Federal Criteria
A property would be considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places if it meets one or more of the following:
Criteria for Eligibility
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or meth od of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory.
California State Criteria
California State has multiple levels of recognition for significant or important cultural re sources: California Historical Landmark, California Point of Historical Interest, and/or California Register of Historical Resources.
California Historical Landmark (Landmark)
To be designated as a California Historical Landmark , a resource must meet at least one of the criteria listed below, have the approval of the property owner(s), be recom mended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The Criteria for Designation include:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California); • Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California;
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master build er.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 23 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI)
To be designated as a California Point of Historical Interest, a resource must meet at least one of the criteria listed below.
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geograph ic region (City or County);
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area;
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
To be designated eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, a resource must meet at least one of the criteria listed below.
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of Cali fornia or the United States;
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or na tional history;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or meth od of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield information important to the pre history or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Local Riverside Criteria
The City of Riverside also has multiple levels or recognition for cultural resources. Spe cifically, they may identify a resource as a City Landmark, Historic District, or Structure or Resource of Merit. Recently, the City eliminated designations of Neighborhood Con servation Areas. The remaining criteria are presented as follows:
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 24 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Landmark Criteria (Chapter 20.50.01 0 - U)
"Landmark" means any improvement of Natural Feature that is an exceptional exam ple 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 fol lowing criteria:
1. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, eco nomic, 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 im portant creative individual;
5. Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a sig nificant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
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;
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;
8. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Historic District Designation Criteria (Chapter 20.50.010 - 0) "Historic District" means an area which contains:
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 25 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
1. A concentration, linkage, or continuity of cultural resources, where at least fifty percent of the structures or elements retain significant historic integri ty, (a geographic Historic District") or
2. A thematic-related grouping of cultural resources which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development, and which have been designated to 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 Plac es or the California Register of Historical Resources, or is a California His torical Landmark or a California Point of Historical Interest (a "thematic Historic District".
Structures of Merit Designation Criteria (Chapter 20.50.01 0 - FF) "Structure or Resource of Merit" means any improvement or Natural Feature which contributes to the broader understanding of the historical, archaeological, cultural, archi tectural, 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 or a neigh borhood community or of the City;
2. Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now ra re in its neighborhood, community, or area;
3. Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare;
4. A Cultural Resource that could be eligible under Landmark Criteria no longer exhibiting a high level of integrity, however, retaining sufficient in tegrity to convey significance under one or more of the Landmark Criteria;
5. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
6. An improvement or resource that no longer exhibits the high degree of in tegrity sufficient for Landmark designation, yet still retains sufficient integri- Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 26 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies ty under one or more of the Landmark criteria to convey cultural resource significance as a Structure or Resource of Merit.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
A portion of the city's Historic Context Statement reads as follows:
Immigration and Ethnic Diversity:
A succession of diverse cultural groups was brought to the region by Riv erside's famous Washington Navel Orange industry, each with their own perspectives and dreams. Early citriculture, a labor-intensive crop, re quired large available pools of labor in those days to succeed. Poor, but eager, immigrants from China, Japan, Italy, Mexico, and later the Dust Bowl of American flooded into Southern California to meet the labor de mand in hopes of gaining their own fortunes. As a result, Riverside devel oped a substantial Chinatown and other ethnic settlements, such as Casa Blanca. A rich ethnic-socio-economic mix, the hallmark of today's Califor nia, had already developed in Riverside by World War II.
In the late 1880s, the project area was " ... too far away from downtown and East River side ... " Hall 1992:42). Subdivision and building on the south side of town .. . was slow, but consistent, and the further south the later the investments in income properties.
Bringing this historical context into a tighter period, the 1920s were a time of post-1913 freeze and post-World War I recovery for Riverside. Again, citing Hall (1992:119-124):
"The years following the big freeze found Riversiders working harder and struggling to make a living. Citrus growers were constantly alert to ever changing weather conditions even though they could not alter them. The year of 1916 began wet and stormy in the San Bernardino Valley where heavy rains measured ten inches. Due to the unusual amount of rain, three hundred families were forced to leave their San Bernardino homes .. . The Santa Ana River flooded, and its force washed out all bridges lead ing into Riverside. Although the town became temporarily isolated from the outside world, commercial businesses carried on as usual, and local banks held their annual meetings ... [during World War I] Labor shortages were universal, and the citrus industry did not escape the need to hire Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 27 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies some women to fill the vacancies ... All Americans were forced to make wartime sacrifices ... the nation as a whole experienced great prosperity in the 1920s ... "
The current project area was just outside the southern boundary of the City of Riverside until it was annexed (fairly recently) and the City boundary was redefined at La Sierra Avenue. The project area was always a citrus orchard and, although not currently main tained, remains an orchard.
It is peripheral to the "Arlington Heights" area, but still close enough to be associaed with Victoria Avenue and the citrus industry. The property complements many of the early citrus orchards of south Riverside.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Evaluation - Federal Criteria:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Historic research failed to associate the current project area with any events contributing to the broad patterns in our history. In fact, this prop erty was always identified as a relatively small enterprise (citrus orchard) that provided supplemental income to persons living and working else where. If this property was not under citrus, it would not have made any difference to the larger and more successful agri-business enterprises in the Riverside area and/or the Arlington Heights industry. Therefore, McKenna et al. has concluded this property fails to meet the minimum re quirements for recognition under Criterion A.
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
The improvements identified within the current project area have not been associated with any significant persons in our past. While the property, it self, can be traced to the Moulton and Praed holdings, neither man ever visited the property or was directly involved in any of the improvements.
The subsequent owners were all average working families that used to grove for supplernental income. Therefore, McKenna et al. has deter- Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 28 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies mined that the existing improvements fail to meet the minimum require ments under Criterion B.
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or meth od of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
There are no standing structures within the project area and none were ever present. Therefore, Criterion C is not applicable to this discussion.
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory.
No evidence was found to suggest there are prehistoric or significant his toric archaeological remains within the project area. Criterion D does not apply.
Evaluation - State Criteria
California Historical Landmark
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California).
The improvements identified within the project area are not the first, last, or only examples of citrus orchards and/or irrigation systems or windmills supporting orchard development. Similar features can be identified throughout Southern California (and elsewhere). The development meth od is standard and financially reasonable, given the size of the property.
These are modest improvements and improvements that required minimal maintenance. McKenna et al. has concluded these improvements do not meet the intent of "type" and, therefore, in this criterion does not apply. • Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California.
Research failed to associate the property and/or improvements with any individual or group meeting the minimum level of recognition or influence in California. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 29 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies • A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master build er.
The improvements identified within the project area are not considered prototypical and/or an outstanding example of an architectural movement.
They are more aligned with industrial improvements and not associated with any pioneer designer or master builder. Therefore, the property can not be considered for recognition as a Landmark under this criterion.
California Point of Historical Interest
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geograph ic region (City or County).
The improvements identified within the project area are not the first, last, or only examples of the citrus industry improvements in the River side/Arlington Heights area or Southern California in general. As noted above, this property fails to meet the minimum requirements for recogni tion as a first, last, or unique type of feature(s). McKenna et al. has con cluded this property does not qualify for recognition under this criterion. • Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area.
Research failed to associate the property and/or improvements with any individual or group meeting the minimum level of recognition or influence in local area. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. • A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.
The improvements identified within the project area are not considered prototypical and/or an outstanding example of any construction/industrial movement. In addition, the property is not associated with any pioneer ar- Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 30 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies chitect, designer or master builder. Therefore, the property cannot be considered for recognition as a Landmark under this criterion.
California Register of Historical Resources
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of Cali fornia or the United States.
The improvements associated with the current project area cannot be as sociated with any broad pattern of local or regional history, or the heritage of California or the United States, as noted above. The improvements represent a small and relatively inconsequential investment by individuals and are not in the same category of the large land holders responsible for the development of the citrus industry in this geographical area. Further, the improvements cannot be associated with any significant event or con tribution to the overall history of the area, state, or nation, as previously noted.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or na tional history.
Research failed to associate the property and/or improvements with any individual or group meeting the minimum level of recognition or influence in local, state or national areas. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or meth od of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
The improvements identified within the project area are not considered characteristic of a "type" or distinctive method of construction. In addition, the property is not associated with the work of a master and there is no high artistic value. There are no standing structures. The property cannot be considered for recognition as a Landmark under this criterion.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield information important to the pre history or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 31 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Research has failed to indicate this property has any potential to yield ad ditional data considered important to understanding the prehistory or histo ry of the area, state, or nation. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
Evaluation - Local Criteria
Landmark Criteria
1. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, eco nomic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history.
No data was found to suggest this property meets any of the elements of the criterion for recognition as a special element, as defined. The property is not aesthetically appealing. The property does not reflect significant engineering or architectural achievements. It has nothing to do with the natural history of the area and it cannot be associated with the city's cul tural, social, economic, or political history, except in a very minor way (outside of the City for the most part). Rather, it is a relatively small prop erty with common application and not different than much of the generic small agricultural properties identified on the peripheries of the City.
2. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.
Research failed to associate the property and/or improvements with any individual or group meeting the minimum level of recognition or influence in local, state or national areas. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
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.
The improvements identified within the project area are not considered characteristic of a "type" or distinctive method of construction. In addition, the property does not exhibit the valuable use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. Therefore, the property cannot be considered for recogni tion as a Landmark under this criterion.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 32 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
4. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect; or im portant creative individual.
There is no evidence that this property is associated with a notable build er, designer, or architect. There are no standing structures and never were standing structures. Nor is it associated with a creative individual.
Therefore, this criterion cannot be applied.
5. Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a sig nificant structural or architectural achievement or innovation.
Again, there are not standing structures on the property and therefore, this criterion does not apply.
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.
The project area is not associated with transportation nodes or parks. It was individually developed and not a part of a larger plan for development or part of the larger orchard holdings. On a very minimal level, the im provements (orchard development) may be considered a cultural land scape, as it represents the historic alteration of the natural environment and the establishment of a man-made landscape (the orchard). McKenna et al, initially concluded the orchard did not qualify as a cultural landscape, as it is represented by replacement trees and not the original orchard.
This initial conclusion suggested a lack of integrity and, therefore, not eli gible for recognition. Delcamp (2014), however, recommended consider ing the orchard, irrigation system, and windmill as parts of the overall landscape and, in citing National Register Bulletin 30, points out that " ... rural landscapes ... predominantly contain land, natural features and living plant materials that have lifespans. Because of these finite lifespans, Bul letin 30 states that ["] original plant materials may enhance integrity, but their loss does not necessarily destroy it."
Delcamp (2014) continues:
Job No. 1657
"... it is possible to come to the same conclusions [as McKenna's] that the project site is not a cultural landscape based on a more complex analysis . . . and related historic APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 33
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies factors of area. Aerial maps from 1948 and as late as 1967 show the project site and the rest of the lots within the Moulton and Praed Subdivision planted to groves, presuma bly citrus, As such, the area appeared to be a contiguous westerly extension of the Arlington Heights area ... which is the key area connected to the city's citrus grove history ...
Modifications to the site and the surrounding area have re duced the overall groves in the Moulton and Praed subdivi sion, reduced the project site grove's original acreage, iso lated the grove, and made it discontiguous [sic] to the Arling ton Heights area. By the 1980 aerial photos, a parcel map recorded in 1979 (9036) had resulted in approximately four acres of the adjacent Lot 6A being developed with four new residences on former groves ... ; Also by 1980, another resi dential subdivision recorded in 1977 (5751) ... resulted in the construction of approximately 48 homes on former groves.
In fact, all of the former graves immediately surrounding the project site had been developed with single family homes by 1980, thus making an island of the subject site ... Today, all of this section of the Moulton and Praed subdivision that was planted in groves has been developed - with the exception of the project site, another 4+ acre site east of Short Street, and a scattered remnant trees within backyards of single family residences ... all that remains of what was over 100 acres of graves by 1948 is an isolated 8.8 acre grove and another 4+ acres that remains directly west of Arlington Heights. The rest of the original subdivision has all been re subdivided and developed as homes, and both La Sierra
Avenue and Victoria Avenue had been improved which has
altered the setting, character and feeling of the area. There fore, based on the above analysis, the project site does not retain "the general character and feeling of its histo ry period," does not retain integrity as a cultural land scape, and is not significant under local Landmark crite rion 6. (Emphasis added)
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.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 34 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies This style of development is not unique and does not represent the last remaining example of orchard development in the City, country, state, and region. In the City of Riverside, areas reflecting the orange/citrus industry still exist and functioning as income properties. McKenna et al. deter mined this property does not meet the criteria for identification as a last example and, therefore, this criterion does not apply.
8. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Research has failed to indicate this property has any potential to yield ad ditional data considered important to understanding the prehistory or histo ry. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
Historic District Designation Criteria
1. A concentration, linkage, or continuity of cultural resources, where at least fifty percent of the structures or elements retain significant historic integri ty, (a geographic Historic District").
To be considered a district, the concentration of resources must retain significant historic integrity. In this case, the individual elements within the property are dominated by modern additions or alterations. Three historic features (orchard, irrigation system and wind machine; see previous dis cussion) are negligible, as they are not unique or directly linked (physically or otherwise) to any large system identified as significant. There is no "district" and therefore, this criterion cannot be applied to the current study area.
2. A thematic-related grouping of cultural resources which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development , and which have been designated to 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 Plac es or the California Register of Historical Resources, or is a California His torical landmark or a California Point of Historical Interest (a "thematic His toric District".
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 35 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies The current project area has been determined ineligible for designation as a historic district; is not listed in or eligible for listing as a National Register property, California Register property, a California Landmark, or a Califor nia Point of Historic Interest (see previous discussions). The improve ments are not consistent with the definition of a unique or rare resource.
Therefore, McKenna et al. has concluded the property is not a "district" or part of a "district" and, therefore, not eligible for any protections under the definition of a "district."
Structures of Merit Designation Criteria
1. Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature or a neigh borhood community or of the City.
There is nothing unique about the location of this project area, nor are there any singular physical characteristics, view, or visual feature unique to the property. The neighborhood surrounding the property has been subject to significant alterations during the modern period with residential developments and road improvements. All but two small areas of citrus orchards remains in the area. The current project areas fails to meet the intent of this criterion and, therefore, McKenna et al. has determined the criterion cannot be applied.
2. Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now ra re in its neighborhood, community, or area.
There are no standing buildings on this property and the surrounding buildings are all of modern origin. This criterion cannot be applied to this property.
3. Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare.
The only business associated with this property is citrus orchard develop ment. While this activity was more widespread throughout the 20th centu ry, the property is not being maintained as an active orchard, it is not a ra re business enterpriseand, therefore, this criterion cannot be applied.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 36 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
4. A Cultural Resource that could be eligible under Landmark Criteria no longer exhibiting a high level of integrity, however, retaining sufficient in tegrity to convey significance under one or more of the Landmark Criteria.
As presented above, the property does not meet the intent of the Land mark criteria. This property never met the criteria for Landmark status and , therefore, would not meet the criterion for Structure of Merit designation.
Lack of integrity is a significant and applicable issue.
5. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Research has failed to indicate this property has any potential to yield ad ditional data considered important to understanding the prehistory or histo ry. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
6. An improvement or resource that no longer exhibits the high degree of in tegrity sufficient for Landmark designation, yet still retains sufficient integri ty under one or more of the Landmark criteria to convey cultural resource significance as a Structure or Resource of Merit.
As noted above, integrity is not an issue with respect to this property meeting any of the minimum requirements for recognition as a Landmark.
Therefore, the degree of integrity is not applicable to the consideration as a Structure of Merit. It is the professional opinion of McKenna et al. that this property does not meet the requirements for recognition as a Struc ture of Merit.
In summary, McKenna et al. prepared Table 4 to illustrate the property's failure to meet any of the criteria for recognition on the national, state, regional, or local level. McKen na et al. took all data into account, including comments presented with respect to the draft report, and attempted to assess the property on the facts and without bias or prej udice. In assessing the potential for listing properties, the criteria used for designation should be clear and unequivocal.
Here, there major issue was whether or not the property could qualify as a cultural land scape. McKenna et al. considered this potential and concluded none of the three identi fied features (orchard, irrigation system, or windmill) retained the integrity needed to be considered a cultural landscape.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 37 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Table 4. Summary of Evaluations.
Federal State Criteria Local Criteria
Criteria Landmark CPHI CRHR Landmark District Merit Neigh.
A -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- a -- a -- a -- a --
B -- -- -- -- -- 2 -- b -- b -- b -- b --
C -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- C -- C -- C -- C --
D -- 4 -- d -- d -- d -- d --
Property fails Property fails to meet Property e -- e -- e --the minimum criteria Does not to meet the fails to f -- f -- Does minimum re- for recognition as a meet Q a not qualify
state Landmark or -- --
quirements CRHR as a
Point of Historical h -- h -- qualify neigh-for federal Interest require- i Not for -- borhood recognition ments i -- Applic. merit These three features date to different historic periods and can be attributed to different property owners. While each is related to the citrus industry, each served different pur poses and reflect the "need" at the time of establishment. McKenna et al. has conclud ed the property, overall, is not a significant or important resource as defined in the vari ous evaluation criteria. As a property failing to meet any of the criteria for recognition , McKenna et al. has also concluded there will be no adverse environmental impact if this property is redeveloped.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the paleontological overview for this area and information maintained by the County of Riverside Land Management and Transportation Agency, the project area is considered sensitive for paleontological resources that are likely to be found in a buried context. With a relative rating of "High A" by the County, McKenna et al. recommends that, in accordance with County guidelines, any earthmoving that exceeds the relative depth of five deep below the current surface be monitored for paleontological speci mens. The paleontological monitoring program should be in concurrence with County guidelines and the Western Center, Hemet. Prior to any implementation, a _PRIMP (Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Plan) should be prepared and approved.
The extent of monitoring will be dependent upon the actual grading plans and in con junction with City conditions with respect to the grading activities.
McKenna et al. contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and received a response that no sacred or religious sites are known for this area. Local Native Ameri- Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 38 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies can representatives were contacted via mail and two responses were received. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (Serrano) responded by acknowledging this area is outside the ancestral territory of the Serrano. The Soboba of San Jacinto responded with concerns for secondary impacts and requested to be consulted should Native American resources be identified. If resources are identified, the Soboba requested a representative of the Native American community being included in the remaining moni toring activities. At this time, McKenna et al. acknowledges the presence of Native American resources within one mile of the project area, but emphasizes no evidence of such resources was found within the project area. Therefore, McKenna et al. is not rec ommending archaeological or Native American monitoring. Should resources be un covered as a result of site preparation, the find(s) must be assessed in accordance with current standards and guidelines and an archaeological monitoring program be initiated to address the remainder of the grading program (including tree removal).
The background research, field survey, and evaluation of the improvements within the current project area resulted in a conclusion that this property does not represent a sig nificant or important historical resource(s) as defined by federal, state, or local guide lines. McKenna et al., having giving this study considerable time and analysis, including incorporation of City comments and concerns, has concluded the property is not a his torical resource and the proposed redevelopment of the property will not result in any adverse environmental impact.
Further, the proposed redevelopment will not impact, directly or indirectly, any adjacent or nearby historical resources (i.e. the historically significant portion of Victoria Avenue or the Gage Canal). McKenna et al. prepared the DPR-523 forms to identify this prop erty as a resource, but emphasizes the project site is not a significant resource and does not qualify as a "historical resource," as defined in CEQA and NEPA. In summary, the following mitigation measures are proposed:
• The paleontological monitoring program should be in concurrence with County guidelines and the Western Center, Hemet. Prior to any imple mentation, a PRIMP (Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Plan) should be prepared and approved. The extent of monitoring will be de pendent upon the actual grading plans and in conjunction with City condi tions with respect to the grading activities.
• McKenna et al. is not recommending archaeological or Native American monitoring. Should resources be uncovered as a result of site prepara tion, the find(s) must be assessed in accordance with current standards Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 39 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies and guidelines and an archaeological monitoring program be initiated to address the remainder of the grading program
At the discretion of the Lead Agency, additional mitigation measures may be proposed or required as a condition of approval for the proposed tract map.
GERTI FICATION
CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the at tached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological/ cultur al resources report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
e, a. '1"'/e,~ I. ZOlf-
eanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator, McKenna et al. Date Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page40
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
REFERENCES
Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC)
1980 Archaeological Resource Survey Conducted for the Corona Assessment District Environmental Impact Report. On file, University of California, Riv erside, Regional Archaeological Information Center.
Avina, Rose Hollenbaugh
1932 "Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in California." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Ballester, Daniel
2009 Continuation Sheet: 33-4495 (Upper Riverside Canal). 2005. On file, Uni versity of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, Cali fornia.
Bean, Lowell J.
1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
1987 "Cahuilla." In: Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 81 California, Rob ert F. Heizer (ed.), pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indians Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Muse um Press, Banning.
Bean, Lowell J. and Charles Smith
1978 "Gabrielino." In: Handbook of North American Indians: California, Volume 8, pp. 538-550. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Beck, Warren A. and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Benedict, Ruth
1924 "A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture." American Anthropologist 26(3):366- 392.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page41
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Bissell, Ronald M.
1993 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Hidden Valley Golf Course, Nor co, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Regional Archaeological Information Center.
Bolton, Herbert E.
1927 Spanish Explorations in the Southwest, 1542-1706. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Carr, Peter
2001 Primary Record: P-33-13203. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Chandler, Evelyn N., Valerie M. VanHemelryck, and Roger D. mason 2002 Primary Record: CA-RIV-4791-H (Lower Riverside Canal; 33-4791). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Cottrell, Marie G.
1977 Report for an Archaeological Survey Conducted on a 237 Acre Parcel in the Southwest Riverside Area, in Riverside County. On file, University of Cali fornia, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Cowan, K.
1976
CRM Tech
1995
Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA-RIV-1136. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Primary Record: CA-RIV-5672H. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Delcamp, Teri
2014 P14-0176, TTM 36617; SE [sic] Corner of Victoria and La Sierra Avenues.
In-house comments on draft report. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, Cali fornia.
Desautels, Marc
1979 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA-RIV-2226. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 42 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Desautels, Roger J.
1979 Archaeological Survey Report on a 1700+ Acre Parcel of Land Designated the "Campeau Project" Located in the Lake Mathews Area of Riverside County. On file, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riv erside.
Drover, C.E.
1979 An Archaeological Assessment of the Norco Hills Proposed Subdivision Near Norco, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Regional Archaeological Information Center.
1980 See Citation for Koerper, Drover, and Langenwalter (1983). 1981 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeological Assessment of Zone Change 3296 near La Sierra, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1982 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA-RIV-1284. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Dumke, Glenn S.
1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
Gardner, Michael C.
1971 The Arlington Channel Flood Control Project: Expected Impact on Archaeo logical Resources. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern In formation Center, Riverside, California.
Goodwin, Riordan and Jennifer Reynolds
2005 Archaeological Monitoring Program, La Sierra West Tract 30295, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern In formation Center, Riverside, California.
Gray, Cliffton H., Jr.
1961 "Geology of the Corona South Quadrangle and the Santa Ana Narrows Ar ea, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, California, and Mines and Mineral Deposits of the Corona South Quadrangle, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, California." California Division of Mines Bul letin 178, San Francisco, California.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 43 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Greenwood, Roberta S.
1978 "Obispeno and Purisimeno Chumash." In: Handbook of North American In dians: California, Volume 8, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 520-523. Smithson ian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories.
Rubidoux Printing Company, Riverside, California.
Gustafson, Angie
2001 Linear Feature Record: CA-RIV-4791-H (Lower Riverside Canal). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Gustafson, Angie and Mike McGrath
2001 Primary Record: CA-RIV-4495-H (Riverside Canal). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Hall, Joan H.
1992 A Citrus Legacy. Highgrove Press, Riverside, California.
Hallaran, Kevin
1991 The Gage Canal: A Narrative History (excerpt from Draft HAER Report). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, River side, California.
Hanna, Paul Townsend
1951 The Dictionary of California Land Names. The Automobile Club of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Harrington, John P.
1933 "Annotations." In: Chinigchinich: Historical Account of the Origin, Customs and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alto California; Called the Acagchemem Nation; Collected with the Greatest Care, from the Most Intelligent and Best Instructed in the Mat ter. Reprinted, Wiley and Putnam, New York.
Heusser, (unk.)
1978 Cited in Bissell (1993).
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 44 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Hoover, Anna M., Hugh Wagner, and Lilia Aleman Ramos
2005 An Archaeological and Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Report, Tract 30725, APN 136-050-003; 103 Acre Property, County of Riverside, Califor nia. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Hudson, Dee Travis
1969 "The Archaeological Investigations During 1935 and 1937 at ORA-237, ORA-238, and ORA-239, Santiago Canyon, Orange County, California." Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 5(1):1-68. 1971 "Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal Cali fornia." Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 7(2):48-76.
Hutchings, DeWitt V.
1932 Application for Registration of Historical Point of Interest: Parent Washing ton Navel Orange Tree (33-9683). On file, University of California, River side, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Jertberg, Patricia
1991 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-4495-H (Upper Riverside Canal). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, River side, California.
Johnston, Beatrice Eastman
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, Califor nia.
Knecht, Arnold A.
1971 Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California. U.S. Department of Agri culture, Soil Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, Washing ton, D.C. (on file, McKenna et al.)
Koerper, H.C., C.E. Drover, and P.E. Langenwalter
1983 "Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report on Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-064), New port Bay, Orange County, California." Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(3-4):1-84.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 45 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Koerper, H.C. and C.E. Drover
1983 Cited in Koerper, Driver, and Langenwalter (1983).
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1908 "Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2):29-68. Berkeley.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 "Handbook of California Indians." Bureau of Americans Ethnology Bulletin
78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1976 Handbook of California Indians. Dover Publications, New York.
Lando, (Unk.)
1978 Cited in Mccawley (1996).
Leonard, L. Nelson
1975 Cited in Mccawley (1996).
Love, Bruce and Bai "Tom" Tang
2002 Historic building Evaluation, 4922 and 4948 Arlington Avenue, City of River side, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, River side, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Mason, Roger D.
1984 Eastern Corridor Alignment Study, Orange County, California. On file, Uni versity of California, Riverside, Regional Archaeological Information Center.
Mason, Roger D., M.L. Peterson, LP. Klug, J.E. Ericson, H.C. Koerper, et al. 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Report: Newport Coast Settlement Systems:
Analysis and Discussion, Volume I. On file, University of California, Los Angeles, Regional Archaeological Information Center. (with A.B. Schroth, R.O. Gibson, C.D. King, and R. McCleary)
Mason, Roger D. and Mark L. Peterson
1994 "Results: Chronometric Analyses." In: Newport Coast Archaeological Re port: Newport Coast Settlement Systems: Analysis and Discussion, Volume I, pp. 54-59. On file, University of California, Los Angeles, Regional Ar chaeological Information Center.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 46 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies McCarthy, Daniel F.
1981 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA-RIV-2242. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1981 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA-RIV-2243. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2003 Archaeological Survey of Tentative Parcel Map 18472, near Arlington Heights, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riv erside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2003 Primary Record: P-33-17219. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Mccawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. A Malki Muse um Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication.
McKenna, Jeanette A.
1985 CA-ORA-849: Reinvestigation of a Late Prehistoric-Historic Archaeological Site in Orange County, California. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, Califor nia.
1986 Final Report of Archaeological Investigations at Sites CA-ORA-858, CA ORA-859, and CA-ORA-698, Rancho de Los Alisos, Orange County, Cali fornia. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.
1992 A Cultural Resources Investigation and Site Evaluations for the Proposed 200 Acre Windward Development Project Area, Norco, Riverside County, CA. On file, University of California, Riverside, Archaeological Regional In formation Center.
1995 "Results of a Long-Term Archaeological Monitoring Program along the San ta Ana River, Colton, San Bernardino County, CA." Paper presented at the 1995 Society for California Archaeology Southern California Data Sharing Meeting, University of California, Los Angeles, California. 2003 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Corona Feeder Master Plan Project Area, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 47 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies McKenna, Jeanette A.
2005 Primary Record: CA-RIV-4791-H (Lower Riverside Canal). On file, Universi ty of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
McWilliams, Carey
1973 Southern California: an Island on the Land. Peregrine Smith, Santa Barbara and Salt Lake City.
Mead, George R.
1972 "The Ethnobotany of the California Indians. A Compendium of the Plants, Their Users, and Their Uses." Occasional Publications in Anthropolo gy/Ethnology Series 30. University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.
Munz, Philip
1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
National Park Service
1993 Historic American Engineering Record: California Citrus Heritage Recording Project: Photographs, Written Historical and Descriptive Data, Reduced Copies of Measured Drawings for: Arlington Heights Citrus Landscape, Gage Irrigation Canal, National Orange Company Packing House, Victoria Bridge, and Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Norris, Robert M. and Robert W. Webb
1990 Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Parr, Robert E. and Philip J. Wilke
1989 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Alessandro Heights Project Located in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. (Rl- 02391)
Parsons, Larry
2010 "Parsons on Citrus: A Freeze to Remember." Growing Produce, UFI/IFAS Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred, Florida. (on file, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA).
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 48 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Patterson, Tom
1996 A Colony for California. The Museum Press of the Riverside Museum As sociates, Riverside, California.
PCR Services Corporation
2004 Primary Record: P-33-14374. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Pease, William T.
1933 United States Patent Office: Gate Valve Construction (Serial No. 703,893).
Patented May 7, 1935. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA.
Reid, Hugo
1968 Cited in Mccawley (1996).
Rice, Glen E. and Marie G. Cottrell
1976 "Report on the Excavations at CA-ORA-111, Locus II." Pacific Coast Ar chaeological Society Quarterly 12(3):7-65.
Riverside County Historical Commission
1993 Guide to the Historical Landmarks of Riverside County, California. River side County Historical Commission Press, Riverside, California.
Robinson, John W.
1997 "Rancho San Jacinto Viejo and the Esstudillo Family." In: Ranching Days in Southern California. Los Angeles Coral of the Westerners, Los Angeles, California.
Robinson, W.W.
1939 The Story of Riverside County. Title Insurance and Trust Company, River side Title Division.
Scientific Resource Surveys
1979 Archaeological Survey Report on a 1700+ Acre Parcel of Land Designated the "Campeau Project" Located in the Lake Mathews Area of Riverside County. On file, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riv erside.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016 , Riverside Co., CA Page 49 PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies