Jacinto Viejo to José Antonio Estudillo in 1842; Rancho San Jacinto Nue- vo y Potrero to his son-in-law, Miguel Pedrorena, in 1846; and the five square league Rancho San Jacinto Sobrante to his daughter, María del Rosario Estudillo, in 1846 ... María del Rosario Estudillo was married to José Antonio Aguirre (1799-1860). Before she died, Aguirre had been married to María del Rosario's sister, Francisca Estudillo, eldest daughter of José Antonio Estudillo. José Antonio Aguirre owned one-half of Rancho El Tejon. In 1853, José Antonio Aguirre bought Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero from the estate of Aguirre's brother-in-law Miguel Pedro- rena.
With the cession of California to the United States following the Mexican- American War, the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that the land grants would be honored. As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho San Jacinto Sobrante was filed with the Public Land Commission in 1852 ... In 1854, the Commission found that Maria del Ro- sario Estudillo de Aguirre was entitled to five square leagues of land. The US District Court in 1855, however, held that the claimant was entitled to eleven square leagues, if so much should be found within the sobrante, and to all that was found therein if it were less than that amount. An ap- peal taken to the US Supreme Court in 1863, affirmed the eleven square leagues ... and the grant was patented to María del Rosario Estudillo de Aguirre in 1867.
Soon after the 1855 District Court decision, the grant was purchased by a group mostly connected with the US Land Office - including Upson, the Surveyor General, Edward Conway, the chief clerk in his office, and Thompson, the deputy who was directed to make the survey, and Joseph H. Wilson, the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington. It was alleged that the location of the grant was moved to make it contain valuable tin ores ... not within its limits if fairly surveyed. In 1888, the United States unsuccessfully sought to have the US Supreme Court de- clare the patent void based upon the grounds of a fraudulent survey by persons who the beneficiaries thereof.
Based on the information presented by Robinson (1997), the current project area was held within the Mexican rancho until after 1888 and when it was purchased by the con- sortium of the three individuals identified above. Between 1893 and 1895, the area was known as the San Jacinto Estates, but undivided except by Sections. By 1896, the cur- rent project area and much of its surrounding acreage was owned by J.F. Moulton and H.B Praed as investment land (all of Section 25 and approximately one half - irregularly shaped - in Section 24 (Figure 5). The project area is predominantly in Section 24.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 10 Rugby
A
Cily of Riverside
Project Area
5,0 27 26
5S.6W
32 35 36
Figure 5. Map of the W ½ Rancho El Sobrante de San Jacinto (1892-1895).
Moulton and Praed were Englishmen who invested heavily in land throughout Southern California. The never occupied the properties and likely never visited them. Rather, through representatives, they managed their lands. Moulton and Praed filed a "Resub- division of Lands of J.F. Moulton and H.B. Praed" in ca. 1897 (Map Book 1, Pages 49 and 50), represented by W.E. Pedley (Figure 6). As subdivided, the current project area was identified as Lot 6 of the Moulton and Praed Subdivision, while a cross-reference to the property identified it as part of the San Jacinto Estates property until 1895 and only associated with Moulton and Praed after 1896.
As illustrated in Figure 6, the current project area is identified as Lot 6 of Block 12 of the Moulton and Praed Subdivision, consisting of 10.01 acres. Research at the Riverside County Archives showed Lot 6 of Block 12 was assessed to Moulton and Praed be- tween 1896 and 1899. No improvements were noted. In 1900, the land was listed un- der J.D. Gray with an assessed land value of $1000. In 1902, Gray improved the prop- erty with an assessed $400 improvement in trees (citrus). Between 1902 and 1910, Gray's investment in trees was increased to $2000, likely reflecting the maturing of the trees and the increased harvesting yield. Gray sold the property in 1911 to D.J. Wilson (10.01 acres). Subsequent owners and property assessments following the acquisition by Wilson are listed in Table 1, below.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 11
ECTION SASH
REN
12 Figure 6. A Portion of the Moulton and Praed Subdivision Map (ca. 1897) with the Current Project Area Delineated.
Table 1. Property Owners Identified between 1911 and 1961.
Assessments
Dates Owners
Land Improvements Trees/Vines
1911-1914 D.J. Wilson 2000 0 500
1916-1920 J.G. Snyder 1000 0 500
1921-1923 D.B. Jack 1500 200 1500
1924 Mary Jack 1500 200 1500
1925 J.A. Barnett 1500 260 1500
1926-1927 Citizen's Mortgage Co. 1500 300 1500
19281939 Michael Mullins 2700 180 2400
1940-1942 A.V. Jester 2200 0 2400
1943-1944 C.L. Briggs et al. 2200 0 2800
1945-1953 R.C. Brewer 2750 0 2100
1954-1961 L-Bar Ranch 5000 250 3600
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 12 As late as 1961, Lot 6 of Block 12 still consisted of 10.01 acres and there was no record of any occupation of the property. A review of census data showed that Michael Mul- lins, the owner with the longest association with the property, lived elsewhere during the 1930s (on Magnolia Avenue in Riverside) with his extended family. The property on Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue was always orchard land for supplemental in- come and not occupied as a residential property.
It should be noted that La Sierra Avenue was originally identified as Taylor Street (be- tween 1920 and 1926). Victoria Avenue and Taylor Street are illustrated on the 1926 and 1932 maps of the subdivision. Taylor Street was renamed after 1932.
The 1901 USGS Riverside Quadrangle (15') illustrates Victoria Avenue ending abruptly at the boundary line between Ranges 5 West and 6 West (just east/northeast of the pro- ject area and continuing as a meandering dirt road to the southwest, eventually cross- ing the road now identified as La Sierra Avenue. By 1942, the USGS Riverside Quad- rangle (15') shows Victoria Avenue established past Taylor Street (La Sierra Avenue) to Fillmore Street. No structures area illustrated with the project area in 1942, suggesting the improvements attributed to Mullins were something other than a building - likely irri- gation features.
The 1967 USGS Riverside West Quadrangle (7.5'), revised in 1980, illustrates the pro- ject area and surrounding properties as orchards. There is a post-1967 residential community to the west/northwest of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue and a few pre-1967 structures further north/northeast on Victoria Avenue. The improvements illus- trated on the current aerial photograph are modern and post-date the completion of the 1980 USGS quadrangle (see Figure 4).
METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this investigation is designed to provide required information needed to fully assess the existing resources within the project area and to determine the potential adverse impacts to any resource identified as importation or significant. To complete this investigation, McKenna et al. completed the following tasks:
1. Evaluation Criteria: McKenna et al. reviewed the evaluation criteria the recognition of a cultural property. The federal guidelines (Section 106), state guidelines (CEQA), and local guidelines (City of Riverside) were re- viewed.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 13
2. Archaeological Records Check: A standard archaeological records check was completed through the University of California, Riverside, Eastern In- formation Center (UCR-EIC). The UCR-EIC provided information on pre- viously surveyed properties, site records, some historic maps, and copies of all pertinent reports (Appendix B).
3. Native American Consultation: McKenna et al. contacted the Native Amer- ican Heritage Commission and inquired into the presence/absence of any sacred or religious sites in the area. In addition, a listing of local Native American representatives was provided and used to contact local repre- sentatives, requesting consultation on known resources or areas of sensi- tivity. Responses are presented in Appendix C and discussed later in this report.
4. Paleontological Overview: McKenna et al. maintains a file of paleontologi- cal overviews and utilized a nearby study in application to this current pro- ject area (Appendix D).
5. Historic Research: Supplemental historic research was conducted to de- termine the land-use history of the properties in question. This research was completed to provide enough data to support the evaluation of the properties and to complete the documentation on the ownership and histo- ry of the properties. Research was conducted through the Riverside County Assessor's Office and Recorder's Office; the Riverside County Ar- chives, the City of Riverside files of on-line permits and maps; a review of histories prepared for the area (published and unpublished); and a review of materials in the McKenna et al. in-house library, including U.S. Census data and city directories (Appendix E).
6. Field Investigations: The field investigations for this project were complet- ed on February 4, 2014, Richard S. Shepard (MS/RPA), under the super- vision of Jeanette A. McKenna (MA/RPA), Principal Investigator for Mc- Kenna et al. The property was readily accessible and all areas were vis- ually inspected. The field survey was systematically conducted, using the existing tree rows as a control technique to determine the pres- ence/absence of cultural resources and to document the current condi- tions. The field survey was supplemented by field notes (on file, McKenna et al., and a full photographic record (Appendix F).
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 14
7. Analysis of Data Compiled: All data compiled during the course of this in- vestigation was used to ascertain the level of sensitivity for the project ar- ea to yield evidence of surface and subsurface cultural resources. The analysis also took into account the reason(s) for the study which, in this case, the removal of the remaining orange grove and the proposed rede- velopment of the property. The analysis, as noted, was completed in compliance with federal, state, and local guidelines.
8. Preparation of the Technical Report: This technical report has been pre- pared in a format recommended by the Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, requested by the URC-EIC, and as outlined by the City of riverside Historic Resources Division. Upon receipt of comments from the City Historic preservation Senior Planner, this final report was prepared.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Investigations into previous research were conducted through the University of Califor- nia, Riverside, Eastern Information Center (UCR-EIC), Riverside, California (Appendix B). This research included a review of reports and resources identified within a one mile radius around the project area, a review of historic maps, and a review of the cur- rent Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Listing. In addition, the research included a review of the current federal, state, and local listing of evaluated properties determined eligible or listing in one or more of the various listings for historic resources.
The UCR-EIC identified a minimum of ten cultural resources investigations and two general overviews have been completed within a one mile radius of the project area (Table 2). None of the identified studies involved the current project area and the near- est studies include the Corona Feeder alignment along Cleveland Avenue (McKenna 2003), the Sierra West survey southeast of Cleveland Avenue (Goodwin and Reynolds 2005), and the 19 acres survey southwest of La Sierra Avenue (White and White 2003).
This research also resulted in the identification of a minimum of fourteen cultural re- sources within a one mile radius of the project area (Table 3). Of these, six are identi- fied as milling stations (all southeast of the Gage Canal); one is a prehistoric ceramic scatter; one is the site of two isolated prehistoric manos; one is a historic refuse deposit; and the remaining five are water transportation features, including the Gage Canal and the Riverside Canal. The nearest site to the current project area is the Riverside Canal, located approximately 1/8 mile to the northwest. The Riverside Canal was instrumental to the success of the citrus industry, including areas in and around Arlington Heights.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 15 Table 2. Cultural Resources Investigations Completed within One Mile of the Current Project Area.
Report Citation Description Resources
RI-00031 Gardner 1971 Arlington Flood Control 0
RI-00219 Cottrell 1977 237 Acre Survey 2
RI-01169 Desautels 1979 Campeau Project
RI-01206 Drover 1981 Zone Change 6296
RI-01419 Drover 1982 TPM 18472 3
RI-04792 McCarthy 2003 TPM 31277 2
RI-04813 NPS 1993 Citrus Heritage 3
RI-04946 Hoover et al. 2005 Tract 30725
RI-05056 McKenna 2003 Corona Feeder Master Plan 4
RI-05314 Goodwin & Reynolds 2005 Sierra West Tract 30295 RI-05653 White & White 2003 19 Acre Survey 0
RI-08865 Tang et al. 2012 TPM 34690 2
Although Gage did not necessarily own the land surrounding the canal, his easements resulted in the establishment of a system that provided water to the various property owners through the water distribution companies that formed throughout the area.
Table 3. Cultural Resources Identified within One Mile of the Project Area.
Primary No. Trinomial Citation Description
P-33-001136 CA-RIV-1136 Cowan 1976 Ceramic Scatter
P-33-001284 CA-RIV-1284 Drover 1982 Milling Station
P-33-002226 CA-RIV-2226 Desautels 1979 Milling Station
P-33-002242 CA-RIV-2242 McCarthy 1981 Milling Station
P-33-002243 CA-RIV-2243 McCarthy 1981 Milling Station
McKenna 2005; Chandler et
P-33-004791 CA-RIV-4791 al. 2002; Gustafson and Riverside Canal McGrath 2001; Wlodarski 1992
P-33-006005 CA-RIV-5672H CRM Tech 1995 Irrigation Flumes P-33-011221 White 2002 Irrigation Pipeline
P-33-013085 CA-RIV-7331 White 2003 Milling Station
P-33-013203 CA-RIV-7363 Carr 2001 Milling Station
P-33-014374 CA-RIV-7820 PCR Services Corp. 2004 Historic Refuse P-33-014747 Fritz 2005 Isolated Manos
P-33-015962 Smallwood 2007 Irrigation Pipeline
P-33-017219 McCarthy 2003 Gage Canal
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 16 In Riverside, the "Lower Riverside Canal" was constructed in 1875 and abandoned by 1914. The southernmost portions of the canal are now used for flood control and not irrigation (Gustafson 2001:12).
No federal, state, or local listed properties were reported by the UCR-EIC. A review of the data on file at the City of Riverside, however, identified the alignment of Victoria Av- enue (as far south at La Sierra Avenue) as local Cultural Heritage Landmark #8. Victo- ria Avenue is also a National Register of Historic Places property (No. 00001267).
Although McKenna et al. found one graphic suggesting the Historic Landmark boundary for Victoria Avenue extended as far as La Sierra Avenue, it is noted here that the actual boundary for the Landmark and the southwestern extent of the National Register of His- toric Places property are the same and end at Boundary Lane. The registered Land- mark does not extend to the current project area and, therefore, is not affected by the current project. Historically, Victoria Avenue ended at the City boundary (Boundary Lane) and has only been considered a formal extension of the roadway after the south- ern area was annexed into the City. In summary, the short segment of Victoria Avenue between Boundary Lane (the early city boundary) and La Sierra Avenue was not land- scaped or considered part of the historic alignment when Landmark status was consid- ered. The City of Riverside completed the extension of Victoria Avenue to La Sierra (the current City boundary) and landscaped the alignment to complement the historic segments to the north/northeast. "Victoria Avenue Forever" identifies the extension to La Sierra Avenue as part of the overall alignment, but not a part of the official Landmark or National Register property.
RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
McKenna et al. complete the field survey of Assessor Parcel No. 136-220-016 on Feb- ruary 4, 2014. The survey was completed by Richard S. Shepard, MA/RPA, under the supervision of Jeanette A. McKenna, MA.RPA, Principal Investigator for McKenna et al.
At the time of the survey, the property was easily accessed from Millsweet Place. All areas were available for visual inspection. Approximately ¾ of the property was still cit- rus groves. The eastern quarter (note property orientation) was covered in grass and exhibited evidence of modern uses (i.e. gardens and playground areas.
Research (Knecht's Soil Survey, 1971) identified the area as consisting of Hanford coarse sandy loam and Greenfield sandy loam. This soil tends to have a yellowish sur- face (when exposed) to a rusty color beneath the surface. The sandy loam also con- Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 17 tains decomposing granite from the surrounding hills. No native vegetation was present - mainly as a result of years of citrus cultivation.
The survey was completed by systematically walking between the tree rows. In this case, the rows averaged 22 feet apart (7 meters) and each line between the tree rows was covered. Ground visibility was fair, although there were some areas where it was excellent and others were it was quite poor.
In examining the orange trees, it was determined they were not the original trees (110+ years old) but representative of an orchard that was periodically replanted. Some of the trees currently on-site are moderate in size and some are not considered mature trees.
No evidence of early agricultural equipment was identified on the property.
No significant artifacts were identified during the survey (historic or prehistoric). The on- ly features identified included: 1) the orchard, itself; 2) the irrigation pipe and limited val- ue system in the northern corner; and 3) the wind machine located near the center of the property. All other evidence of use within the property was determined to be of modern origin, including the small garden areas, play areas, and outdoor seating areas.
The driveway leading to the circular turn-around is also modern, per aerial photographs.
The Orchard:
As previously noted, the initial planting within the project area occurred in ca. 1902 and is credited to J.D. Gray. Since 1902, the property has always been under cultivation and no record of any occupation was found during research of the field survey. Over the course of the past 110+ years, the trees within the orchard have been periodically replaced - either as individually required or as a group to keep the yield at a maximum (Figure 7). A properly maintained tree will yield fruit for up to 50 years. If this is the case, the trees within the current property may be the third generation of orchard. In any case, the existing orchard does not consist of the original trees, but is still an or- chard indicative of the original planting. It is also evident the property boundaries have been altered over the years.
With the widening of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue, and the establishment of Millsweet Place, the original 10.01 acre property is now only 8.8 +/- acres. In addition, the fencing of the property, especially along Millsweet Place, suggests Millsweet Place may be widened, resulting in an additional loss of some acreage. At this time, only ¾ of the property is under trees (approximately 6 acres), with the remaining 2.8+/- acres left as open space for modern uses.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 18 Figure 7. An Example of the Orchard Tree Rows at the Time of the Recent Survey.
The Irrigation Pipe and Value System:
The irrigation pipe and value system identified within the property is quite typical of sys- tems seen throughout Southern California. This particular type of system involves the establishment of one or more master valves that feed water into a buried concrete pipe system. These pipes have a series of "standpipe" distribution towers (above ground) with individual flow channels. The system is gravity fed and, in the case of the orchard development, a row of pipe may be placed every 3 to 6 rows, depending on the size of the orchard. The establishment of a system of irrigation pipes and the master valve system is a considerable investment. The first recorded indication of such an invest- ment in the property is recorded in 1921 and credited to D.B. Jack.
While the irrigation pipes are generally not marked, the master valve may have evi- dence of manufacturing. In this case, the master valve, identified along Victoria Ave- nue, was marked on the metal fixtures (gates, etc.). Here, the steel gate is marked Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 19 "SNOW MFG. CO., LA CAL." (Figure 8). The Snow Mfg. Co. of Los Angeles patented the "Gate Valve" in ca. 1933 (Serial No. 703,893), although its manufacturing and sales may easily have preceded 1933, as the Snow Manufacturing Company of Los Angeles was operating as early as 1912.
UTER LINE
Figure 8. Steel Gate, Snow Mfg. Company of Los Angeles.
Despite its early manufacturing and implementation on the property, this system is not unique to the area or indicative of any unusual or intricate design. It is a simple, gravity fed system used to water orchards via water pumped into the master valve system from an off-site source. In this case, it is possible the main source of water prior to 1914 was the Riverside Canal. However, once the canal was abandoned, alternative sources of water were required. The exact source of water for this property has not been deter- mined, but given the location of the master valve well to the east of Victoria Avenue, it is unlikely the source was the Gage Canal and more likely to be from a source from the north or northeast. This feature would be considered old enough to merit consideration as a historic feature.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 20 The Wind Machine:
The wind machine was located in the center of the property and consists of a single, tall and hollow metal pole with a single propeller style fan. No markings were found on this feature, but it is noted the base was too heavily overgrown to find or identify any such markings. It is noted, however, that the Snow Manufacturing Co. also produced wind- mill and wind machines. Parsons (2010) notes that wind machines were often used to prevent frost damage to citrus. He states:
"Wind machines may regain popularity for citrus and blueberries. Wind machines are commonly used to protect crops in the western U.S. In calm conditions, an inversion of warmer air above the cold air at ground level can sometime develop. Wind machines mix the upper warmer air with the colder lower air and raise the temperature in the crop zone by a few de- grees. The volume of air moved and area covered are related to propeller design and horsepower. Newer types of wind machines have become available in recent years, and they range from 15 to more than 150 horse- power. While these wind machines are only effective in radiation frost conditions and raise temperatures only slightly, they can be useful in bor- derline frost conditions."
The design of the wind machine within the project area appears to be a later addition to the property, as it powered by electricity (not a gas driven system, as the earlier models were) and is made of galvanized steel. Between 1941 and 1958, no improvements were noted for this property, but in 1958, a $250 improvement is recorded and is pre- sumed to be a reference to the installation of this feature.
McKenna et al. suggests this investment reflects the establishment of the wind machine by the owners of the L-Bar ranch. Assuming this feature dates to or before 1958, it is one of the historic (over 50 years of age) elements of the overall agricultural activities on the property.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
In evaluating the potential significance of the improvements within the current project area, McKenna et al. considered federal, state, and local guidelines (see Appendix B).
Summarized here, the criteria for eligibility are presented.
APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 21
Job No. 1657
Figure 9. Wind Machine in Center of Property.
Job No. 1657 APN 136-220-016, Riverside Co., CA Page 22 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 owners), 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