidelines set forth by the National Park Service (NPS) for HABS I or Short Format documentation. This m itigation measure is being proposed in compliance with CEQA and does not necessitate approval of this documentation through NPS or the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP); therefore, it is considered “HABS-like,” and will not require approval of the documentation by NPS or OHP. The HABS-like document should include:
• Black and white photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views (10 views minimum)
• Photograph Index
• Photocopies with large-format negatives of select, existing drawings or historic views that are produced in accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act (as amended) • Full-length historical report, as outlined in the Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation in the Federal Register (68 FR 43159).

Large format photography must be completed prior to issuance of any project related permitting or construction. Photographic documentation of the Sears department store and auto center building at 5261 Arlington Avenue shall be prepared to the National Park Service’s HABS standards. A minimum of ten (10) views should be recorded, including views of the overall site and landscaping context as well as detailed views of each elevation of Sears department store 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 70 JUNE 2023

and auto center building. HABS standards require large-format black-and-white photography, with the original negatives having a minimum size of 4 inches by 5 inches. The photographer must be familiar with the recordation of historical resources in accordance with HABS guidelines, and digital photography, roll film, and manipulation of images are not acceptable. Photographs must include a photo index, and field notes, and be identified and labeled using HABS standards outlined in National Park Service’s guidelines Preparing HABS/HAER/HALS Documentation - Transmittal Guidelines.

A draft laser copy (or digital PDF) of the finished photographs formatted to the photo index will be reviewed and approved by a historic preservation program staff member with City of Riverside prior to final archival prints being made. A copyright release form signed by the photographer releasing copyright of the large format photographs into the public domain for public benefit is required with the deliverables.

One original copy of the final HABS -like documentation packet shall be offered to the following entities:
- City of Riverside Historic Preservation Program (administered through the Historic Preservation, Neighborhoods and Urban Design Division of the Community Development Department)
- Riverside Public Library
- Riverside Historical Society
- Riverside Metropolitan Museum

5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 71 JUNE 2023
10 Summary of Findings
As a result of Dudek’s extensive archival research, field survey, and property significance evaluation, Sears department store and auto center building at 5261 Arlington Avenue appears eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, under Criteria C/3 and as City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7.. As such, Sears department store and auto center build ing at 5261 Arlington Avenue appears to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

The archaeological measures would ensure the proper treatment of any cultural resources and human remains encountered during ground disturbing activities. With the proper implementation of the prescribed measures, the potential impact to cultural resources is considered to be less then significant. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 72 JUNE 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 73 NOVEMBER 2022

11 Sources
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. (2020). Geotechnical Investigation, 5261 Arlington Avenue, City of Riverside, California (2020). Prepared for Foulger-Pratt.

Arizona Republic. 1972. “His Third Pinnacle.” Newspapers.com: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, Arizona). September 24, 1972. Pg. 42.

Ashby, G. E., and J. W. Winterbourne. 1966. A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County and Some of its Coastal Areas. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1):3-52.

Bailey, J.F. 1961. “The Growth of Riverside.” Unpublished thesis; University of California, Riverside. Riverside Special Collections Department.

Baker, Charles C. 1914. Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California, 1914, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1914), pp. 236-243. Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Historical Society of Southern California.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1885. History of California, Volume III: 1825-1840. A.L. Bancroft & Co., San Francisco.

Basgall, M. E., L. Johnson, and M. Hale. 2002. “An Evaluation of Four Archaeological Sites in the Lead Mountain Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California .” Submitted to U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas.

Basgall, M. E., and M. Hall. 1990. Adaptive Variation in the North-Central Mojave Desert. Paper Presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.

Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bean, Lowell J 1978. Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F.

Hiezer, pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Bean, Lowell, J., and Florence C. Shipek, 1978. “Luiseño,” in Calif ornia, Robert F. Hazier (ed.), pp. 550 -563, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant (general editor), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Blackburn, Thomas. 1963. Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture . Annual Report, Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 74 JUNE 2023

Boscana, G. 1846. “Chinigchinich; A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California.” In Life in California , by Alfred Robinson, 227–341. New York, New York: Wiley & Putnam.

Brown, J., and J. Boyd. 1922. History of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties: With Selected Biography of Actors and Witnesses of the Period of Growth and Achievement. The Western Historical Association.

Byrd, Brian F., and Seetha N. Reddy, 2002. Late Holocene Adaptations along the Northern San Diego Coastline: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 41-62. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Calflora. 2022. What Grows Here. Accessed February 2023. https://www.calflora.org/entry/wgh.html California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces: Note 36. 4 pp.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2007. A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Agricultural Properties in California. Sacramento, California: Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation.
“Charles Luckman.” 2020. Los Angeles Conservancy. Copyright 2020. Accessed June 8, 2022. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/charles-luckman.

City of Riverside. 2022. Permit Records Search. Accessed May 9, 2022. https://aquarius.riversideca.gov/permits /Browse.aspx?dbid=1&cr=1.

City of Riverside. 2007. City of Riverside General Plan 2025. Accessed February 2023. https://www.riversideca.gov/planning/gp2025program/GP/
03_Introduction.pdf.

Cleland, James H., Andrew L. York, and Lorraine M. Willey. 2007. Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3. EDAW, Inc., San Diego.

Cleland, Robert Glass. 2005. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850 -80, second ed., sixth printing. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

Colton Courier. 1963a. “Proposed Sears Store.” Newspapers.com: The Colton Courier (Colton, California). April 9, 1963, Pg. 2.

Colton Courier. 1963b. “New Multimillion Sears Store Planned in Riverside.” Newspapers.com: The Colton Courier (Colton, California). April 4, 1963, P.1, 2.

Daily Record. 1964. “New Sears Store.” Newspapers.com: Daily Record (Banning, California). May 5, 1964. Pg. 11.

Dallas, S. F. 1955. The Hide and Tallow Trade in Alta California 1822–1848. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington Davis, E.L. (editor). 1978. The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mohave 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 75 JUNE 2023

Lakes Country. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series No. 29King, Chester D. 1994. Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California.

Davis, E.L. 1978. The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country . Los Angeles, California: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Dumke, Glenn. 1944. The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California.

Gallegos, D.R. 1987. “San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy.” San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper No. 1.

Geiger, M., and C. W. Meighan. 1976. As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by the Franciscan Missionaries, 1813-1815. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library.

George, J., and M.C. Hamilton. 2009. Significance Assessment and Determination of Effects to Historical Resources along the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line. Prepared for Dr. R. Motschall, Kleinfelder. Hemet, California: Applied Earthworks Inc.

Giacinto, Adam 2012. Emergent Trends of Cultural Resource Management: Alternative Conceptions of Past, Present and Place. M.A. Thesis in Anthropology, San Diego State University.

Golla, V. 2007. “Linguistic Prehistory.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L.

Jones and K.A. Klar, 71–82. New York, New York: Altamira Press.

Google. 2023. Google Earth; desktop application; centered on the Project site. Accessed February 2023. https://www.google.com/earth/.

Grenda, D. R. 1997. Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore:

Archaeological Investigations at a Stratified Site in Southern California. Statistical Research, Inc. Technical Series 59. Tucson, Arizona.

Grimes, T., and C. Chiang. 2009. City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement. Prepared by Christopher A.

Joseph & Associates. November 3, 2009. Accessed June 2022. https://www.riversideca.gov/historic /pdf/Modernism.pdf.

Griset, S. 1996. “ Southern California Brown Ware .” Unpublished PhD dissertation; University of California, Riverside.

Gumprecht, Blake. 1999. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Hale, M. 2001. “ Technological Organization of the Millingstone Pattern in Southern California .” Master’s thesis; California State University, Sacramento.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 76 JUNE 2023

Hale, M. 2009. “ San Diego and Santa Barbara: Socioeconomic Divergence in Southern California.” PhD dissertation; University of California, Davis.

Harrington, J.P. 1934. “A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4).

Harrington, John P. 1942. Culture Element Distributions: XIX, Central California Coast. Anthropological Records 7:1.

University of California Press: Berkeley.

Hector, S.M. 2006. Cultural Resources Study for the Maintenance of Old Mission Dam, Mission Trails Regional Park, San Diego, California. Prepared for the City of San Diego.

Heizer, R. 1978. “Introduction.” In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 1–6. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, edited by W.C. Sturtevant. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Heizer, R. and K.M. Nissen. 1973. The Human Sources of California Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

Howard, Vivki. 2017. “The Rise and Fall of Sears.” Smithsonian Magazine, Zócalo Public Square. July 25, 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rise-and-fall-sears-180964181/.

Howell-Ardila, D. 2018. City of Riverside Latino Historic Context Statement. August 2018. Prepared for City of Riverside Community and Economic Development Department. Accessed June 2022. http://www.riversidereconnects.com/historic/pdf/P18-0641-Riverside_Latino_HCS_Draft.pdf.

HRG (Historic Resources Group). 2007. Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report. The City of Pasadena, California.

Hurt, S. 2014. “Riverside: Scientists, Park Officials Strive to Keep Legendary Orange Tree Alive.” The Press- Enterprise. Published August 27, 2014. Accessed August June 2022. http://www.pe.com/articles/tree- 749004-citrus-trees.html.

Johnson, J.R., and J.G. Lorenz. 2006. “Genetics, Linguistics, and Prehistoric Migrations: An Analysis of California Indian Mitochondrial DNA Lineages.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 26:33–64.

Johnston, Bernice E. 1962. California’s Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Katzanek, J. 2019. “Sears closing iconic Riverside location, 7 other Inland stores.” The Press-Enterprise.

Published November 8, 2019. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.pe.com/2019/11/08/sears- closing-11-area-stores-riverside-loses-4-la-3-oc-1-and-san-bernardino-3/.

King, Chester D. 1994 . Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 77 JUNE 2023

Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Kyle, Douglas E. 2002. Historic Spots in California . 5th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Californ ia.

Laylander, D. 2010. “Linguistic Prehistory.” Research Issues in San Diego Prehistory. Accessed August 31, 2012. http://www.sandiegoarchaeology.org/Laylander/Issues /index.htm.

Laylander, D. 2000. Early Ethnography of the Californias, 1533-1825. Salinas, California: Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory.

Lightfoot, K.G. 2005. Indians, missionaries, and merchants: the legacy of colonial encounters on the California frontiers. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Longstreth, Richard. 1998. City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920-1950. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

McCawley, William 1996. The First Angelinos, the Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Banning.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Morton, D.M., and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30-minute x 60-minute quadrangles, California, Geology and Description of Map Units, Version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey, Open- File Report OF-2006-1217. 194 pp.

Native American Heritage Commission. About the Native American Heritage Commission. State of California Native American Heritage Commission, 2021, http://nahc.ca.gov/about/. Accessed 22 Apr. 2021.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC). 2022a. Historical Topographic Maps of Project Site, City of Riverside, California dating from 1901, 1905, 1911, 1927, 1939, 1942, 1955, 1960, 1962, 1969, 1975, 1981, 2012, 2015, and 2018. Accessed February 2023. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer NETR. 2022b. Historical Aerial Photographs of Project Site, City of Riverside, California dating from: 1931, 1938, 1948, 1954, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018.

Accessed February 2023. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Northwest Economic Associates (NEA) and Chester King 2004. Ethnographic Overview of the Angeles National Forest: Tataviam and San Gabriel Mountain Serrano Ethnohistory. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

O’Neil, Stephen. 2002. The Acjachemen in the Franciscan Mission System: Demographic Collapse and Social Change. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Patterson, T. 1971. A Colony for California, Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Riverside, California: Press-Enterprise Company. https://archive.org/details/colonyforcalifor0000patt. 5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

14391 78 JUNE 2023

Perkins, Arthur B. 1957. "Rancho San Francisco: a study of a California land grant." The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 39 (2): 99-126.

Prosser, D. 2017. SurveyLA. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development 1859-1980, Theme: Neighborhood Commercial Development, 1880-1980. Prepared by City of Los Angeles. Department of City Planning. Office of Historic Resources. August 2017. Accessed June 2022. https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/7653581a-e554-43eb-840f- 2b0e2916eccc/NeighborhoodCommercialDevelopment_1880-1980.pdf.

Reid, Hugo. 1926. The Indians of Los Angeles County. Privately printed, Los Angeles.

Rogers, M.J. 1945. “An Outline of Yuman Prehistory.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167–198.

San Bernardino County Sun. 1968. “Two Complete Sears Stores to Serve You.” Newspapers.com: The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California). August 16, 1968. Pg. 28.

San Bernardino County Sun. 1990. “Driving Instructor.” Newspapers.com: The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California). March 25, 1990. Pg. 65.

Sparkman, Philip. 1908. The Cultural of the Luiseño Indians. Universit y of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:187–234. Berkeley.

State Lands Commission. 1982. Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities. https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1982-GrantsSpanishMexican.pdf. Accessed February 2023.

Stonehouse, M. 1965. John Wesley North and the Reform Frontier. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbra). 2022 Historic Aerial Photographs Project site dating from: 1931, 1938, 1954, 1963. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource, http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder. Accessed June 6, 2022.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2022a. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed February 2023. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

USDA. 2022b. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Official Soil Series Descriptions.

Accessed February 2023. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov.

USGS (United States Geological Society). 2022. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. Interactive maps and downloadable data for regional and global analysis. Accessed February 2023. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ Wallace, William. 1955. Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
5261 ARLINGTON AVENUE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 14391 79 JUNE 2023
Warren, Claude N. 1968. “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast.” In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin -Williams, pp. 1 -14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales.

Warren, C.N., G. Siegler, and F. Dittmer. 2004. “Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods.” In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. Encinitas, California: ASM Affiliates.

Waugh, John C. 2003. On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History. Scholarly Resources Inc., Wilmington, Delaware.

White, Raymond. 1963. Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48:91-194. Berkeley.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A
Confidential CHRIS Records Search Results
Not included in nonconfidential version
I

NTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B
Confidential NAHC SLF Search Results
Not included in nonconfidential version
I

NTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix C
Previous Evaluation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: __ Not for Publication __ Unrestricted
*a. County and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *P4.Resources Present: __ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site __ District __ Element of District __Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: __ Historic __ Prehistoric
__ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address)
*P9. Date Recorded:
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
*P11. Report Citation : (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") *Attachments: __NONE __Location 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):

State of California The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ___________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___________________________________ NRHP Status Code
Other Listings ____________________________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date _____________ P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 3CS/5S3
1 3 Sears

Riverside
5261 Arlington Avenue Riverside 92504
Sears is a Mid-Century Modern department store building. It is rectangular in plan, covered by a flat roof, and two to three stories in height. The main (south) facade is characterized by asymmetrical massing, horizontal planes, and a framed rectangular roof overhang. Stone and tile are used in the walls. Palm trees are incorporated into the corners and within the canopy overhang that slings around the building. The north facade features a folded plate entrance. Attached to he west elevation, the Tire and Auto Center has a rectangular plan with a flat roof, and features a row of garage doors. The western wall is made of rock and extends to form a parapet. Next to the wall are some small palms. All around the property are palm trees and within the parking lot are landscaped medians.

HP6-Commercial Building, 3 stories and under

January 28, 2009

1963, Buildin g Permit
Teresa Grimes and
Christina Chian g; CAJA
523 W. 6th Street , Suite 1134
Los Angeles, CA 90014
April 15, 2009
Intensive
Modernism Context Statement for the Cit y of
Riverside, Certified Local Government Grant

DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code
Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: B4. Present Use:
*B5. Architectural Style:
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) *B7. Moved? _No _Yes _Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: b. Buil
der:
*B10. Significance: Theme Area
Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ___________________________________
*Date of Evaluation:

State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONHRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
23 3CS/5S3
Sears
Sears, Roebuck & Compan y
Sears
Department Store Department Store
Mid-century Modern
1963 constructed

Charles Luckman Associates Lingrerot S M. C.

Architecture Riverside
1963 Store 3
The Sears department store is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. It is significant at the local level in the context of modern architecture in Riverside as a good example of the Mid-Century Modern style. It opened in 1964 and is still being used as a Sears today. The noteworthy features are the asymmetrical massing, the materials, and the landscaping. It is the only example of a Mid-Century Modern department store in Riverside. The building is typical of the post-war Sears stores: a large, windowless, free-standing, single-story building surrounded by parking on all sides. Sears began eliminating windows in their stores above the ground floor in the 1930s to improve the lighting and display of merchandise, as well as the efficiency of the mechanical systems. In other words, the functional requirements of the store became the driving forces of the design. The concept gained popularity after World War II and is now a hallmark of department store design. In contrast to the big box designs of today, Building Permits; Richard Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.

Christina Chian
g and Teresa Grimes
4/15/09
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date
___ Continuation ___Update
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
3 3 Sears
Christina Chiang and Teresa Grimes 4/30/09

Significance continued:
mid-century architects softened the blank walls by making them back drops for landscaping and signage. Decorative elements were concentrated near entrances and often took the form of contrasting materials such as stone and shading devices such as canopies.

The building was designed by Charles Luckman Associates, one of the leading corporate architecture firms in the United States. Born in 1909, Luckman achieved success as a businessman as well as an architect. He trained at the University of Illinois, but went into sales after graduating during the depths of the Great Depression. He was dubbed the "Boy Wonder of American Business" when he was named president of the Pepsodent toothpaste company in 1939. Through acquisition, he later became president of Lever Brothers, and helped plan their New York skyscraper, Lever House. Reminded of his architectural roots, Luckman resigned the presidency of Lever Brothers, moved to Los Angeles and began practicing architecture with fellow University of Illinois graduate William Pereira in 1950. Their partnership led to works such as CBS Television City, but the two went separate ways in 1958. The firm was reorganized as Charles Luckman Associates, and soon had offices in Boston, Chicago, and Phoenix. The firm went on to design the Prudential Center in Boston, the new Madison Square Garden in New York City, and the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. In 1977, Luckman retired and the firm became known as the Luckman Partnership.

The only other 1960s department store building in Riverside is the Broadway at Tyler Mall (1969), which is also by Charles Luckman Associates. In contrast, the Broadway department store is three stories in height and is composed of interlocking boxes for staggered massing. The Sears department store retains a high level of integrity as there are no apparent exterior alterations.

NTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix D
DPR Form for 5261 Arlington Avenue

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1 of 15 ends

P1. Other Identifier: __
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 3S/3CS/5S3 UPDATE
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication ◼ Unrestricted
*a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Riverside West Date 2021 T 2S; R 5W  of Sec San Bernardino B.M. c. Address 5261 Arlington Avenue City Riverside Zip 92504 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11N , 461465 mE/ 3756357 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN 226-180-015
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The subject property is comprised of a large commercial building connected to an auto center surrounded by a paved parking lot. The Sears building is positioned in the middle of the property with the Sears Auto Center to the west. The Sears building is a two-story Mid-Century Modern commercial building completed in 1964. The two-story department store is rectangular in plan with a flat roof and is clad in concrete, brick, tile, and stone.

See Continuation Sheet.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources Present: ◼ Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view,
date, accession #) Primary south
elevation, view to the
northwest (IMG_0566)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: ◼ Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1964 (Assessor; building
permits)
*P7. Owner and Address:

Foulger Pratt
136 Calle de Los Molinos
San Clemente, CA 92672
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address)
Allison Lyons, MSHP,
Dudek, 38 N Marengo Avenue,
Pasadena, CA 91101
*P9. Date Recorded: July 5 ,
2022
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation : (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter "none.")
Historic Resources Technical Report for 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California. 2022. Dudek.
*Attachments: NONE ◼Location 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):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

Page 2 of 15 ends

*Map Name: Riverside, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: _2021______

DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial UPDATE

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 5261 Arlington Avenue *NRHP Status Code 3S/3CS/5S3

Page 3 of 15 ends

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD UPDATE
B1. Historic Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue / Sears Roebuck & Co.

B2. Common Name: Sears
B3. Original Use: Commercial Building B4. Present Use: Vacant *B5. Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The property located at 5261 Arlington Avenue contains one commercial building and auto center. According to its original building permit and the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, the building and the auto center were constructed in 1964. See continuation sheet for detailed alterations list.
*B7. Moved? ◼No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Charles Luckman Associates b. Builder: Lingrerot S M. C *B10. Significance: Theme Mid-Century Modern Architecture (1940-1975) Area N/A Period of Significance 1964 Property Type Commercial Applicable Criteria C/3; Riverside Cultural Heritage Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7 and Riverside Structure of Merit Criteria 1, 4, and 6
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
Significance Summary
As a result of the evaluation, the subject property appears eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria C/3 and under local designation as a City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7 and Structure of Merit under Criteria 1, 4, and 6 due to architectural merit and integrity. See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Sarah Corder, MFA
*Date of Evaluation: July 5, 2022
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __4__ of __15__
*P3a. Description (continued):

The primary (south) elevation faces Arlington Avenue (Exhibit 1). It features an asymmetrical massing, horizontal planes, and contrasting materials of stone and tile with rectangular roof overhangs that wrap around the building. Palm trees are integrated into the overhangs located at the corners of the elevation. Above the horizontal plane is textured tile and an outline of a Sears sign that has been removed. The elevation features two entrances which have been boarded up with plywood. The entrances flank a rock wall and no windows. The rear (north) elevation features a folded plate canopy supported by six posts and a breezeblock patio that wraps around to the side (west) elevation (Exhibit 2). The elevation has an asymmetrical arrangement of two doors and no windows. At the left of the elevation is a sloping loading area with five cargo bays. The side (west) elevation is clad in brick and concrete. The elevation is flat plane with a recessed alcove. The horizonal canopy bisecting the elevation has trees integrated at th e corners of the elevation. It features an asymmetrical fenestration of one entrance that has been boarded up and no windows. An awning on the side (west) elevation of the building extends to the Auto Center. The side (east) elevation is clad in brick and has two entrances which have been covered with plywood. The entrances flank a rock wall with a horizontal canopy running along the elevation with rectangular canopies at the corners with palm trees incorporated into the design. Above the horizontal plane of the canopy is blank brickwork.

Sears Auto Center (1964)
Located to the west of the Sears building is the Auto Center. It has a regular plan, a flat roof, and is clad in metal sheet and brick. The primary (south) elevation features an asymmetrical arrangement of six garage doors next to a recessed alcove which has been boarded up (Exhibit 3). A horizontal plane extends along the elevation above the garage doors. The side (west) elevation features a rock-clad wall which forms a parapet with palm trees in front of it (Exhibit 4). The side (east) elevation has a recessed entrance which has been boarded up, with brick at the base of the elevation. The rear (north) elevation features a recessed alcove with a brick base, six bays of garage doors, and a horizontal canopy that extends along the elevation above.

Paved parking lots with landscaped meridians surround the buildings. Palm trees line the perimeter of the buildings and property, lining the edge of the property along Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __5__ of __15__
Exhibit 1. Primary (south) elevation, view looking northwest (Dudek photo file no.

IMG_0566)
Exhibit 2. Rear (north) and side (west) elevations, view looking southeast (Dudek photo file no. IMG_0535)

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __6__ of __15__

Exhibit 3. Primary (south) elevation of Auto Center, view looking north (Dudek photo file no. IMG_0522)

Exhibit 4. Side (west) and primary (south) elevations of Auto Center, view looking northeast (Dudek photo file no. IMG_0527)

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __7__ of __15__
Identified Alterations
The following alterations to the Sears building were observed during the intensive-level survey. Unless indicated, the dates of these alterations are unknown:
• Original SEARS signage has been moved, replaced, then removed History of the Subject Property
Historic aerial images show the property was primarily citrus orchards and farmland between 1931 and 1963, with small residences on site. The residences on site were demolished to make way for the construction of a Mid -Century Modern department store designed by architect Charles Luckman. The general contracting firm was Los Angeles based Lindgren and Swinerton. In 1963, groundbreaking ceremonies for the subject property, the Sears building, took place with special guests including building’s architect, Charles Luckman, and Associates, Riverside store manager T.C. Hujar, Sears California zone manager H.E.

Rademacher, and Mayor Dales of Riverside in attendance. The project included a 184,754 square-foot department store and 24,294-square-foot auto service station accommodating 24 cars for service and 1,722 parking spaces. On May 6, 1964, Sears opened its new department store at 5261 Arlington Avenue, moving its storefront from its former downtown Riverside location. (Exhibit 5) (Grimes and Chiang 2009; NETR 1931, 1963; Daily Record 1964; Colton Courier 1963a, Colton Courier 1963b).

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __8__ of __15__
via a large ramp leading directly to the building’s basement level, located at the north elevation of the Sears building. The Sears building in Riverside was supplemented by an automobile service center. Building materials included concrete, brick, stone, stainless steel, aluminum, and glass. Sears stopped installing windows in their stores after the 1930s to control lighting of merchandise from the interior. The functional design of the building was replicated after World War II for department stores. By the mid-1950s, the number of Sears stores in the United States had passed 700. By 1968, there were two Sears stores in the general area: 5261 Arlington Avenue in Riverside and 100 Inland Center in San Bernardino.

Sears, Roebuck, and Company maintained ownership of the subject property until the mid- 2010s. The property has not undergone changes over time, with the exception of the replacement and rem oval of Sears signage. In the 1990s, the property additionally functioned as a driving school site. In 2019, Sears closed its doors, and the building remains vacant and unoccupied today (Katzanek 2019; San Bernardino County Sun 1990; San Bernardino County Sun 1968; Colton Courier 1963b; Grimes and Chiang 2009; Howard 2017).

NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance
The subject property meets Criterion C/3 for individual listing in the NRHP and CRHR , based on the following significance evaluation.

Criterion A/1: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Archival research indicated that the construction of the subject property began in 1964 with the completion of a 184,754-square-foot Sears, Roebuck & Co. building and 24,294- square-foot Sears auto center. The property followed a continuous trend of department stores constructed outside downtown centers throughout the 1950s and 1960s and was part of Riverside’s increasing commercial growth in the post -World War II years. By 1953, Riverside was the 14th fastest-growing cities in the western United States to the Press Enterprise (Press Enterprise 1953). Notably, the 1950s saw the openi ng of several highways serving the city, which prompted a rise in automobile culture, suburban residential growth away from city centers, and corresponding shifts in commercial consumption and development. Commercial businesses moved outside of Riverside’s downtown core, as shopping centers and standalone department stores like the subject property opened to be closer to residential subdivisions. While the subject property was part of this broader development trend that moved commercial businesses away from downtowns and toward residential sprawl, there is no indication that the subject property itself was an important driver of the community’s development and identity or that its contribution to this pattern was particularly significant. The Sears building does not appear to be a unique or important example of the company’s mid -twentieth century expansion or shopping trends of this time. The Sears building was a typical example of the Sears department stores constructed in suburban areas during this period. This trend began post-World War II and continued through the 1970s. Over 700 new Sears stores were constructed nationwide by the mid -1950s. The Sears building was neither the first nor the last of this development pattern, rather it followed the continuous trend of Sears stores constructed outside of downtown areas.

Archival research did not indicate that the property made contributions to the broad patterns of history, rather it followed the typical history of a mid-century department store. Based on the results of archival research and for the reasons outline above, the property does not appear to maintain connections with events that have made a significant

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __9__ of __15__
contribution to the broad pattern of national, state, or local history. For these reasons, the property does not appear eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1.

Criterion B/2: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

To be found eligible under NRHP Criterion B/2, a property must retain sufficient integrity and be directly tied to the important person and the place where the individual conducted or produced the work for which he or she is known. Archival research did not indicate any such direct association with individuals that are known to be historic figures at the national, state, or local levels and the subject property. As such, the subject property is not known to have any historical associations with people important to the nation’s or state’s past. Due to a lack of identified significant associations with important per sons in history, the subject property does not appear eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2.

Criterion C/3: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess h igh artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

The subject property at 5261 Arlington Avenue embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The property was originally constructed in the mid-twentieth century as a Mid -Century Modern department store. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough characteristics of an architectural style to be a true representation of that style. Although there have been minor alterations to the exterior of the subject property, it has not undergone major exterior alterations and the building displays all its character-defining features of its Mid-Century Modern style and exhibits quality of design. The street-facing elevations retain the original design features. The property features asymmetrical massing, contrasting stone and tile materials, and landscaping incorporated into the design.

The subject property was designed by Charles Luckman Associat es, with Charles Luckman serving as project architect. Charles Luckman was an important mid-century architect who worked prolifically in California. The subject property, however, is not a significant representation of his work and does not embody a partic ular phase in his professional trajectory. Luckman designed many department stores in Southern California throughout his career, including several Robinson’s department stores in the Los Angeles -area at the beginning of his architecture career in the 1950s (with then -partner William Pereira), and buildings such as the former Broadway Plaza Galleria Shopping Mall (1974) in downtown Los Angles in his later career. There are better and more notable examples of Luckman’s work in the region, including the Forum in Inglewood (1967) and the Los Angeles Convention Center (1971).

The subject property is one of only two remaining Mid -Century Modern department stores in Riverside, the other being the Broadway at Tyler Mall (1969), also designed by Charles Luckman Associates, which has been modernized (Grimes and Chiang 2009: 71).

While the Sears building embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Mid -Century Modern department store, it does not appear to possess high artistic values by articulating a particular concept of design to the extent that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. The last component of Criteria C/3, representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, is the most applicable to districts. The subject property does not appear likely to contribute to a potential

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __10__ of __15__
historic district, due to the lack of a cohesive grouping of intact properties in the area.

Criterion D/4/4: That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

City of Riverside Statement of Significance
For the reasons discussed in the NRHP and CRHP evaluation above, Dudek recommends that the subject property eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criteria 1, 4, and 6. It also appears eligible as a City of Riverside landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7, as it is an excellent example of a Mid -Century Modern department store and appears to be one of only two extant Mid-Century Modern department stores in Riverside.

Riverside Landmark Criteria

1. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the property exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s architectural merit as an excellent example of the Mid-Century Modern style and the history of Modernism in Riverside.

2. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history;
As discussed above in Criteria A/1 and B/2, the subject property is not identified with a particular person or historical event significant to local Riverside or state an d national history.

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the property embodies the chara cteristics of a distinctive architectural style, period, or method of construction. It is an intact example of a Mid-Century Modern department store and was designed by a master architect, Charles Luckman. It rises to the level of significance necessary to be considered under this criterion.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __11__ of __15__

4. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect, or important creative individual;
As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the architecture firm Charles Luckman Associates and project architect Charles Luckman rise to the level of notable designers and architects, however the property is not representative of their work and better examples exemplifying the phases of their career and key design styles exist elsewhere through Southern California and cannot be considered under this criterion.

5. Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
As discussed above in Criteria C/3, the property possesses high artistic value and represents an architectural achievement.

6. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning, or cultural landscape; As discussed above in Criteria A/1 the property is not part of a development pattern. It is one of many department stores in California that and in this way, is related to a state-wide pattern of department store planning. However, compared to other examples, it is not a particularly reflective example and did not influence the growth of Sears buildings. It did not provide timely innovations that could not be found elsewhere in California. Therefore, it should not be considered particularly reflective of the post- war department store planning pattern.

7. Is one of the last remaining examples in the City, region, State, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen; or
The subject property is on e of many examples of a Mid -Century Modern department store and is common throughout the state. However, it is the only two Mid -Century Modern department stores in the City of Riverside. In 2009, the City of Riverside’s Modernism context noted that the only other example of a 1960s Mid-Century Modern department store building was Broadway at Tyler Mall (1969), also designed by Charles Luckman Associates (Grimes and Chiang 2009: 71). While this building is still extant and its original design is recognizable, it has undergone more readily apparent modernization over the years than the subject property. The subject property thus appears to be a rare intact example of its architectural type in the city.

8. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information importa nt in history or prehistory.

As discussed above in Criteria D/4 there is nothing to indicate that the subject property is likely to yield information important to Riverside’s history or prehistory.

Riverside Structure of Merit Criteria
City of Riverside defines a “Structure of Merit” as any improvement or natural feature which contributes to the broader understanding of the historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic heritage of the City, retains sufficient integrity, and:

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __12__ of __15__

1. Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the City
The subject property has singular physical characteristics. It is an established visual feature along Arlington Avenue, and is distinctive as one of only two remaining Mid - Century Modern department stores in Riverside.

2. Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood, community or area;
The Mid-Century Modern department store typology is not rare in within the context of Southern California at large. This typology, however, does not appear to have been common in Riverside, although the City boasted many post-World War II shopping malls and shopping centers in other modern styles, such as the 1959 Googie Brockton Arcade (Chiang and Grimes 200: 32). While the subject property appears to be one of only two extant examples of 1960s Mid-Century Modern department stores and is therefore a rare e xample of its type in the city, this typology does not appear to have ever been common in Riverside.

3. Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; The subject property was originally a Sears department store. While there ar e now only a handful of operational Sears stores remaining in California, retail department stores as a business type are not rare in Riverside or in Southern California more broadly.

4. A cultural resource that could be eligible under landmark criteria no longer exhibiting a high level of integrity, however, retaining sufficient integrity to convey significance under one or more of the landmark criteria; The subject property meets the City of Riverside Landmark criteria. The subject property is relatively intact and unchanged and has the integrity to support significance and architectural merit.

5. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory; or
As discussed above in Criteria D/4 and Landmark Criteria 8, there is nothing to indicate that the subject property is likely to yield information important to Riverside’s history or prehistory.

The property exhibits a high degree of integrity and meets the qualifications for this criterion.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __13__ of __15__
not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics.

The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity. The essential physical features are those features that define both why a property is significant and when it was significant.

Summary of Evaluation Findings
The subject property appears eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria C/3 and under local designation as a City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7and Structure of Merit under Criteria 1, 4, and 6 due to architectural merit and integrity.
*B12. References:

Arizona Republic. 1972. “His Third Pinnacle.” Newspapers.com: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, Arizona). September 24, 1972. Pg. 42.

Bailey, J.F. 1961. “The Growth of Riverside.” Unpublished thesis; University of California, Riverside. Riverside Special Collections Department.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2007. A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Agricultural Properties in California.

Sacramento, California: Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation.
“Charles Luckman.” 2020. Los Angeles Conservancy. Copyright 2020. Accessed June 8, 2022. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/charles-luckman.

City of Riverside. 2022. Permit Records Search. Accessed May 9, 2022. https://aquarius.riversideca.gov/permits
/Browse.aspx?dbid=1&cr=1.

Colton Courier. 1963a. “Proposed Sears Store.” Newspapers.com: The Colton Courier (Colton, California). April 9, 1963, Pg. 2.

Colton Courier. 1963b. “New Multimillion Sears Store Planned in Riverside.” Newspapers.com: The Colton Courier (Colton, California). April 4, 1963, P.1, 2.

Daily Record. 1964. “New Sears Store.” Newspapers.com: Daily Record (Banning, California). May 5, 1964. Pg. 11.

George, J., and M.C. Hamilton. 2009. Significance Assessment and Determination of Effects to Historical Resources along the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __14__ of __15__
Prepared for Dr. R. Motschall, Kleinfelder. Hemet, California: Applied Earthworks Inc.

Grimes, T., and C. Chiang. 2009. City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement.

Prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. November 3, 2009. Accessed June 2022. https://www.riversideca.gov/historic
/pdf/Modernism.pdf.

Howard, Vivki. 2017. “The Rise and Fall of Sears.” Smithsonian Magazine, Zócalo Public Square. July 25, 2017.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rise-and-fall-sears-180964181/.

Howell-Ardila, D. 2018. City of Riverside Latino Historic Context Statement. August 2018. Prepared for City of Riverside Community and Economic Development Department. Accessed June 2022.
http://www.riversidereconnects.com/historic/pdf/P18-0641- Riverside_Latino_HCS_Draft.pdf.

HRG (Historic Resources Group). 2007. Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report. The City of Pasadena, California.

Hurt, S. 2014. “Riverside: Scientists, Park Officials Strive to Keep Legendary Orange Tree Alive.” The Press-Enterprise. Published August 27, 2014. Accessed August June 2022. http://www.pe.com/articles/tree-749004-citrus-trees.html.

Katzanek, J. 2019. “Sears closing iconic Riverside location, 7 other Inland stores.” The Press-Enterprise. Published November 8, 2019. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.pe.com/2019/11/08/sears-closing-11-area-stores-riverside-loses-4-la- 3-oc-1-and-san-bernardino-3/.

Longstreth, Richard. 1998. City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920-1950. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC). 2022. Historic Aerial Photographs Project site dating from: 1948, 1966, 1967, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. Accessed May 28, 2022.
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Patterson, T. 1971. A Colony for California, Riverside’s First Hundred Years.

Riverside, California: Press-Enterprise Company.
https://archive.org/details/colonyforcalifor0000patt.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 5261 Arlington Avenue
Page __15__ of __15__
Prosser, D. 2017. SurveyLA. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context:

Commercial Development 1859-1980, Theme: Neighborhood Commercial Development, 1880-1980. Prepared by City of Los Angeles. Department of City Planning. Office of Historic Resources. August 2017. Accessed June 2022. https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/7653581a-e554-43eb-840f- 2b0e2916eccc/NeighborhoodCommercialDevelopment_1880-1980.pdf.

San Bernardino County Sun. 1968. “Two Complete Sears Stores to Serve You.” Newspapers.com: The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California).

August 16, 1968. Pg. 28.

San Bernardino County Sun. 1990. “Driving Instructor.” Newspapers.com: The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California). March 25, 1990. Pg. 65.

Stonehouse, M. 1965. John Wesley North and the Reform Frontier. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbra). 2022 Historic Aerial Photographs Project site dating from: 1931, 1938, 1954, 1963. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource,
http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder. Accessed June 6, 2022.

DUDEK-B
Supplemental Cultural
Memorandum

MEMORANDUM 2231248
To: Jamie Chapman - Riverside Property Owner LLC.

From: Heather McDaniel McDevitt, RPA – Dudek Senior Archaeologist Subject: 5261 Arlington Avenue – Supplemental Cultural Memo to the Cultural Resources Technical Report 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California (McDaniel McDevitt et al. 2023) Dates in Effect: October 6, 2023
cc: Stephanie Standerfer – Albert A. Webb and Associates Attachment: Attachment A – Nonconfidential Version Cultural Resources Technical Report 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California (McDaniel McDevitt et al. 2023) Dear Mr. Chapman,
This memo provides the supplemental results and findings related to the assessment of the potential for the proposed 5261 Arlington Avenue Project (Project) offsite improvements to impact cultural resources. This memo has been prepared as a s upplement to the Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California (McDaniel McDevitt et al. 2023) completed in June 2023. Since a portion of the proposed offsite utility line was not yet addressed by the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search, this memo presents the results and confirms the a ssumed negative records search findings, assessment of impacts and the management recommendations provided in the CRTR. Following are a summary of the CHRIS records search results, a discussion of p otential impacts and management recommendations. All other background and archival research were conducted for the utility line footprint as a part of the initial assessment with negative results.

Section 1. Records Search Results
Dudek conducted a supplemental search of the CHRIS at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside. The search included any previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a

0.5-mile radius of the proposed offsite improvements. Confidential Appendix A2 provides the complete records search results of this supplemental records search.

Section 1.1 Previous Cultural Resources Studies
Results of the CHRIS database records search indicate that eleven (11) previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within the supplemental records search area between 1995 and 2021. None of these studies, are mapped as having addressed the proposed Project site. Table 1, below, provides reference information for the eleven (11) previously conducted cultural resources investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project site.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIEMENS POMONA SITE EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - INADVERTANT DISCOVERY TREATMENT PLAN

2 OCTOBER 2023

Table 1. Previous Technical Studies Within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the Proposed Project Site CHRIS
Report
Number
Authors Date Title
Proximity to
Proposed
Project Site
RI-03893 Brian D. Dillon 1995
Archaeological Assessment of the Riverside
Cogeneration Project on the Santa Ana River,
Riverside County, California
Outside
RI-05354
Tang, Bai, Michael
Hogan, Josh
Smallwood, and Terri
Jacquemain
2005
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report: Assessor's Parcel Number 190-370-021,
City of Riverside, Riverside County, California
Outside
RI-05379 Keller, Jean 2003 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of The Riverside Infill Project (4966 Jurupa Avenue) Outside
RI-06006
Tang, Bai, Michael
Hogan, Josh
Smallwood, and
Daniel Ballester
2003
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report, Tentative Tract Map No. 31333, 4928 &
4962 Dewey Avenue, City of Riverside, Riverside
County, CA
Outside
RI-07694
George, Joan, Peggy
Beedle, and Vanessa
A. Mirro
2008
Cultural Resources Report for the Santa Ana
River Trunk Sewer Replacement Project,
Riverside County, California
Outside
RI-08354 Josh Smallwood 2010
Archaeological Monitoring Report: Jurupa
Avenue Underpass-Phase II Construction,
Federal-Aid Project No. CML-5058(064), City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California.

Outside
RI-08403 Joan George 2009
Letter Report: Phase-I Cultural Resources
Addendum for the Santa Ana River Trunk Sewer
Replacement Project, Riverside County, CA
Outside
RI-08415 Jeanette A. McKenna 2009
Letter Report: A Summary of the Proposed
Improvements at the Mountain View Elementary
School Campus in the City of Riverside,
Riverside County, California.

Outside
RI-09214 Robin D Turner 2014
Cultural Resources and Paleontological
Resources Monitoring Report for Phase 1 of the
Santa Ana River Trunk Sewer Replacement
Project, City of Riverside and Unincorporated
Riverside County, California.

Outside
RI-10646 Sarah A. Williams
and Carrie D. Wills 2018
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit
Results for Cellco Partnership and its Controlled
Affiliates Doing Business as Verizon Wireless
Candidate 'Phoenix', 555 Dewey Avenue,
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Outside
RI-11030 David Brunzell 2021
Cultural Resources Assessment, The Raptor
Industrial Park Project, City of Riverside,
Riverside County, California
Outside

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIEMENS POMONA SITE EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - INADVERTANT DISCOVERY TREATMENT PLAN 3 OCTOBER 2023
Section 1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The EIC records indicate that twenty -one (21) cultural resources have been previously recorded within 0.5-miles of the proposed Project site, none of which are located within or are adjacent to the proposed Project site. The identified cultural resources include one (1) resource of unknown origin, two (2) prehistoric archaeological site, three (3) historic archaeological sites, two (2) multicomponent sites containing both prehistoric and historic components, two (2) prehistoric isolates, and eleven (11) built environment resources. Table 2, below, provides further details on all previously recorded cultural resources within the supplemental records search area.

Table 2. Previous Recorded Cultural Resources Within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the Proposed Project Site Designation Description Recording Events NRHP/CRHR
Status
Approximate
Proximity to
Proposed
Project Site
P-33-000325
(CA-RIV-000325)
Unknown: "groups of
unspecified artifacts in river
bottom"
1967 (F.J. & P.H. Johnston);
1971 (R.E. Reynolds) Unknown
470 meters
(1,542 ft.)
northeast
P-33-001711
(CA-RIV-001711)
Prehistoric site: village site
containing metates, manos,
and bedrock mortars
1939 (Gerald Smith, San
Bernardino County Museum);
1971 (A. Haenszel, San
Bernardino County Museum)
Unknown <100 meters
(328 ft.) west
P-33-013254 Built Environment: commercial
building 2003 (SWCA) Unknown
800 meters
(2,625 ft.)
northwest
P-33-013255 Built Environment: single
family property 2003 (SWCA) Unknown
310 meters
(1,017 ft.)
northwest
P-33-013256 Built Environment: single
family property 2003 (SWCA) Unknown
285 meters
(935 ft.)
northwest
P-33-013257 Built Environment: barn 2003 (SWCA) Unknown 415 meters
(1,362 ft.)
northwest
P-33-013258 Built Environment: single
family property 2003 (SWCA) Unknown 130 meters
(427 ft.) north
P-33-013260 Built Environment: Martha
McLean - Anza Narrows Park 2003 (SWCA) Unknown
210 meters
(689 ft.)
northwest
P-33-013261 Built Environment: single
family property 2003 (SWCA) Unknown
100 meters
(328 ft.)
northwest
P-33-014890 Built Environment: single
family property
2005 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM
Tech) Unknown
340 meters
(1,115 ft.)
east

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIEMENS POMONA SITE EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - INADVERTANT DISCOVERY TREATMENT PLAN

4 OCTOBER 2023

Table 2. Previous Recorded Cultural Resources Within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the Proposed Project Site Designation Description Recording Events NRHP/CRHR
Status
Approximate
Proximity to
Proposed
Project Site
P-33-016848
Built Environment: Santa Ana
River Trunk Sewer/Santa Ana
River Outfall
2007 (Beedle, P., Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.);
2011 (B. Loren-Webb, D.

Ruzicka. Form L. Akyuz,
ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management)
Determined to
be not eligible
285 meters
(935 ft.) north
P-33-016851 Built Environment: De Anza
Trail monument
2007 (McLean, K. and C.

Bouscaren, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.);
2013 (D. Ruzicka, L. Akyuz,
ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management)
Determined to
be not eligible
780 meters
(2,559 ft.)
northwest
P-33-017092
(CA-RIV-008897)
Multicomponent site:
prehistoric component consists
of a boulder with seven (7)
milling slicks, historic
component consists of refuse
dating to late 19th century to
mid-20th century
2008 (Underbrink, S., W.

Sawyer, SWCA Environmental
Consultants)
Unknown
470 meters
(1,542 ft.)
southwest
P-33-017093
Historic site: historic refuse
possibly dating to earth 20th
century, pepper trees, and
bedrock capped with concrete
2008 (Underbrink, S., W.

Sawyer, SWCA Environmental
Consultants)
Unknown
470 meters
(1,542 ft.)
southwest
P-33-017094
(CA-RIV-008898)
Multicomponent site:
prehistoric component consists
of a boulder with one (1)
milling slick, historic
component consists of refuse
dating to late 19th century to
mid-20th century and pepper
trees
2008 (Underbrink, S., W.

Sawyer, SWCA Environmental
Consultants)
Unknown
495 meters
(1,591 ft.)
southwest
P-33-017095
(CA-RIV-008899)
Prehistoric site: four (4) milling
slicks on three (3) boulders
2008 (Underbrink, S.,
Sawyer, W., SWCA
Environmental Consultants)
Unknown
440 meters
(1,444 ft.)
southwest
P-33-017096 Built Environment: water tank
2008 (Underbrink, S.,
Sawyer, W., SWCA
Environmental Consultants)
Unknown
365 meters
(1,198 ft.)
southwest
P-33-017097
Historic site: linear concrete
feature, concrete standpipe,
small concrete trough, palm
tree stumps, a small concrete
slab, and pepper trees
2008 (Underbrink, S.,
Sawyer, W., SWCA
Environmental Consultants)
Unknown
285 meters
(935 ft.)
southwest
P-33-017330 Prehistoric isolate: two
fragmented metates
2007 (Porter, Robert, CRM
Tech) Unknown
755 meters
(2,477 ft.)
northwest

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIEMENS POMONA SITE EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - INADVERTANT DISCOVERY TREATMENT PLAN

5 OCTOBER 2023

Table 2. Previous Recorded Cultural Resources Within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the Proposed Project Site Designation Description Recording Events NRHP/CRHR
Status
Approximate
Proximity to
Proposed
Project Site
P-33-017331
(CA-RIV-009014) Historic site: trash pit 2007 (Porter, Robert, CRM Tech) Unknown 210 meters
(689 ft.) north
P-33-017332 Prehistoric isolate: an intact
mano and a metate fragment
2007 (Bodmer, Clarence,
CRM Tech) Unknown
235 meters
(771 ft.)
northwest
Section 2. Pedestrian Survey
Since the proposed offsite improvements exist entirely within a developed area and no exposed soils were present to observe, no supplemental pedestrian survey was conducted.

Section 3. Discussion of Potential Impacts
A CHRIS database records search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, background research, including a review of a geotechnical report, and an archaeological pedestrian survey of the proposed Project site (no survey of the offsite improvement locations was conducted due to the entirely developed nature of the areas) were conducted as part of an archaeological resources assessment for this Project. No archaeological or tribal cultural resources were identified within the offsite improvement locations as a result of these efforts.

However, the potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils (encountered from 2 feet below ground surface in some areas) to the depths of proposed ground disturbance (approximately 5 feet below ground surface) is considered moderate. The Project site is within a geographical region known for supporting Native American occupation. The Project site is within the vicinity of two unnamed Native American villages and transportation routes as mapped on the 1938 Kirkman Harriman map. Additionally, the Project site is within the Santa Ana River watershed, an area that would provide sustainable resources for habitation. Development of the Project site may have buried unknown cultural resources associated with Native American use and/or historic-period agricultural or residential properties. Native soils underlying the artificial fill consist of alluvial deposits from the terminal Pleistocene. These soils are considered contemporaneous with human use, and therefore retain the potential to preserve cultural material in context.

Previous and proposed ground disturbances were considered in light of the potential for yet unknown archaeological resources and human remains to be encountered leading to a determination that there is a potential for an inadvertent discovery of unknown ar chaeological resources and human remains to occur during Project implementation. The archaeological mitigation measures recommended in the Cultural Resources Technical Report 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California (McDaniel McDevitt 2023) would ensure the proper treatment of any archaeological resources and human remains encountered during ground disturbing activities. With the proper implementation of the prescribed measures, the potential impact to archaeological resources is considered to be less t hen significant.

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIEMENS POMONA SITE EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - INADVERTANT DISCOVERY TREATMENT PLAN 6 OCTOBER 2023
Section 3. Management Recommendations
Management recommendations, related to archaeological resources, intended to mitigate possible impacts to cultural resources potentially resulting from proposed Project implementation are consistent with those provided in the Cultural Resources Technical Report 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California (McDaniel McDevitt et al. 2023).

These measures include retainment of a qualified archaeological principal investigator to develop a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan ; preparation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and presentation of the associated training to construction personnel; archaeological or Native American monitoring; and implementation of an inadvertent discovery clause. Please refer to Section 9.3 Management Recommendations of the 2023 report for a full accounting of these measures.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] regarding any questions or concerns pertaining to this Supplemental Cultural Memo to the Cultural Resources Technical Report composed in support of the 5261 Arlington Avenue.

Very Respectfully,
H
eather McDaniel McDevitt, RPA
Dudek Archaeological Principal Investigator
Referenced Documents
McDaniel McDevitt, Heather, Adrian Gusick, Caitlin Greeley, Claire Cancilla, and Sarah Corder. 2023. Cultural Resources Technical Report 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California. Prepared for Riverside Property Owner LLC.

DUDEK-C
Cultural Resource Technical Report
Memorandum

MEMORANDUM
To: Melissa Perez, Webb Associates
From: Shawn Shamlou, AICP
Subject: 5261 Arlington Avenue Project, Cultural Resources Technical Report, City of Riverside Date: April 25, 2024
cc: Jamie Chapman, Riverside Property LLC

This memorandum is intended to clarify the management recommendations provided in Dudek’s May 2023 Cultural Resources Technical Report for the referenced project.

Section 9.3 of Dudek’s May 2023 Cultural Resources Technical Report provides Management Recommendations for archaeological resources, and further discloses those as “archaeological resources mitigation”. For the sake of clarity, these measures are better referred to as “recommendations”. The related Environmental Impact Report being prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines will contain the actual relevant mitigation measures. Also, it should be noted that any consultations/meetings that may occur on the part of the City of Riverside with respect to historic and archaeological resources or agreements as part of California Native American Tribal consultations may supersede any of the recommendations of the May 2023 report.

AO
Adaptive Reuse Study

Page 1 of 4 ends

Riverside Property Owner, LLC
12435 Park Potomac Ave. Suite 200
Potomac, MD 20854

Subject: Building Riverside Adaptive Reuse Study

Multi-Family Residential Studies

Option 1:

Proposed Program:
o Maintain all existing walls of building.
o Remove existing building roof.
o Fill existing basement and pour new slab.
o Proposed 20ft wide x 100ft long units with a central corridor o Height of proposed addition: 2- stories
o Total number of proposed units: +/- 44 units

Disqualifying Factors:
o 20ft wide x 100ft long units is an extremely inefficient use of space and is not conducive to residential living.
o Lack of natural daylight (100ft deep units). See Section 1204 of California Building Code (CBC) included herein.
o Lack of adequate ventilation. See Section 1202 of California Building Code (CBC) included herein.
▪ Proposed unit plans: 20ft x100ft = 2000sf/unit
▪ Since the units are 100ft deep, they will all have adjoining spaces. • 2000sf/unit x 0.08 = 160sf of operable windows per unit

The lack of ventilation will have a significant impact on the structural integrity of the existing building as 22 penetrations will be required all along the perimeter walls. CBC will require each penetration to have a minimum area of 160 sf. each.

* For structural analysis, see enclosed letter from Innova Structural Design Group

Option 2:

Proposed Program:
o Maintain all existing walls of building.
o Remove building roof.
o Fill existing basement and pour new slab.
o Proposed 24ftx30ft (1 Bdrm units) and 36ftx30ft (2 bdrm units) with a central corridor o Height of proposed addition: 2- stories
o Total number of proposed units: +/- 140 units

Disqualifying Factors:
o Lack of adequate ventilation. See Section 1202 of California Building Code (CBC) included herein.
 Proposed unit plans:
 24ft x30ft = 720 sf/unit
 36ft x 30ft = 1,080 sf/unit
 Required ventilation:
 720sf x 0.04 = 28.8 sf
 1,080 sf/unit x 0.04 = 43.2 sf

The lack of ventilation will have a significant impact on the structural integrity of the existing building as 70 penetrations will be required all along the perimeter walls.

* For structural analysis, see enclosed letter from Innova Structural Design Group

Option 3:

Proposed Program:
o Maintain only North and South walls of existing building. o Remove building roof.
o Fill existing basement and pour new slab.
o Proposed (4) 2 story buildings.
 Walkways - propose open to the sky walkways along the existing North and South walls.
 Unit plans: 24ftx30ft (1 Bdrm units) and 36ftx30ft (2 bdrm units) with a central corridor
o Height of proposed buildings: 2- stories
o Total number of proposed units: +/-128 units

Disqualifying Factors:
o Only 2 walls of the existing building can be maintained. This option does not meet the goals of adaptive reuse.

*For structural analysis, see enclosed letter from Innova Structural Design Group

Option 4:

Proposed Program:
o Maintain only South and West walls of existing building o Remove building roof
o Proposed (4) 2 story buildings
▪ Walkways will be proposed along the South and East walls. ▪ Unit plans: 24ftx30ft (1 Bdrm units) and 36ftx30ft (2 bdrm units) with a central corridor
o Height of proposed addition: 2- stories
o Total number of proposed units: +/-112 units

Disqualifying Factors:
o Only 2 walls of the existing building can be maintained. This option does not meet the goals of adaptive reuse.

*For structural analysis, see enclosed letter from Innova Structural Design Group

Self-Storage Conversion Option

Proposed Program:
o Maintain existing building.
o Construct storage units within existing footprint.

Disqualifying Factors:
o The existing building is 178,426 sf., which is significantly larger than the average self- storage facility (approximately 50,000 sf. ).
o A viable self-storage tenant would require multiple units that access directly to the exterior. This would require adding numerous exterior doors and cutting openings in the building.

*For structural analysis, see enclosed letter from Innova Structural Design Group

Thanks,

ARCHITECT
Architects Orange, LLP dba AO
By:

Name: RC Alley
Title: Managing Partner
Date: July 13, 2023

California Building Code References:

Los Angeles - 16600 Sherman Way, Ste 180  Van Nuys, Ca 91406  T: 818-313-8680  F: 818-313-8681 Orange County - 2102 Business Center Drive, Ste 206  Irvine, Ca 92602  T:949-262-3212

Date: July 6, 2023
Re: Sears Riverside Retail Store Adaptive Re-Use - Structural Review Our File#: 23901(D)

VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

Jim Ivory
Riverside Property Owner, LLC
12435 Park Potomac Ave., Ste 200
Potomac, MD 20854

Dear Jim,

Our office was requested to review the structural viability and issues with regards to the various adaptive re- use options for the abandoned existing Sears Riverside retail store building located at 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, Ca. We are in receipt of existing building architectural and structural plans for the building. Based on the plans the project was constructed sometime during 1963-64.

Our office performed a brief on site visual observation of the closed and abandoned retail building on May 30th 2023. The building basement and superstructure and mechanical mezzanine was observed. Evidence of building systems being removed/stolen was rampant throughout the building. Visually the structural elements of the building did not show signs of severe deterioration or crack ing.

Existing building is a 1963-4 era Sears retail building consists of a two story retail building with the following:

1. Approximately 200,000 sq. ft. building consisting of one level at grade with mechanical mezzanine level over one subterranean basement level with loading dock access ramp.

2. Grade Level slab is a 3000 psi 8-3/4” thick concrete flat slab with 9’-0” square 4-1/2” thick drop panels supported by concrete columns at 26’-0” o.c. on conventional spread footings.

3. Roof height varies from 23’-0” to 36’-0” in height and is a steel joist and tapered girder roof system supported with steel columns at 26’-0” o.c.

4. Exterior walls are 9” thick brick masonry walls with mild reinforcing.

5. Current building design loads are estimated to be retail loading of 100 psf Live Load based on the age of the building.

6. All rebar is 40 ksi steel.

Due to the age of the structure the following structural requirements would need to be satisfied to comply with current building code(s) or residential adapative re-use building options:

1. Residential Adaptive Re-use Options Loads
a. Dead Loads - Per CBC Section 16 new residential building loading would add a min additional 70-100 psf of dead load to the existing building grade level slab structure. b. Live Loads - Per CBC Section 16 new residential building loading would require a min. of 100 psf of live load. It is assumed that the existing building grade level slab was designed for 100 psf live load.
c. Per CBC and ASCE 7-16 Section 12 the new building seismic requirements would require all exterior walls to be reinforced with new walls and would require existing grade level slab to withstand seismic transfer forces for new portions of structure added.

2. Storage Adaptive Re-use Options Loads
a. Dead Loads - Per CBC Section 16 new residential building loading would add a min additional 35 psf of dead load per level to the existing building grade level slab structure.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Re: – Sears Adaptive Re-Use Review
Project #: 23901
July 6, 2023
G:\Clients_Projects_Proposals\2023\23901_Sears_Adaptive_Re-Use_Study\23901_Sears_Riverside_Adaptive_Re-use_Ltr_07-06-23.docx b. Live Loads - Per CBC Section 16 storage building loading would require a min. of 250 psf of live load per level. It is assumed that the existing building grade level slab was designed for 100 psf live load.

3. Per CBC and ASCE 7-16 Section 12 the new building seismic requirements would require all exterior walls to be reinforced with new walls and would require existing grade level slab to withstand seismic transfer forces for new portions of structure added.

4. Given the above two requirements the existing structure would not be conducive to be re -utilized in its current condition. The retro-fitting would lead to essentially tearing down the existing structure and re-building it.

5. See the detail discussion of the structural issues for each option below.

Architectural Residential Option 1: Adaptive residential re-use of existing super structure on grade with all exterior walls of existing building to remain with removal of roof to provide +/- 44 units

Structural Issues:

1. This approach calls for the entire basement level slab to be removed and filled back with dirt.

Given that the exterior walls will be supported by basement foundations and new supports will be supported on grade this may introduce differential settlement issues between the new building supports existing building wall supports. This would not be structurally acceptable.

2. This approach calls for removal and replacement of roof which would most likely result in damage to existing walls due to movement that would occur during demolition of the roof.

3. The existing exterior walls of the building would not be of much use for seismic loads imposed on structure by current code requirements and especially due to removal of the wall in the areas of required additional required architectural openings.

4. For seismic requirements the existing exterior walls would need to be reinforced with new walls inside of existing exterior walls and associated vertical elements from these walls would need to be transferred down to the lowest foundation level with new foundations.

Ultimately, the practicality, complexity, and cost of construction would deem the viability of this option unlikely especially due to the fact that the final product would not satisfy the desired adaptive re-use requirements the new structure would not resemble the Sears retail store building due to all of the changes required for new use.

Architectural Residential Option 2: All exterior walls of building to remain with removal of roof to provide +/- 140 units

Structural Issues:

1. The structural issues for this option would be the similar to Option 1.

Architectural Residential Option 3: Only North and South exterior walls of building to remain with removal of roof to provide +/- 128 units

Structural Issues:

1. The structural issues for this option would be similar to Option 1.

Architectural Residential Option 4: Only South and West exterior walls of building to remain with removal of roof to provide +/- 112 units

Structural Issues:

1. The structural issues for this options would be similar to Option 1.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Structural Issues:

1. Loading
a. Storage would require Live Load of 250psf by building code. This loading is 2.5 times the current allowable loading for the existing structure for a one story storage structure. If multiple levels are desired, utilizing the existing structurally would be prohibitive. b. The existing ground level building slab would need to be reinforced and upgraded significantly as the loading parameters will increase substantially. This may require the addition of an entirely new slab.
c. Additional supports in the basement would need to be added and foundations would need to be added and existing foundations would need to be upgraded.

2. Exterior walls
a. The existing exterior walls of the building would not be of much use for seismic loads imposed on structure by current code requirements and especially due to removal of the wall for creation of additional openings for storage access. b. For seismic requirements the existing exterior walls would need to be reinforced with new walls inside of existing exterior walls and associated vertical elements from these walls would need to be transferred down to the lowest foundation level with new foundations.

Please note that our review of this structure was confined to a general review of the building and review of the limited information regarding the architectural options presented above provided to our office and was not intended to be an in-depth study or analysis of the existing structures capacities/capabilities relative to the current building code and each of the architectural options presented. In addition, we were not requested to nor have we performed any calculations or analysis of the project. Please note that this existing building review was conducted with generally acceptable professional standards that exist at the present time in the industry. No warranty written or otherwise is expressed herein.

We thank you for considering us to be of service to you. Please let us know if you require any further assistance or clarifications.

Thanking you,

With Regards,

Innova Structural Design Group, Inc.

Manish Mehta, PE
Principal

Cc: 21903.D - Job file

INNOVA
Structural Review

Los Angeles - 16600 Sherman Way, Ste 180  Van Nuys, Ca 91406  T: 818-313-8680  F: 818-313-8681 Orange County - 2102 Business Center Drive, Ste 206  Irvine, Ca 92602  T:949-262-3212

Date: July 6, 2023
Re: Sears Riverside Retail Store Adaptive Re-Use - Structural Review Our File#: 23901(D)

VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

Jim Ivory
Riverside Property Owner, LLC
12435 Park Potomac Ave., Ste 200
Potomac, MD 20854

Dear Jim,

Existing building is a 1963-4 era Sears retail building consists of a two story retail building with the following:

1. Approximately 200,000 sq. ft. building consisting of one level at grade with mechanical mezzanine level over one subterranean basement level with loading dock access ramp.

2. Grade Level slab is a 3000 psi 8-3/4” thick concrete flat slab with 9’-0” square 4-1/2” thick drop panels supported by concrete columns at 26’-0” o.c. on conventional spread footings.

3. Roof height varies from 23’-0” to 36’-0” in height and is a steel joist and tapered girder roof system supported with steel columns at 26’-0” o.c.

4. Exterior walls are 9” thick brick masonry walls with mild reinforcing.

5. Current building design loads are estimated to be retail loading of 100 psf Live Load based on the age of the building.

6. All rebar is 40 ksi steel.

Due to the age of the structure the following structural requirements would need to be satisfied to comply with current building code(s) or residential adapative re-use building options:

Page 2 of 3 ends

5. See the detail discussion of the structural issues for each option below.

Structural Issues:

1. This approach calls for the entire basement level slab to be removed and filled back with dirt.

2. This approach calls for removal and replacement of roof which would most likely result in damage to existing walls due to movement that would occur during demolition of the roof.

Architectural Residential Option 2: All exterior walls of building to remain with removal of roof to provide +/- 140 units

Structural Issues:

1. The structural issues for this option would be the similar to Option 1.

Architectural Residential Option 3: Only North and South exterior walls of building to remain with removal of roof to provide +/- 128 units

Structural Issues:

1. The structural issues for this option would be similar to Option 1.

Architectural Residential Option 4: Only South and West exterior walls of building to remain with removal of roof to provide +/- 112 units

Structural Issues:

1. The structural issues for this options would be similar to Option 1.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Riverside City CouncilSeptember 17, 2024

Riverside City Council
September 17, 2024