APPENDIX C
Cultural Resources Report
ASM Project Number 43860
Prepared for:
I
mpact Sciences
811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90017
P
repared by:
M
adeline Gonzalez, M.A.
Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA
Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa
Luxury Villas Residential Development Project,
Riverside, Riverside County, California
October 20223
2034 Corte del Nogal
Carlsbad, California 92011
(760) 804-5757
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the
Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project,
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Prepared for:
Impact Sciences
811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Prepared by:
Madeline Gonzalez, M.A.
Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA
Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH
ASM Affiliates
2034 Corte Del Nogal
Carlsbad, California 92011
October 2023
PN 43860
Table of Contents
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT API ....................................................................................................2
1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................3
1.3.1 California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria ...................3
1.3.2 City of Riverside Historic Designation ...........................................................7
1.3.3 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Criteria .............................9
1.3.4 Historic Context Framework for Riverside ...................................................10
1.4 KEY PERSONNEL ...........................................................................................11
1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..............................................................................12
2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 13
2.1 FIELD METHODS ............................................................................................ 13
2.2 RESEARCH METHODS ...................................................................................13
2.3 RECORDS SEARCH ........................................................................................13
2.4 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION .........................................................13
3.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW ..................................................... 15
3.1 PREHISTORIC AND ETHNOHISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................15
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-8000 B.P.) .................................................15
3.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-2000 B.P.) ................................................................. 15
3.1.3 Late Prehistoric / Protohistoric Period (1500-250 B.P.) ...............................16
3.1.4 Ethnohistoric Period ....................................................................................16
3.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT ......................................................................................17
3.3.1 Spanish and Mexican Periods .....................................................................17
3.3.2 Alessandro Valley and Moreno Valley .........................................................17
3.3.3 Brief History of Riverside .............................................................................18
3.3.5 Brief History of La Sierra Community ..........................................................20
3.3.6 Historic Aerials ............................................................................................ 21
3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORY ...............................................................................25
3.4.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue (Smith Farm) ............................................................25
3.4 .2 4618 Jones Avenue ....................................................................................26
3.4.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue ..................................................................................27
4.0 STUDY FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 29
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ......................................................................29
4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................31
4.3 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY SURVEY RESULTS ..........................................34
4.3.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue ..................................................................................34
4.3.2 4618 Jones Avenue ....................................................................................36
4.3.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue ..................................................................................39
5.0 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY .................................................................. 45
5.1 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION ......45 Table of Contents
ii ASM Affiliates
5.1.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue (Smith Farm) ............................................................45
5.1.2 4618 Jones Avenue ....................................................................................47
5.1.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue ..................................................................................48
5.2 CITY OF RIVERSIDE EVALUATION ................................................................49
5.2.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue (Smith Farm) ............................................................49
5.2.2 4618 Jones Avenue ....................................................................................50
5.2.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue ..................................................................................50
5.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT HISTORICAL RESOURCE .51
6.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 53
6.1 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................53
6.2 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS ..................................53 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 55 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX A ...........................................................................................................61 Records Search Result Tables .............................................................................61 APPENDIX B ...........................................................................................................63 NAHC and Native American Correspondence ......................................................63 APPENDIX C ...........................................................................................................65 DPR 523 Form .....................................................................................................65 APPENDIX D ...........................................................................................................67 Selected Building Permits .....................................................................................67
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Project vicinity map. .................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Project location map. ................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3. Project API for Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development at 4618 Jones Avenue and 4705 and 4663 Hedrick Avenue. .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Aerial overview of 4705 Hedrick Avenue taken in 1948. The residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue is highlighted within the red square. ........................................................................... 22 Figure 5. Aerial overview of 4705 Hedrick Avenue taken in 1959. The residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue is highlighted within the red square. ........................................................................... 23 Figure 6. 1966 Aerial of 4705 Hedrick Avenue. The residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue is highlighted within the red square. ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 7. Open space on 4618 Jones Avenue parcel, view toward northwest. ........................................ 32 Figure 8. Open space on 4663 Hedrick Avenue parcel, view toward northwest. ..................................... 33 Figure 9. Division between maintained and unmaintained open space on 4663 Hedrick Avenue parcel, view toward north. ...................................................................................................... 34 Figure 10. View of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north. ............................................................. 35 Figure 11. View of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north. ............................................................. 35 Figure 12. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward northwest. ......................................................... 36 Figure 13. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward northwest. ......................................................... 37 Figure 14. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward west.................................................................. 38 Figure 15. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward northwest. ......................................................... 38 Figure 16. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward southeast. ...................................................... 39 Figure 17. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward east. ............................................................... 40 Figure 18. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward northeast. ....................................................... 40 Table of Contents
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project iii Figure 19. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward east. ............................................................... 41 Figure 20. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward northeast. ....................................................... 41 Figure 21. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north. ............................................................. 42 Figure 22. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north. ............................................................. 42
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Projects Conducted within the 1-Mile Records Search Radius ......................................................................................................................... 29 Table 2. Resources Previously Recorded within the 1-Mile Records Search Radius ............................... 31
Executive Summary
iv ASM Affiliates
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) is an identification of historical resources within the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project (Project) at 4618 Jones Avenue and 4705 and 4663 Hedrick Avenue, in the La Sierra Community of the city of Riverside, Riverside County, California. This CRTR was prepared to meet the requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.) and the Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances (Ord. 2015- 0033 § 3, 2015). The City of Riverside (City) is the lead agency for complying with CEQA.
ASM Affiliates (ASM) was contracted by Impact Sciences to prepare this CRTR. ASM conducted a n archaeological and architectural survey to identify any historical resources and assess impacts. T he following addresses were identified within the Area of Potential Impacts (API) , which is defined by the boundaries of the proposed Project: 4705 Hedrick Avenue, 4618 Jones Avenue, and 4663 Hedrick Avenue.
All three residential properties were evaluated as potential historical resources under California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and City of Riverside Landmark or Structure of Merit criteria. ASM recommends the properties of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, 4618 Jones Avenue, and 4663 Hedrick Avenue as not eligible for the CRHR or the local register under any criteria. No historical resources as defined by CEQA (neither archaeological nor built environment) are located within the API.
1.0 Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ASM Affiliates (ASM) was contracted by Impact Sciences to prepare this Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) to identify historical resources and assess potential impacts from the Mikasa Housing Development (Project). The Project is at 4618 Jones Avenue and 4705 and 4663 Hedrick Avenue, in the La Sierra Community of the City of Riverside in Riverside County, California. This report was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as requested by the City of Riverside (City). The City is the lead agency for CEQA; this technical report supports the environmental documentation for CEQA compliance.
This study was performed to determine the presence or absence of potentially significant prehistoric and/or historical resources within the area of potential impact (API). ASM conducted a records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at University of California, Riverside addressing the API and a 1-mile radius around it to locate all relevant site records and reports it may have on file . ASM also obtained a search of the Sacred Lands File held by the California Native American Heritage Commission. A pedestrian archaeological survey and an intensive-level architectural survey w ere conducted as well as site- specific and contextual archival research to be able to evaluate the buildings in the API.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is within APN 143-040- 010 (4705 Hedrick Avenue), APN 143-040- 011 (4663 Hedrick Avenue), and APN 143-040-012 (4618 Jones Avenue), in the La Sierra Community of the City of Riverside in Riverside County, California (Figures 1 and 2). Currently, the Project site is largely undeveloped but contains three single-family residences, two mobile homes, and four storage sheds. It is surrounded by two- story multifamily residences to the south and one -story, single-family residences to the west, north, and east. Parcels 143 -040-010 and 143-040-011 are zoned Single Family Residential (R -1-7000) while 143- 040-012 is zoned Multifamily Residential (R-3-1500). The Project includes the demolition of all existing structures on site at the addresses listed above, and the construction of approximately 193,421 square feet of new development. In addition, the Project would include approximately 80,803 square feet of open space (common, private, and public). The Project would include 15 multi -family buildings, containing 117 dwelling units, a community hall, gym, pool, spa, and tot lot/play area. The dwelling units would range from studios to two bedrooms.
The Project would provide 10 buildings with a maximum height of 29 feet, and five buildings with a maximum height of 40 feet. Architectural features would include balconies/patios, smooth finish stucco, accent stone laminate, wood siding, metal guardrails, and flat roofs. Courtyards would be between buildings J, K, M, and N, and the tot lot between buildings L and M. The pool, spa, gym, and clubhouse are to be located between buildings K and L. The Project would include a total of 215 parking spaces (203 standard and 12 handicap). The Project site contains nine trees that would be removed, none of which are protected; the Project site also contains some bushes that would be removed. The Project development would include landscaping comprised of shrub planting, natural turf, and trees.
Of the 215 parking spaces, 40 would be uncovered open parking and the remaining 175 parking spaces would be incorporated into the first floor of each building. The 175 covered parking spaces would have an EV connection. One driveway entrance would be provided by Hedrick Avenue, and two driveway entrances would be provided by Jones Avenue. The Project would include a 6-foot iron fence along the perimeter of the Project site and the driveways would be accessible to residents through an electronic gate.
1.0 Introduction
2 ASM Affiliates
Construction activities associated with the Project would be undertaken in three main steps: (1) demolition and removal of existing residences and debris, (2) grading/foundation preparation , and (3) building construction. Demolition and removal of existing debris would occur for approximately one month. This phase would include the demolition of the three existing buildings (approximately 4,287 square feet of demolition). Grading and foundation preparation would occur for approximately 3.5 months and this analysis assumes cut/fill operations would balance soil on site , and no soil import or export would be required. Building construction would occur for approximately 13.5 months and would include the construction of the proposed structures, connection of utilities, laying irrigation for landscaping, architectural coatings, paving and landscaping the Project site. Paving and architectural coatings would take place concurrently during the final month of building construction. Conventional construction equipment would be used, such as excavators, backhoes, and both light - and heavy- duty trucks. Truck trips are expected to reach the Project site from State Route (SR-) 91 and La Sierra Avenue. Truck trips are expected to travel along these same routes and arterials to dispose of construction and demolition debris.
1.2 PROJECT API
A project’s API is defined as the geographic area or areas, regardless of land ownership, within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The API for the current Project is limited to the parcel boundaries of APN 143-040- 010 (4705 Hedrick Avenue), APN 143-040- 011 (4663 Hedrick Avenue), and APN 143-040-012 (4618 Jones Avenue) in Riverside, California (Figure 3).
1.0 Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 3
1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
1.3.1 California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under CEQA. The criteria established for eligibility for the CRHR are directly comparable to the national criteria established for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a building must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must also retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. For the purposes of eligibility for the CRHR, integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance” (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001). This general definition is generally strengthened by the more specific definition offered by the NRHP—the criteria and guidelines upon which the CRHR criteria and guidelines are based.
1.0 Introduction
4 ASM Affiliates
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
1.0 Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 5
Figure 2. Project location map.
1.0 Introduction
6 ASM Affiliates
Figure 3. Project API for Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development at 4618 Jones Avenue and 4705 and 4663 Hedrick Avenue.
1.0 Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 7 Integrity
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. The NRHP publication How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation , NRHP Bulletin 15, establishes how to evaluate the integrity of a property: “Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places 1997). The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to the concept of integrity. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a property requires knowing why, where, and when a property is significant. To retain historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, aspects of integrity:
1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property and refers to the character of the site and the relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often refers to the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve.
These features can be either natural or manmade, including vegetation, paths, fences, and relationships between other features or open space.
4. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period or time, and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
5. Workmanship is the physical evidence of crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory and can be applied to the property as a whole, or to individual components.
6. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, when taken together, convey the property’s historic character.
7. Association is the direct link between the important historic event or person and a historic property.
1.3.2 City of Riverside Historic Designation
The City of Riverside maintains a n active program to designate historic resources, stipulated in Title 20 (Cultural Resources Ordinance) of the Riverside Municipal Code.
Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code establishes the authority for preservation, the composition and administrative requirements of the Cultural Her itage Board, criteria for evaluating projects affecting cultural resources, and procedures for protecting and designating significant cultural resources. Under Title 20, city approval is required to alter, demolish, or relocate historic resources.
Under Title 20, four types of local designation are recognized:
City Landmark: A City Landmark is a c ultural resource of the highest order of importance . A resource that is qualifiable as a landmark is one that retains a high degree of integrity, and retains one or more of the following criteria:
• Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;
1.0 Introduction
8 ASM Affiliates
• Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; • 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; • Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect, or important creative individual; • Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
• 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;
• Is one of the last remaining examples in the City, region, state or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type of specimen; or • Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory.
Structure of Merit: A Structure of Merit is a cultural resource that is important, but of a lesser level of significance or integrity than a City Landmark. A resource that is qualifiable as a Structure of Merit is one that contributes to the broader understanding of the historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural community, aesthetic, or artistic heritage of the City, retains sufficient integrity, and:
• Has 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; • Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood, community, or area;
• Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; • 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;
• Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to prehistory; or • A 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 resources significance as a structure or resource of merit.
Historic District: A Historic District is a geographically defined area within the City that has a significant concentration of cultural resources that represent themes important in local history. A historic district must contain either:
• A concentration, linkage, or continuity of cultural resources, where at le ast 50 percent of the structures or elements retain significant historic integrity (a “geographic Historic District”), or • 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 Places or is a California Historical Landmark or a California Point of Historical Interest (a “thematic Historic District”).
In addition to either of the above, the area also:
• Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;
• Is identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history;
1.0 Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 9 • 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; • Represents the work of notable builders, designs, or architects; • Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; • 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;
• Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association; or
• Has yielded or may likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Neighborhood Conservation Area (NCA): An NCA is a geographically defined area within the City that may have a lesser concentration of resources with somewhat lesser significance compared to a Historic District. As of May 2006, designation of NCAs is no longer allowed; however, NCAs designated prior to this date remain in effect.
The City of Riverside maintains a Historic Sites Inventory, where City Landmarks, Structures of Merit, Historic Districts, and NCAs are listed.
1.3.3 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Criteria CEQA requires state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment.
Historical resources are considered part of the environment, and a project that may cause a substantial adverse effect to the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. “Historical resource” applies to a building and/or structure that:
1) is listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub lic Resources Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.); or
2) is included in a local register of historical resources, or is identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or
3) is a building or structure determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate his torical resources prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired. While demolition and destruction are obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character- defining features) is considered to materially im pair the resource’s significance.
1.0 Introduction
10 ASM Affiliates
1.3.4 Historic Context Framework for Riverside
ASM primarily relied on an existing historic context statement for the evaluation of buildings included in this report, the City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement (Modernism HCS) prepared by the City of Riverside in 2009 through a State of California Certified Local Government grant.
This context statement identified several themes under which historic resources could be evaluated, including:
• Modern Architecture 1935-1969
• Post-War Industrial Development 1945-1965
• Post-War Suburbia and the Ranch House 1945-1965
Of these themes, only the Post-War Suburbia and the Ranch House 1945-1965 theme applies to the potential historic resources evaluated within this report.
Within the Post -War Suburbia and the Ranch House 1945- 1965 theme, several sub- themes and property types are identified. The sub-themes and property types relevant to the potential historic resources evaluated within this report are detailed below.
Sub-Theme: California Ranch
1 The underlying philosophy of the Ranch house was informality, outdoor living, gracious entertaining, and natural materials. The most common style of Ranch house is the California Ranch. Features were single stories, asymmetrical massing in L - or U-shaped plans, low -pitched hipped or gabled roofs, wide eave overhangs, a variety of materials for exterior cladding, windows with multiple lights and diamond panes, and large picture windows. Decorative details commonly seen in California Ranch homes include scalloped bargeboards, false cupolas and dovecotes, shutters, and iron or wood porch supports. The California Ranch house accommodated America’s adoption of the automobile as the primary means of transportation with a two-car garage and sprawling layout on a large lot.
Ranch houses, in one style or another, are the single most prevalent form of residential architecture in Riverside. Tracts or Ranch houses were developed throughout Riverside for various income levels. One of the best collections of Ranch houses in Riverside is the Cliffside neighborhood in the Wood Streets and Grand areas. The outer backbone of the neighborhood comprises the roads that stand against the cliff overlooking the Tesquesquito Arroyo and Mount Rubidoux Parks. Unlike the Mountain Streets and Cowboy Streets that were developed by a single homebuilder, the Cliffside neighborhood was developed by several builders and consists of several tracts subdivided between 1950 and 1957. As such, the 177 houses in the neighborhood represent numerous variations of the Ranch type.
Character-defining features of California Ranch:
• Horizontal rambling layouts
• Stucco, board and batten, shingles, clapboard, or a combination of materials • Low-pitched gabled or hipped roofs with overhanging eaves • Wood shakes and dovecotes
• Attached garages often linked to residence by breezeways • Stone and brick used for accent on walls and planters • Diamond paned windows, shutters
1 The text in this section is excerpted and adapted from City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement (City of Riverside 2009).
1.0 Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 11
Associated property types were identified that could be evaluated under the Theme of Post- War Suburbia and the Ranch House 1945-1965 and Sub-Theme of California Ranch. The associated property type relevant to the potential historic resources evaluated within this report is detailed below.
Associated Property Type: Residential – Single-family Tract Houses
Most single-family residences from the period are in the California and Modern Ranch styles and are part of a subdivision. These subdivisions represent a major building boom in residential development after World War II and reflect modern community planning principles that grew out of the Progressive Era.
These principles were best articulated in 1929 by Clarence Perry’s neighborhood unit theory, which proposed a self -contained residential development bounded by major arterial streets to accommodate through tra ffic, while curvilinear internal streets offered residential access only. These self -contained communities often included shopping centers, schools, churches, and other facilities to directly service the community. It was in these large-scale developments that the Ranch house reached its apex, cementing its popularity with mainstream America. The best examples in Riverside include the Cliffside tracts in the Wood Streets and Grand areas and the Victoria Groves tracts in the Victoria area.
Resources identified under this property type can be evaluated under Criteria A/1 and/or C/3. Individual resources do not qualify for individual listing.
Historic districts comprised of this Associated Property Type are significant under the theme of Pos t-War Suburbia and the Ranch House if they played an important role in the post-war suburbanization of Riverside or if they collectively represent post-war planning and design principles.
To be eligible, a historic district must:
• Reflect post-war planning and design principles; or
• Play and important role in the post-war suburbanization; and • Retain a substantial majority of building dating from the period of significance; and • Convey the original layout and street plan of the subdivision plat; and • Retain the essential factors of integrity (location, setting, design, materials).
1.4 KEY PERSONNEL
All individuals that worked on this project did so under the direction of personnel who meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and Architectural History (48 FR 44716) . Given these criteria, Ms. Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH, served as Project Manager; Ms.
Madeline Gonzalez, M.A., served as Architectural Historian; and Ms. Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA, served as the Lead Archeologist. Ms. Davis and Ms. Gonzalez meet the Professional Qualification Standard for Architectural Historian, and Ms. Davis additionally meets the Professional Qualification Standard for Historian. B oth have extensive experience evaluating properties in southern California . M s. Andrews exceeds the Professional Qualification Standard for Archeology and has extensive experience in Riverside County.
1.0 Introduction
12 ASM Affiliates
1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is divided into six chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides a Methodology.
Historical context and the site -specific history of the Project area is presented in Chapter 3 . Chapter 4 identifies the resources surveyed. Chapter 5 provides the evaluation of historical significa nce for the property surveyed. Chapter 6 provides a summary and management recommendations. Appendix A provides the records search summary tables. Appendix B contains Native American correspondence.
Appendix C contains the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. Relevant Building Permits on file with the City of Blythe Planning Department can be found in Appendix D.
2.0 Methodology
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 13
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 FIELD METHODS
A pedestrian survey within the API was completed on July 13, 2023, by architectural historians Madeline Gonzalez, M.A., and Shannon Davis, M.A, and Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA, who served as the Project Archaeologist for this study. During the survey, multiple photographs were taken of the property and the building. Architectural and landscape features and their condition were noted. The archaeologist intensively inspected all areas of exposed ground surface.
2.2 RESEARCH METHODS
ASM conducted archival research to develop a general historic context for Riverside County, the City of Riverside, the La Sierra area, and site-specific information. Building permits were reviewed through the Building and Safety Division of the City of Riverside. Because the addresses within the API were constructed before incorporation into Riverside, limited original building permits exist. Local newspapers and ancestry resources were used to search for any possible significant individuals or events associated with the properties. ASM also consulted historic maps and aerial photographs to further understand the development of the area over time (Historicaerials.com; aerial images for 1948, 1959, 1966).
2.3 RECORDS SEARCH
A search of the maps and records on file with the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside, was conducted on October 9, 2023; the records search summary is presented in Chapter 4 and summary tables from the EIC are provided in Appendix A.
2.4 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION
ASM requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) and a list of Native American contacts that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on July 17 , 2023. The NAHC responded on August 14, 2023, indicating that the search of the SLF was negative. The NAHC provided a list of 19 Native American individuals or organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area. Inquiry letters were sent to each of the contacts provided by the NAHC on September 1, 2023. To date, three responses have been received. The Pechanga Band of Indians have requested government -to-government consultation and an archaeological and tribal monitor during construction. The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians requested to be contacted only in the case of unanticipated discoveries. Agua Caliente had no comments or requests.
Correspondence with the NAHC, a sample query letter, and responses to date are contained in Appendix B.
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 15
3.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW
3.1 PREHISTORIC AND ETHNOHISTORIC CONTEXT
The Project area is in a region intermediate between the desert regions to the east and the coastal region to the west. As such, it is likely to have been affected by population movements from both the coastal and desert regions. No geographically specific chronology or reconstruction of past lifeways has been developed for the local area, so the larger regional culture history will be applied. Various approaches to the regional cultural history can be found in Moratto (1984), Warren (1984), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), and Fagan (2003). The largest body of archaeological investigations near the Project area comes from the Colorado Desert and the Coachella Valley (Bean et al. 1995; Schaefer 1994). Studies for the Eastside Reservoir Project (Goldberg 2001) have provided a baseline cultural chronology with applications to the western slopes of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains. These sources can be applied for the purposes of a general cultural history, especially for the Late Prehistoric period, if we can assume that Native American mobility and resource use practices extended across the environmental zones from the desert to the mountains, as we know from ethnohistoric sources. What cannot be assumed, however, is that patterns of social organization, settlement, territoriality, and seasonality were the same in the deep past. It is very likely they have changed over time with changing environmental conditions, resident tribal affiliation, and demographics.
The prehistoric chronology is divided into three periods, each characterized by differing patterns of socio- political organization, technology, resource focus, and land use. They include the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric periods.
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-8000 B.P.)
The Paleoindian period is represented by several archaeological complexes, including what are referred to as the related Fluted-Point and Western Pluvial Lakes traditions in the Mojave Desert, and the Paleo-Coastal tradition on the Pacific coastal plane. Among the best-known archaeological complexes of tool types and settlement distributions in the desert is the Lake Mojave complex, while the coastal plain and Imperial Valley were host to the San Dieguito complex.
Small, highly mobile bands of hunters and gatherers depended on various game animals and an extensive rather than intensive pattern of plant exploitation. Sites tend to occur along former pluvial lakes and desert pavements, or along major stream channels. Milling tools are absent in the desert and rare on the coast, suggesting minimal use of hard seeds. The stone tool kit included foliate points or knives, long- stemmed points, lanceolate bifaces, discoidals, burins, crescents, flake and core scrapers, choppers, hammerstones, cores, drills, gravers, and casual flake tools.
3.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-2000 B.P.)
Over the long duration of the Archaic period, there was a gradual shift from small, highly mobile hunters and gatherers practicing a forager pattern to larger groups with a diversity of settlement types involving residential bases, temporary camps, strategically located cache sites, and specialized resource collecting localities. This pattern reflects increasing intensification and a shift from foragers to collectors who practiced logistical patterns of mobility to accommodate seasonally available resources. Coincident with these changes were the diversification of food resources and new specialized technologies with which to exploit them. Projectile points reflect the shift to the use of atlatl and dart. Milling tools become ubiquitous and reflect increased exploitation of seeds and nuts. Larger residential base sites tend to occur at reliable
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
16 ASM Affiliates
water sources such as springs or tanks, with temporary camps near seasonal stream channels, extinct rivers, playas, high terraces above sinks, and rockshelters.
Some late Archaic sites are known, however, from the Colorado Desert that indicate occupations along the boundary between the low desert and Peninsular Ranges and at more favored habitats at springs and tanks.
The most substantial Colorado Desert site is Indian Hill Rockshelter in Anza -Borrego Desert State Park where 1.5 meters of Archaic period deposits were excavated below a Late Prehistoric component (McDonald 1992). Most significant were 11 rock-lined cache pits and numerous hearths indicative of either a residential base or a temporary camp in which food and tool storage was integral to the hunting and gathering settlement-subsistence strategy. Also recovered were numerous Elko- eared dart points, flaked and milling stone tools, and three inhumations, one of which was radiocarbon dated to 4070 ±100 years before present (B.P.). Two similar rock-lined pits were excavated at a small rockshelter in Tahquitz Canyon near Palm Springs (Bean et al. 1995). The small quantity of artifacts at that site suggested strategically stored food and seed processing equipment of small mobile groups.
3.1.3 Late Prehistoric / Protohistoric Period (1500-250 B.P.) The major archaeologically visible technological and cultural innovations of this period are the introduction of pottery making by the paddle-and-anvil technique, bow-and-arrow technology around 1200 B.P., a shift from inhumation to creation burial, and the introduction of floodplain agriculture on the Colorado River about the same time (Rogers 1945), although exact dating of early domesticates is lacking (Schroeder 1979).
This was also the period when obsidian trade relations shifted from the Coso sources in the Mohave Desert to the Obsidian Butte source in the Salton Trough, when Lake Cahuilla did not submerge it. Ceramics and cultigens were introduced from either Mexico or through the Hohokam culture of the Gila River (McGuire and Schiffer 1982; Rogers 1945; Schroeder 1975, 1979).
The ancestral Cahuilla were certainly exposed to domesticates at an early time, although opinions differ on when they adopted horticulture as a substantial part of their economy. It may have been a secondary pursuit for the production of specialty foods and fibers or gourds in the prehistoric period, although that has not been established archaeologically, as yet. Agricultural intensification and ditch irrigation techniques may not have occurred until after exposure to the mission system in historic times (Schaefer 1995).
Bow-and-arrow technology, seed-beaters, and other sophisticated hunting and gathering technology may also be related to the spread of Numic and Takic peoples from the southern Great Basin. Late Holocene flooding of Lake Cahuilla may have accelerated contacts between people of the ancestral Yumans of the Colorado River and the ancestors of the Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley and Peninsular Ranges. Such contacts through ceremonial and economic exchange may have resulted in a cultural dynamic that formed the Patayan Pattern and the resulting cultures of the ethnohistoric period. Long- range travel to special resource collecting zones and ceremonial locales, trading expeditions, and possibly some warfare are reflected by the numerous trail systems throughout the Colorado Desert. Pot drops, trailside shrines, and other evidence of transitory activities are associated with these trails (McCarthy 1982, 1993). Many of the pictographs, petroglyphs, and bedrock grinding surfaces in the Colorado Desert have also been associated with the Patayan pattern, although direct dating and cultural affiliation of such features is often difficult.
3.1.4 Ethnohistoric Period
The Project area is within the territorial boundaries of several Native American tribal groups. Ethnographic sources have indicated that these groups may have included the Luiseño of the Perris -Elsinore region, the Serrano of the San Bernardino Mountains, and the Gabrielino of the San Gabriel Valley. Additionally, a late influx of Cahuilla occurred during the nineteenth century. Boundaries betwe en the tribes were fluid and changed somewhat over time. The Gabrielino name derived from their association with the San Gabriel
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 17 Valley and the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, while the Luiseño were named for their proximity to the Mission de San Luís Rey de Francia (Bean and Smith 1978a, 1978b).
These groups shared similar social organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups, and the home sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock mortars.
During seasonal rounds to exploit available resources, small groups often ranged some distances in search of specific plants and animals. The gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources.
Numerous plants and animals were utilized for food, shelter, and medicines (Kroeber 1976). Seeds were most often used followed by foliage, shoots, fruits, and berries. Mountain shrubs, ash, elder, and willow were used for shelters and tool materials such as bows. Fauna used as food sources included deer, rabbits, wood rats, squirrels, quail, and ducks. Animals specifically not used were dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles (Kroeber 1976). Various styles of bows, bedrock mortars, portable mortars, pipes, chisels, metates, manos, and various forms of chipped stone tools were utilized as well. Prior to the establishment of the Mission system, Native Americans lived in larger villages, associated with smaller villages with limited activity areas and smaller populations.
Seasonal migration was practiced across the area for both the exploitation of resources and based on seasonal weather conditions.
3.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT
3.3.1 Spanish and Mexican Periods
Spanish explorer Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo first landed California in 1542, claiming it for the King of Spain.
However, Spanish contact within the vicinity of the Project area did not take place until the 1770s when Father Garcés traveled across the Mojave Desert and entered coastal southern California through the Cajon Pass (Walker 1986). The Mission San Gabriel Arcángel was established in 1771 and claimed what are now the San Gabriel and San Bernardino valleys. In 1819, a mission outpost, or asistencia, was established in the area of present-day Redlands (Dumke 1944; Hanna 1951; McWilliams 1973; Scott 1977). This outpost, part of Mission San Gabriel’s Rancho San Bernardino, was established to expand the agricultural holdings of the mission. The asistencia was later moved to its current location, where construction began in 1830; it was abandoned soon after in 1834 (Lugo 1950). Although no missions were ever located in present -day Riverside County, Mission San Gabriel had far-reaching influence over the area that would become Riverside County.
The Mexican War of Independence ended in 1821, severing the Spanish hold on the Californias and secularizing former mission lands. A series of ranchos was granted throughout what is now Riverside County and much of the land was used for ranching activities. Although some land had been granted to Native Americans, most of the land went to militar y men or merchants. Granting large ranch lands or ranchos remained as both a Spanish and a Mexican legacy in California. Land granted to Mexicans between 1833 and 1846 amounted to 500 ranchos primarily granted near the coast from San Francisco to San Diego.
Mexican Governor Pío Pico granted a great number of those ranchos prior to 1846, quickly carving up Alta California to ensure Mexican land titles survived a United States (U.S.) victory in the Mexican- American War (1846-1848) (Christenson and Sweet 2008:7; Engstrand 2005:64-66; Robinson 1948:23-72).
3.3.2 Alessandro Valley and Moreno Valley
In the 1840s, the Project location was part of the vast Rancho San Jacinto, which extended from Box Springs to the San Jacinto Mountains, and from the Badlands to Temecula. The land was used as pasture for cattle and sheep (Hamner 2003:5). In 1883, the California Southern Railroad’s line between National City (near San Diego) and San Bernardino was built through the valley; this line later became part of the Santa Fe
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
18 ASM Affiliates
Railroad. During the Southern California real estate boom of the 1880s, the Project location was part of the large Alessandro Tract recorded in 1887. The town of Alessandro was established near present -day Van Buren Boulevard at the road to Temecula (now Interstate 215) and extended east at the present location of the north end of the March Air Reserve Base (ARB) runways (Moreno Valley Historical Society n.d.). The surrounding area became known as Alessandro Valley (Hamner 2003:5).
In 1890, the Bear Valley and Alessandro Valley Company purchased substantial acreage in the area, including land on both sides of the Santa Fe rail line, and began ambitious land and water development projects in the area. The entire valley was platted in 10-acre parcels for the production of citrus, grapes, and other fruit (Hamner 2003:6). The town of Moreno was founded approximately 5 miles to the east-northeast of Alessandro in 1893, and Riverside County was formed from San Bernardino and San Diego counties and included both Alessandro and Moreno. However, during a drought in the 1890s, the wells in Alessandro ran dry and resulted in the departure of most of the residents, with many of the buildings being moved to Riverside or demolished. By the early 1900s, there remained a small number of dry farms producing wheat, oats, and barley (Moreno Valley Historical Society n.d.).
Eli E. Hendrick, a civil engineer, manufacturer, and oil refiner in Pennsylvania, began making annual visits to southern California in the late 1880s and acquiring property in Los Angeles. In 1903, he also began buying land in Moreno Valley for a large orange grove and new wells. The extant buildings in Alessandro were used for the Hendrick Ranches, with its hotel serving as a bunkhouse for ranch hands. After Hendrick’s death in 1909, the property passed to his heirs. Dry land grain was the main crop on the western portion of the estate, with citrus, alfalfa, and other irrigated crops on the other acreage (Hamner 2003:124-126).
3.3.3 Brief History of Riverside
The city of Riverside is located approximately 50 miles east of Los Angeles and lies on a plain by the Santa Ana River that consists of a system of arroyos. The city was founded in September of 1870 by the Southern California Colony Association, led by John W. North, on lands purchased from the Jurupa Rancho that were previously owned by the California Silk Center Association (JM Research and Consulting 2005).
The emphasis o n agriculture in early southern California history is re flected in the importance that the construction of an irrigation canal held to the development of the Riverside area around the time of the founding of the city. The introduction of the canal spurred development of 10-acre parcels to the north and south of the original 1-square-mile town site (City of Riverside 1870). In addition to these developments, a 13-square-mile area to the southwest of the founding site of Riverside purchased by Benjamin Hartshorn became known as the Hartshorn tract and was bought and sold by various individuals during this time.
Eventually, it was fully purchased by banker Samuel E. Evans who established the town of Arlington in 1877 (LSA Associates 2008). At the time of its founding, southwest of the town of Riverside, it was considered a separate town, and experienced separate development from Riverside.
During these early years, Riverside was largely agricultural and supported the growth of crops such as grapes, alfalfa, hay, and stone fruits. The arrival of the Washington Naval Orange revealed how suitable the climate and soil of Riverside were for citrus production, and other types of crops soon fell to the wayside as citrus production took over. Because the land of Riverside was ideal for citrus growth, the completion of the canal system and the beginnings of railroad infrastructure led Riverside to become an economic boomtown of the late nineteenth century (LSA Associates 2008).
However, while Riverside experienced this economic boom, the community of Arlington fell behind due to problems with irrigation. Without easy access to a canal and without necessary railroad infrastructure, Arlington remained largely rural during this time (LSA Associates 2008).
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 19 The City of Riverside was officially incorporated in 1883, including the Arlington area. The heart of commercial business of the city was located within the main Riverside townsite, and other areas of the town were divided into small farm lots (Patterson 1996). At this time, Riverside was geographically the largest city in Southern California but, because of its rural agricultural nature, only had 3,000 residents. Connecting various parts of this expansive city together were streetcars, operated by several different streetcar companies offering lines from the heart of Riverside to Arlington and beyond. By 1893, the city of Riverside became the county seat of Riverside County, which formed in that year from portions of San Bernadino and San Diego counties.
As Riverside approached the turn of the twentieth century, the city’s economy was still driven largely by the agricultural industry, particularly citrus growth and production. Riverside played a pivotal role to the citrus boom of the Southern California region thanks to the experiment station operated by the University of California, Riverside. This experiment station tested the growth and viability of various citrus, shared the information gathered to other Southern California regions, and promoted the use of citrus groves in farmlands as the ideal crop for the Southern California weather and soil. By 1925, the first year the City of Riverside published a crop report, 22,838 acres of land were used for citrus production (Tibbet 2005).
Like other Southern California regions, Riverside experienced a significant population increase during the first decades of the twentieth century. Between 1920 and 1930, the population of Riverside rose from 19,341 residents to 29,696 residents. Due to the sudden increase in population, residential development increasingly took over formerly agricultural land and communities began to spread further north and east of the original townsite (Tibbet 2005).
The Great Depression era of the 1930s impacted the local economy of Riverside, as many residents were out of work during this period and new construction slowed. This led to an enactment of multiple public works programs, resulting primarily in many improvements to the city including the paving of city streets that would contribute to the suburban development of once rural areas (Tibbet 2005).
As the U .S. entered World War II, the areas surrounding Riverside would host both temporary and permanent military bases. The nearby March Field, a World War I-era military base, was reactivated in 1927 and served as an aircraft repair and training base during World War II (Patterson 1996). After the post-war reorganization of the military and establishment of the U .S. Air Force, the base was renamed March Air Force Base and is presently a permanent Air Force facility.
Another nearby base, Camp Haan, supported what would be a total of 80,000 troops in temporary barracks throughout World War II. Also in close proximity to the city of Riverside was Camp Anza, which supported over 600,000 military personnel throughout World War II. This camp primarily provided final administrative aid for soldiers about to be sent to the Pacific Theater, like immunizations, instructions on foreign customs, and aid in drafting wills. After the end of the war in 1946, the base was decommissioned and the land was sold for redevelopment (Galvin Preservation Associates 2006).
In addition to the economic boost that came from nearby military facilities, Riverside also benefitted from World War II-era manufacturing and development. Particularly important to the history of Riverside is the Hunter Engineering Company, ran by Edwin Joseph Hunter, which became the largest and most important company in the area. The Hunter Engineering Company manufactured venetian blinds and invented a finishing technique that revolutionized the aluminum industry. This company gained prominence during the war as it ceased the manufacturing of blinds and instead made tools for the military utilizing the same revolutionary technique (Patterson 1996).
In the post-World War II period, Riverside experienced an economic shift and population growth that reflects the trend of the broader Southern California region. The wartime industries in Riverside attracted
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
20 ASM Affiliates
the attention of other business owners who began to relocate to the area in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Big industries such as Rohr Aircraft Company, Bourns Incorporated, and Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation soon established themselves in Riverside and became Riverside’s biggest employers. Simultaneously, Riverside began to annex more areas of the surrounding Riverside County into the city, including the University of California, Riverside campus in 1961, Arlanza (formerly Camp Anza) in 1961, and the La Sierra neighborhood in 1964 (Patterson 1996).
As Riverside grew through annexation and economic development, there was a lesser dependency on local agriculture and the production of crops, and a pressing need for housing. This pushed residential development to the forefront of Riverside’s history during this time, which was primarily uniformly constructed tract homes made possible by the Federal Housing Administration. During this era, Sun Gold Incorporated, one of the largest post -war construction companies, was responsible for the largest subdivisions of Riverside including Victoria Groves and Sun Gold Terrace (Patterson 1996).
As tract housing began to take the place of agricultural fields and as most Americans in this period owned automobiles that could keep them connected to a city center while living in the suburbs, Riverside evolved from a primarily rural agricultur al community to an expansive suburban community with multiple commercial centers and residential neighborhoods. Fire stations, libraries, and schools were constructed during the 1950s and the 1960s to accommodate the growth of the city and its newly expanded areas. (Patterson 1996).
3.3.5 Brief History of La Sierra Community
The community of La Sierra is presently found southwest of the original townsite of Riverside and is named after the 17,500- acre La Sierra Rancho that comprised the land that is now t he community of La Sierra (Gunther 1984). La Sierra, during its early years, was an unincorporated community in Riverside County, close in proximity to the community of Arlington.
Willits J. Hole is an important figure in the history of the area. A developer and one of the founders of La Habra in 1896, Hole relocated to the area in the early 1900s and acquired 20,000 acres of Riverside County, including the La Sierra Rancho area. Hole improved 11,550 acres of land for agriculture and established Hole Ranch, composed of four specialized farms (Pruett 1973). Working with William E. Pedley, Hole constructed a dam and a reservoir connected to the West Riverside Canal and created proper irrigation and drainage channels to grow fruit, vegetables, alfalfa, walnuts, and citrus fruits. Over time, portions of the ranch were sold by Hole for agricultural and residential development, leading to the beginning of the community’s history of residential development (Gunther 1984).
As La Sierra approached the turn of the twentieth century, its potential for residential development and growth largely benefitted from its proximity to the community of Arlington and the main roads and railroads that connected the community to the main townsite of Riverside. For example, Arling ton Avenue was extended into the La Sierra community and became a main artery to the east/west. The Pacific Electric Railroad connected Arlington and Riverside in 1888, and by 1915 connected the area to the city of Corona.
The first railroad constructed through the La Sierra community was the Santa Fe, providing through service between San Bernadino and Los Angeles counties (Patterson 1996).
Despite these connections to the other communities, La Sierra featured only six residences in 1916. The community began to expand after the opening of La Sierra College in 1922, of which faculty, students, and staff became a major component of the local neighborhood. La Sierra continued to expand after Hole’s death in 1936 and most of his ranch property was sold (Patterson 1996).
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 21 Hole’s death also coincided with the general trend of post-World War II development in Southern California, and the community of La Sierra experienced a boom in residential and commercial development. After World War II, local military facilit ies like Camp Anza were no longer needed and the land was sold or repurposed. Camp Anza became Arlanza, a residential community, and would later be incorporated into the city of Riverside. The neighborhood of Arlanza grew and other local industries established stores and offices along La Sierra Avenue, Pierce Street, and Hole Avenue, setting up what would become known as the “Five Points” intersection, where all these streets intersect at Bushnell Avenue (Riverside Press 1953a).
As the community of La Sierra grew in this way, Riverside County Supervisors began to develop a new zoning plan that passed in 1953 and allowed the first Federal Housing Administration-approved subdivisions in unincorporated Riverside County (Arlington Times 1953). During the first year, Riverside County approved permits for 67 new single-family homes in the La Sierra area (Riverside Press 1953a).
After La Sierra’s residential and economic developments, the community began to explore options that would allow for a more sophisticated form of government. In 1964, the community of La Sierra was annexed into the City of Riverside. As a response, the City developed a master plan for the Arlanza/La Sierra area which maintained the “Five Points” intersection as the center of commercial and office development with multiple-family and single-family housing the surrounding areas (La Sierra Land Use Maps 1964).
After the neighborhood of La Sierra was incorporated into the city of Riverside, several studies were conducted, and estimates were undergone that concluded that there were three areas in the La Sierra neighborhood that were seen as “dilapidated” and “deteriorating” and that 70 percent of the community was undeveloped or underdeveloped (Riverside Press-Enterprise 1974). At this time, longtime residents of the La Sierra neighborhood expressed regrets at the changing landscape and loss of a rural atmosphere.
The “Five Points” area of the La Sierra community has been at the center of various city plans and projects for general improvement of the area. In 2005, the area was designated as a high priority redevelopment opportunity, envisioned as a mixed-use village of up to 30 acres (Riverside Redevelopment Agency 2005).
Presently, the “Five Points” area remains the commercial and residential center of the community.
3.3.6 Historic Aerials
ASM reviewed historic aerials of the API taken in 1948, 1959, and 1966 made available from Historicaerials.com (Figures 4-6) . Due to the rapid development of the La Sierra community and the eventual annexation of the community into the City of Riverside during the time in which these aerial photographs were taken, they portray a unique view into the suburbanization of a once rural area. For a point of reference, the residence of the address of 4705 Hedrick Avenue remains highlighted in re d throughout each aerial example.
4705 Hedrick Avenue was described as a 2-acre farm in a 1950 newspaper advertisement ( Riverside Enterprise 1950), meaning that in the 1948 aerial, the residence was still within a 2-acre lot. The agricultural nature of the 2-acre lot and the surrounding properties are still evident within this aerial. What are likely fruit trees are seen to be growing in the northwest section of the acreage, which is supported by newspaper advertisements portraying this lot as containing a lawn, shade trees, and fruit trees. Many of the driveways and roads that connect into these lots appear to be dirt roads, and none are extant in the present day.
Surrounding the highlighted residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue appears to be ancillary agricultural buildings, particularly the complex of buildings to the south of the residence.
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
22 ASM Affiliates
Figure 4. Aerial overview of 4705 Hedrick Avenue taken in 1948. The residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue is highlighted within the red square.
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 23
Figure 5. Aerial overview of 4705 Hedrick Avenue taken in 1959. The residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue is highlighted within the red square.
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
24 ASM Affiliates
Figure 6. 1966 Aerial of 4705 Hedrick Avenue. The residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue is highlighted within the red square.
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 25 In the 1959 historic aerial, the complex of buildings to the south of the residence have disappeared with the exception of one building. By this time, the farm parcel has been subdivided into its present configuration of three smaller lots with single -family residences facing Hedrick and Jones avenues. The farmland that was visibly prominent to the north of the 4705 Hedrick Avenue residence has also disappeared in this aerial, and the land redeveloped as a single-family residence. Although there are empty areas of land, there does not appear to be any agricultural work occurring on any of the nearby properties at this time.
Although there is little d ifference between the 1959 aerial and the 1966 aerial, the appearance of more single-family residences continues and points to a general trend of the suburbanization of the area and the abandonment of agricultural work.
3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORY
3.4.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue (Smith Farm)
The land associated with the address of 4705 Hedrick Avenue was originally a 2-acre lot, likely subdivided as agricultural land in the first decades of the twentieth century. The first visible evidence of the subdivision is seen in a 1938 aerial of the general area. Although it is difficult to discern whether there was an active farm or any farm buildings constructed at this time, what is visible are two roads that connect between Hedrick Avenue and Jones Avenue. The area between these two roads is visually differentiated from the surrounding land, indicating some agriculture uses occurring in the space or at least improvements made to the land. These roads are no longer extant in the present day, apart from the cul-de-sac of Jeri Drive, which would have been the northeastern corner of this subdivision.
The residence at 4705 Hedrick Avenue was constructed c.1944. This construction date is supported by the archival newspaper record, as the address began to appear in new spapers in early 1945, advertising the various products that could be purchased at the farm (Riverside Daily Press 1945). The owner of the farm was Guy N. Smith.
By 1948, the next available historic aerial reveals further agricultural development on the lot. The residence is present in the center of the lot and is surrounded by what are likely various agricultural structures intended to support the cultivation of the crops grown on the lot. Visible on the aerial are paths that show the division of the land, and the presence of a driveway from Hedrick Avenue to the residence. This driveway circulation area is still extant.
By 1950, a description of the residence was placed in a for -sale advertisement of the property . It was described as a three-room house with one bedroom attached to 2 acres of land, with fruit trees, shade, and a lawn (Riverside Enterprise 1950). During this decade, newspaper advertisements reveal the various items that were sold from this farm, including grapes, strawberries, rabbits, goats, geese, and tree fruit (the specific type of fruit was unspecified) (Riverside Press 1953b, 1955). A tractor was also sold from this property in 1954 (Riverside Daily Press 1955).
Simultaneously, as Riverside became more residential in the post-World War II era and the Arlington/La Sierra neighborhood began to shed its rural character, the 2-acre farm was subdivided as well. An advertisement for the property in 1957 describes the property as a 60’ x 18’ lot, approximately a quarter of an acre (The Riverside Enterprise 1957). This subdivision of the original 2-acre lot into quarters is supported by the next available historic aerial from 1959, in which the corners of the property are already subdivided and feature newly constructed residences.
By the next available historic aerial in 1966, there are no longer any visible references to agriculture or farmland. The lot of 4705 Hedrick Avenue was further subdivided at this time, as residences were
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
26 ASM Affiliates
constructed on the area of land that is closer to Hedrick Avenue, with the 4705 address retaining only the driveway and the immediate vicinity of the 1944 residence.
The farm was sold in 1957 to Joseph and Mary Skok (The Riverside Press-Enterprise 1959). Joseph Skok only lived at the property for two years until his death in 1959, after which Mary Skok retained primary ownership until 1971. This event may have been the catalyst for the further subdivision of the property.
Newspaper obituaries and census information did not reveal the occupation of Joseph Skok.
The first and only permit available for this residence from the City of Riverside is a 1971 plumbing permit concerning the installation of a septic tank (City of Riverside 1971). Due to a rough sketch of the property present on the permit, some alterations and additions present on the property appear to have occurred prior to 1971. This single-family residence appears to have originally been constructed as a standard, utilitarian farmhouse in a rectangular form ; the 1971 drawing indicates an addition, extending north. Visual observation during the survey noted physical evidence that indicates a covered area on this extension. and stairs leading into the residence are located. This was likely the original entrance of the residence and is on the opposite side of the current primary entrance.
ASM reviewed historic aerials of the property and its development over time, beginning in 1948 (Historicaerials.com 1948). This first historic aerial reveals that the residence is extant at this time and is surrounded by agricultural land. There appears to be some groves of trees, a collection of buildings and structures related to agriculture, and some access roads that connect both Hedrick and Jones avenues to the center residence and agricultural area. The present driveway that would bring one from Hedrick Avenue to the residence is extant in this image; it appears to be a dirt road.
The residence is seen to be in the same location, and without the additions that would be seen on the residence on a later date. By the 1959 aerial, it is clear that the original parcel of land ha d already been subdivided, and residences ha d already been constructed within the new subdivisions facing Hedrick Avenue (Historicaerials.com 1959). Trees and shrubs demarking property lines ha d been planted around the border of the new parcel.
3.4.2 4618 Jones Avenue
The plot of land that is associated with the address 4618 Jones Avenue was subdivided from the original farmland associated with the address of 4705 Hedrick between 1948 and 1959 and converted from an agricultural to residential property (Historicaerials 1948, 1959).
There appear to have been some structures, likely related to the agricultural function of the original parcel, on the area that is presently the 4618 Jones Avenue property. These structures disappeared by the 1959 historic aerial, likely when the property was subdivided, and the residence now associated with the address was constructed.
The residence at the 4618 Jones Avenue address was constructed c.1955. Available permits from the City of Riverside reveal that at the time of construction, the address was considered to be associated with the community of La Sierra, as it was built before this section of Riverside County was annexed into the city (La Sierra Community Services District 1958).
The owner of the residence in 1958, and likely the original owne r, was a man named H. C. Blackford.
Blackford worked as a radio technician for the local police department ( U.S. Census 1950). His wife and son received recognition in the local community and were featured in community newspapers at various times; Mrs. Bla ckford was recognized for her community service, and son Gerald O. Blackford served
3.0 Historic Context and Overview
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 27 aboard the USS Wilsie destroyer in the Western Pacific in the late 1950s (Riverside Press 1953a, Riverside Daily Press 1960). The Blackfords were still residing at the address in 1963 (City of Riverside 1963).
ASM reviewed historic aerials of the property and its development over time, beginning with the 1948 aerial and including the 1959 aerial ( Historicaerials.com 1948, 1959). The 1948 aer ial reveals that the property later subdivided as 4618 Jones Avenue was originally part of the agricultural complex at 4705 Hedrick Avenue. In 1948, multiple buildings and structures were in the center of the parcel that is presently 4618 Jones Avenue ; additional buildings and structures were on the current property line between 4618 Jones Avenue and 4663 Hedrick Avenue.
By the 1959 aerial, many of these buildings and structures had disappeared. A new property line was drawn down the center, and many buildings were demolished at that time. Of the complex of buildings that were once in the center of the contemporary 4618 Jones Avenue parcel, it appears that only two remain. Trees were planted to mark the property line on the northern side of the property. The residence was also constructed by the time this aerial was taken and is presently in the same location with no visual indication of additions.
3.4.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue
The plot of land that is associated with the address 4663 Hedrick Avenue was subdivided from the original farmland associated with the address of 4705 Hedrick between 1948 and 1959 and converted from an agricultural to a residential property.
The 1948 aerial photograph reveals that there were agricultural structures on the eastern side of the property before the lot was further subdivided for residential development. By the 1966 historic aerial, only three structures from this era appear to have been extant with the residence.
The residence at the 4663 Hedrick Avenue address was constructed c.1960. At the time of construction, permits reveal that the address was within the community of Arlington and was owned by Gerald Garner, a construction company (City of Riverside n.d.). Minor alterations have occurred to the residence since its construction, in particular the enclosure of the patio.
The occupants of the residence throughout the 1960s and 1970s were Donald E. Hibbard and Ida M.
Hibbard (City of Riverside 1963). Mr. Hibbard worked as a floor manager at a local company, Warran- Anderson, and Mrs. Hibbard was a nurse (U.S. Census 1950).
ASM reviewed historic aerials of the property and its development over time, beginning with a 1948 historic aerial, and including a 1959 and 1966 historic aerial. The 1948 historic aerial reveals that the property initially was used for agricultural purposes, as there are structures and improvements on the land that would indicate that purpose. A complex of buildings and structures can be seen on the eastern side of the present parcel boundary. By the 1959 aerial, many of these buildings and structures had been deconstructed, with the exception of what may have been a shed building. The land of the parcel is vacant by this time.
By the 1966 historic aerial, the residence ha d been constructed. There were three remaining buildings or structures on the eastern parcel boundary from its previous use as an agricultural lot. Trees had been planted to mark the boundary of the northern side of the parcel. The residence is visible for the first time in this aerial and is presently in the same location with the same footprint, suggesting limited additions.
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 29
4.0 S TUDY FINDINGS
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The EIC records search was conducted on October 9, 2023, to determine whether the Project area has been previously subject to systematic survey as well as the presence or absence of cultural resources previously documented within the Project area. The search results included all records and documents on file with the EIC, as well as the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Properties Directory. The EIC summary lists are provided with this report as Attachment A.
A total of 29 previous reports were identified as a result of the records search (Table 1) . One report, RI - 05965, provides an overview of the area, but not specific study of the Project site itself.
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Projects Conducted within the 1-Mile Records Search Radius
Report
No. (RI-) Year Author(s)/Affiliation Title
03863 1994 McLean, Deborah / LSA Associates Cultural Resources Assessment - La Sierra University Specific Plan
04122 1998
Mason, Roger D., Philippe Lapin, and
Wayne H. Bonner / Chambers Group,
Inc.
Cultural Resources Records Search and Survey
Report for a Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Telecommunications Facility: CN192-18, City Of
Riverside, California
04488 2001 Alexandrowicz, John Stephen /
Archaeological Consulting Services
An Historical Resources Identification Investigation,
10465 Gramercy Place, City of Riverside, Riverside
County, California
05162 2005
Tang, Bai, Michael Hogan, Josh
Smallwood, Terri Jacquemain, and
Daniel Ballester / CRM TECH
Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 146-050-004, -021, And -
026
05455 2005 McKenna, Jeannette / McKenna et al.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the
Proposed La Granada Elementary School Expansion
for the Alvord Unified School District, Riverside
County, CA
05691 2003 Lumpp, Heinz / EarthTouch, Inc.
Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower Project in
Riverside County, California, Site Name/Number:
CA-8550C / Lea Wilkens
05874 2000 Love, Bruce, Bai Tang, Daniel Ballester,
and Mariam Dahdul / CRM TECH
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report,
Tentative Tract Map No. 30255, City of Riverside,
Riverside County, CA
05965 2003 Hogan, Michael, Bai "Tom" Tang, and
Casey Tibbet / CRM TECH
Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment, La
Sierra/Arlanza Redevelopment Project, in the City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California
06156 2005 Marnie Aislin-Kay / Michael Brandman
Associates
Letter Report: Cultural Resources Records Search and
Site Visit Results for AT&T Telecommunications
Facility Candidate 950-003-023D (La Sierra Park),
10934 Gramercy Place, Riverside, Riverside County,
California
06602 2006
Bai Tang, Michael Hogan, Terri
Jacquemain, and Josh Smallwood /
CRM TECH
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report:
Assessor’s Parcel Number 146-050-023, La Sierra
Area, City of Riverside, Riverside County, California
06646 2006 Allred, Carla / EarthTouch, Inc.
Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower Project(s) in
Riverside County, California, Site
Number(s)/Name(s): LA-0810A/ Riverside Fire
Station #8 TCNS#16819
4.0 Study Findings
30 ASM Affiliates
Report
No. (RI-) Year Author(s)/Affiliation Title
06662 2007
Tang, Bai “Tom,” Michael Hogan,
Deirdre Encarnacion, and Daniel
Ballester / CRM TECH
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report:
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 145-030-006 and -007, City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California
06873 2003 Hanna, David C., Jr. / SWCA, Inc.
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Lea
Wilkins Cellular Site, FCC CA-8550C, at 10785 Hole
Avenue, City of Riverside, Riverside County,
California
07243 2003 Duke, Curt, and Caprice D. Harper /
LSA Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless
Facility No. SB 254-02 City and County of Riverside,
California
07377 2007 Tang, Bai “Tom," and Michael Hogan /
CRM TECH
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report:
Assessor's Parcel No. 149-320-007 City of Riverside,
Riverside County, California
07961 2009
Wlodarski, Robert J. / Cellular
Archaeological Resource Evaluation
(C.A.R.E.)
Letter Report: Bechtel Wireless Telecommunications
Site RS0064 [Tyler & Wells]
08832 2012 Wilkman, Bill / Wilkman Historical
Survey
Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation: 5211
Golden Ave., Riverside, CA
08833 2012 Wilkman, Bill / Wilkman Historical
Survey
Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation 5578
Norwood Ave.
09187 2013 Puckett, Heather R. / Tetra Tech
Cultural Resources Summary for the Proposed
Verizon Wireless, Inc., Property at the Rooster Site,
4889 Tyler Avenue, (La Sierra) Riverside, Riverside
County, California 92503
09743 2014 Puckett, Heather R. / Tetra Tech
Cultural Resources Summary for the Proposed
Verizon Wireless Inc., Property at the East Site,
10815 Gramercy Place, Riverside, Riverside County,
California 92505
09752 2016 Polanco, Julianna / State Historic
Preservation Officer
Determinations of Eligibility for the Proposed Norte
Vista Sidewalk Improvement Project, San Bernardino
County, CA
09864 2016
Hicok, Hannah, Wendy Blumel, and
Evelyn Chandler / ECORP Consulting,
Inc.
Cultural Resources Investigation of the 12.5-Acre
Cook Avenue Development Project in the City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California
09925 2006 Bonner, Wayne H., and Marnie Aislin-
Kay / Michael Brandman Associates
Cultural Resource Records Search Results and Site
Visit for Cingular Telecommunications Facility
Candidate RS-0035-04 (La Sierra Church), 11585
Pierce Street, Riverside, Riverside County, California
10002 1999 Frank, Myra L. / Myra L. Frank &
Associates, Inc.
Final Preliminary Cultural Resources Report for the
Arlington Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 2
Environmental Impact Report
10218 2015 Puckett, Heather R. / Tetra Tech
Letter Report: Cultural Resources Summary for the
Proposed Verizon Wireless, Inc., Property at the Hole
Site, 4350 La Sierra Avenue, Riverside, Riverside
County, California 92505
10595 2006 Bonner, Wayne H. / Michael Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resource Records Search Results and Site
Visit for Cingular Telecommunication Facility
Candidate RS-0064-01(Tyler & Wells), 4850 Tyler
Street, Riverside, Riverside County, California
10964 2019 Brunzell, David / BCR Consulting, LLC
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Tentative Tract
Map 37740 Project, City of Riverside, Riverside
County, California
11161 2018 Andre Simmons and Molly Valasik /
Cogstone
Archaeological Survey Report for the Magnolia
Avenue Improvements from Buchanan Street to
Banbury Drive Project, Riverside County, California
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 31 Report
No. (RI-) Year Author(s)/Affiliation Title
11162 2017 Valasik, Molly / Caltrans Historic Property Survey Report
A total of five resources have been previously documented within the 1-mi. records search radius, none of which appear within the Project area (Table 2). Two of the resources include prehistoric bedrock milling features, with the remaining made up of historic period refuse and a church.
Table 2. Resources Previously Recorded within the 1-Mile Records Search Radius
Primary #
(P-33-)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV-)
Date Recorded
(Recorded by) Description Attribute
Codes*
017523 9101 2009 (J. Sanka, MBA) milling features on bedrock outcrops; historic refuse AH4; AP4
024120 - 2014 (K.A. Crawford,
Crawford Historic Services)
La Sierra Southern Baptist Church, 10815
Gramercy Place HP16
026885 -
2016 (Hannah Hicok and
Wendy Blumel, ECORP
Consulting, Inc.)
1940s glass fragment AH16
026886 12625
2016 (Hannah Hicok and
Wendy Blumel, ECORP
Consulting, Inc.)
late nineteenth/early twentieth century glass
scatter AH4
029194 13040
2022 (Andrew Garrison,
Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc.)
milling features on bedrock outcrops AP4
*AP4. BRM/milling feature; AH4. Privies/dumps/trash scatters; AH16. Other – isolate; HP16. Religious building
4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
A pedestrian survey of the Project area was conducted by ASM Senior Archaeologist Sherri Andrews on July 18 and September 27, 2023. All accessible areas of exposed ground surface within the Project parcels were intensively inspected for the presence of previously undocumented archaeological resources. All ground surface within the Project parcels has been disturbed and modified over time during its previous use as a farm. Currently, much of the open space within the Project site is within the two southern parcels and is overgrown with dense non-native vegetation except for the areas in proximity to the extant structures that are cleared and scraped (Figures 7-9). A substantial concrete and cement block foundation is in the northeast corner of APN 143-040-011, with a degrading, flat, partially buried concrete foundation along the parcel’s eastern fenceline. A concrete standpipe is in the northwest corner of APN 143-040- 012, with another rectangular, partially buried concrete feature with a wooden cover is near the center of this parcel. Various piles of concrete and wood debris also appear along the north or south edges of these two parcels. These items appear to be associated with no longer extant structures and features related to the prior use of the parcels as a farm and are documented in the DPR created for 4705 Hedrick Avenue (APN 143-040-010).
No artifacts were present on the ground surface and no indication was seen of the potential for buried subsurface deposits.
4.0 Study Findings
32 ASM Affiliates
Figure 7. Open space on 4618 Jones Avenue parcel, view toward northwest.
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 33
Figure 8. Open space on 4663 Hedrick Avenue parcel, view toward northwest.
4.0 Study Findings
34 ASM Affiliates
Figure 9. Division between maintained and unmaintained open space on 4663 Hedrick Avenue parcel, view toward north.
4.3 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY SURVEY RESULTS
4.3.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue
In recent years, a large amount of refuse has been gathered around the main residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, obscuring visibility of the property (Figure 10).
What can be seen, however, is that the building at 4705 Hedrick Avenue is a one -story single- family residence, constructed without reference to any specific architectural style. The residence is deeply set back from Hedrick Avenue and was once the central residence of a much larger farm. A 1971 sketch of the layout of the property reveals that the primary façade was likely the west -facing façade of the property, as it is indicated by the presence of steps.
The building appears to rest on a concrete foundation and is primarily clad in stucco. A driveway connects the property to Hedrick Avenue, but the property is not visible from Hedrick Avenue due to subdivisions and residential development (Figure 11).
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 35
Figure 10. View of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north.
Figure 11. View of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north.
4.0 Study Findings
36 ASM Affiliates
The residence is horizontally oriented. It features a side-gable, asphalt-shingle roof. Beneath the center of the gable on either side of the residence are attic vents. Surrounding the windows that are visible are thick, wood window surrounds. The steps that are noted in the 1971 plumbing permit are concrete block steps that lead into what appears to be an addition to the original footprint of the residence. The sides of the addition are wood plank and appear to have been constructed at the same time as the extending shed addition of the north-facing side due to similar materials and a similar level of wear.
The window that is visible has been replaced and is now a horizontally sliding vinyl window. The window has retained the exterior wood window surrounds that are likely original to the construction of the residence.
4.3.2 4618 Jones Avenue
The building at 4618 Jones Avenue is a California Ranch style one -story single-family residence with a primary façade facing east (Figure 12). The residence faces Jones Avenue and retains a standard set -back from the road despite the deep lot. The building rests on a concrete foundation and is primarily clad in replacement, rough-texture, stucco. No sidewalks were constructed on the roadside, and a metal gate marks the boundary between the road and the property. The driveway begins at Jones Avenue and leads directly to the attached garage.
Figure 12. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward northwest.
The form of the residence is horizontally oriented. It features a side -gable, asphalt -shingle roof, with medium-width eaves that extend past the roof line. The eastern/primary façade of the house is composed of three sections – a section with a window, the recessed front porch area, and the attached garage. The section with the window is the southernmost section of the primary façade and features only one replaced window (Figure 13). This window is a horizontally sliding, simple -profile, vinyl window. There are no other
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 37 architectural features to note in this section of the primary façade. The middle section features a recessed front porch area with a larger picture window and a primary entrance (Figure 14). The window is a replaced, horizontally sliding, vinyl picture window. The right side of this window presently features a window air conditioner unit. The primary entrance door is obscured by a metal gate door. A light fixture is present on the top left of the door. The recessed porch area features concrete flooring. It is painted the same color as the residence, and is stepped, featuring a single step down toward the front lawn area. A walkway composed of brick and concrete materials connects the gate along the property line to the front door of the recesse d porch. The final section of the primary façade is the attached garage, the northernmost section of the primary façade. The garage features a white, fiberglass, rolling garage door. In front of the garage door is a concrete driveway. The concrete driveway reaches Jones Avenue and features a rolling gate that allows for the vehicular access.
Figure 13. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward northwest.
The northern-facing side of the residence exhibits no notable architectural features (Figure 15). There are garbage cans and refuse found along the wall of this façade. Visible from this façade is the complex form of the gable roof over the attached garage; as the form of the garage is not as deep as the house, while the plane roof on the primary façade is continuous, on the rear of the house it is in two, separate planes or segments.
The southern façade and the western, rear façade are obscured by vegetation and were not accessible.
Surrounding the residence are some elements of landscaping that are primarily characterized by palm trees of varying species and maturities. There are some sections of grass in the front yard area as well. The metal fence that marks the property line of the residence features columns of concrete block and brick.
4.0 Study Findings
38 ASM Affiliates
Figure 14. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward west.
Figure 15. View of 4618 Jones Avenue, looking toward northwest.
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 39
4.3.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue
4663 Hedrick Avenue is a California Ranch style, one-story single-family residence with a primary façade facing west (Figure 16). The residence faces Hedrick Avenue and retains a standard set-back from the road despite its deep lot. The building rests on a concrete foundation and is primarily clad in replacement stucco with exposed brick accent. No sidewalks were constructed on the roadside, and a metal gate marks the boundary between the road and the property. The driveway leads directly to the attached garage.
Figure 16. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward southeast.
The form of the residence is rectangular and horizontally oriented. It features a side-gable, asphalt-shingle roof, with medium-width eaves that extend past the roof line. The western/primary façade of the residence is composed of three sections – the attached garage, the main entry area, and a picture window area. The section featuring the attached garage is the northernmost section of the property ( Figure 17). The garage features a white, fiberglass, rolling garage door. There is a concrete slab placed in front of the garage door; however, it does not extend toward Hedrick Avenue. The slab ends at the gate, and a gravel/dirt section connects the end of the concrete slab toward the road. The middle section of the primary façade is the entrance area, featuri ng low -height brick walls that separate s the front entry area from the landscaped garden (Figure 18). This area is a recessed section, and the overhanging porch is supported by a decorative wood beam in characteristic California Ranch style ( Figure 19). Th e primary entrance is obscured by a metal screen door. There is a replacement horizontal-sliding, vinyl window in this section as well. The final section along the primary façade is composed of a large, replaced, vinyl picture window ( Figure 20). A gable with decorative trim is the only notable architectural feature of this section of the primary façade (Figure 21). This gable and decorative trim match the wooden support porch by the primary entrance and were executed in standard California Ranch style. The main division of these three sections of the primary façade is seen in the varying roof lines.
4.0 Study Findings
40 ASM Affiliates
Figure 17. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward east.
Figure 18. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward northeast.
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 41
Figure 19. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward east.
Figure 20. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward northeast.
4.0 Study Findings
42 ASM Affiliates
Figure 21. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north.
Figure 22. View of 4663 Hedrick Avenue, looking toward north.
4.0 Study Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 43 The southern- facing façade reveals some alterations to the residence (Figure 22). A single replaced, horizontal-sliding window is present in the center of this façade. The only other notable architectural feature is the attic vents present under the center of the gable. Along this section, the medium -width extending gables are more visible, revealing wood planking. This section also reveals that there were three large windows along this façade at one point in time, two larger rectangular windows on the sides and a larger square window in the center. The center window present on the façade is in the same place as where the larger square window once was, and the two large rectangular windows that were once on either side have not been replaced, only visible through the alterations to the exterior stucco.
5.0 Evaluation of Eligibility
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 45
5.0 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY
To interpret a resource’s importance, a comprehensive assessment must be conducted, including measuring the resource against the guidelines and criteria established by the CRHR, City, and CEQA, as identified in Section 1.3, as well as assessing the integrity of the resource. To minimize the subjectivity of the interpretive process, it is important to utilize a standard assessment approach for that evaluation. ASM’s approach to determining the historic significance of the resources in the API was also based on guidance in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Series #6. ASM also referred to guidance from the NRHP —specifically to How to Apply the National Re gister Criteria for Evaluation , NRHP Bulletin 15 (NPS, NRHP 1997). Bulletin 15 establishes the nationally accepted professional protocols to be followed in determining eligibility:
1. Categorize the property. Determine whether the property is a district, site, building, structure, or object.
2. Determine which prehistoric or historic context(s) the property represents. A property must possess significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture when evaluated within the historic context of a relevant geographic area.
3. Determine whether the property is significant under the NRHP criteria. This is done by identifying the links to important events or persons, design or construction features, or information potential that make the property important.
4. Determine if the property represents a type usually excluded from the NRHP. If so, determine if it meets any of the Criteria Considerations.
5. Determine whether the property retains integrity. Evaluate the aspects of location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association that the property must retain to convey its historic significance.
5.1 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION
5.1.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue (Smith Farm)
ASM considered whether the residential property at 4705 Hedrick Avenue is individually eligible under any CRHR criteria.
Criterion 1: 4705 Hedrick Avenue was evaluated under CRHR Criterion 1 for its potential association to a specific historic event or a pattern of events that made a significant contribution to the surrounding community, the state of California, or the nation. The building was constructed in 1944 to support what was once a 2-acre parcel in use as a farm. Because it was not constructed as part of the development of tract housing in Riverside, it does not apply as a single -family tract house property type under the Modernism HCS prepared by the City of Riverside. The building is related to the agricultural development of Riverside County, particularly the La Sierra neighborhood, before its post-World War II residential development.
Noted in various historic contexts for the city of Riverside as well as listed sites in the NRHP , early citrus farming played an important role in the agricultural development of Riverside County and Southern California. Large areas of land were in use by various ranchers and farmers to grow citrus, which was then processed at packing centers, and then shipped across the country. Other crops were noted to have been important to the early development of Riverside and Riverside County when it was still largely agricultural, including grapes, alfalfa, hay, and stone fruits. Newspaper advertisements from the 1940s through the 1950s reveal that the farm associated with 4705 Hedrick Avenue did grow fruit trees (type of fruit was unspecified) and grapes ; however, it also grew other fruits such as strawberries and regularly sold farm animals presumably for butchering. The amount of advertisements in local newspapers offering fruit for sale as well as farm animals points to a reliance on the local economy for profit from the farm, not a large operation
5.0 Evaluation of Eligibility
46 ASM Affiliates
that would send fruit to other parts of the country. Additionally, the changing character of the La Sierra neighborhood from rural to residential is reflected in the subdivisions enacted to the property, where the 2- acre farm was subdivided to about a quarter -acre for residential development. The present iteration of the parcel associated with 4705 Hedrick is no longer representative of a farm or an agricultural landscape as its land has been subdivided for residential housing, and the areas of land that once made up the farm are no longer associated with the parcel. Additionally, it appears that the farm associated with the residence began operations close to the date of construction of the residence, 1944, as newspaper advertisements begin in 1945. While the community of La Sierra was still very agricultural at this time, the end of World War II, the growing need for housing for World War II veterans in the area, and the Riverside County approval of Federal Housing Authority tract housing quickly changed the nature of the community in the post-war era beginning around 1946. The La Sierra community of Riverside became increasingly r esidential and suburban during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Thus, the establishment of this farm occurred at the very end of the agricultural and rural era of La Sierra and is therefore not representative of events related to the community’s early growth and development. Finally, research did not reveal that 4705 Hedrick is associated with any specific events that contribute to the history of the community, state, or nation. As such, while 4705 Hedrick Avenue was constructed as a part of agricultural development in the County of Riverside and the community of La Sierra during the 1940s, it did not make a significant impact to national or state history as the farm sold locally and was not involved in the larger network of the agricultural business. The farm is not a good example of local agricultural practices as it was not specifically a citrus farm, has no significant local history attached to the farm, and was later subdivided for residential development. Thus, ASM recommends 4705 Hedrick Avenue is not eligible under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: None of the known occupants or owners of 4705 Hedrick Avenue appear to be historically significant individuals. There is little information regarding the life of the first owner of the property, Guy N. Smith, beyond that he held the occupation of paper hanger and is listed in the U .S. Census and the Riverside City Directory at another address during the 1940s and 1950s. As his name is not noted in local newspapers, he does not appear to be a historically significant individual to the community, state, or nation.
The next owners of the property were Joseph and Mary Skok, both of whom were retired at the time of purchase of the property. There is little mention of the Skoks in local newspapers, and the couple do not appear to be a historically significant individuals to the community, state, or nation. As such, ASM recommends the residence at 4705 Hedrick Avenue as not eligible under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: To evaluate the property under Criterion 3, ASM carefully considered whether the residence located at 4705 Hedrick Avenue embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, whether it represents the work of a master, or whether it possesses high artistic values. The residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue was constructed in 1944 without reference to a specific architectural style to support the 2-acre farm on the plot of land. It is described in newspaper advertisements as a one - bedroom home, with three rooms in total. With very few architectural features, none of which support a specific style, 4705 Hedrick Avenue is of a standard construction, does not embody particular characteristics of a specific type or period, and therefore retains no high artistic values. Research has not revealed that a master architect or a master builder was associated with the construction of 4705 Hedrick Avenue. As such, ASM recommends the residence at 4705 Hedrick Avenue as not eligible under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: The residence at 4705 Hedrick Avenue is recommended not eligible for Criterion 4. The house is a common property type that does not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historic research.
Lastly, the residence at 4705 Hedrick Avenue does not appear eligible as a contributor to a historic district as it is not located within the bounds of an identified historic district in the City of Riverside and a potential historic district was not identified during the survey effort.
5.0 Evaluation of Eligibility
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 47
5.1.2 4618 Jones Avenue
ASM considered whether the residence at 4618 Jones Avenue is individually eligible under any CRHR criteria.
Criterion 1: The residence at 4618 Jones Avenue was built in 1955 as one of many single-family residences constructed in the La Sierra/Arlington neighborhood of Riverside, then Riverside County, and therefore falls under the theme of Post-War Suburbia and the Ranch House, 1945-1965 as defined by the Modernism HCS prepared by the City of Riverside in 2009. The Modernism HCS identifies single-family tract houses (residential) as an associated property type to this theme. Because of the history of subdivisions of this property, and the fact that it was subdivided for housing in the 1950s in a uniform tract akin to other subdivisions in the immediate vicinity, it can be defined as tract housing during this period. The Modernism HCS states that tract houses do not qualify for individual eligibility under Criterion 1 and cannot individually convey the theme of Post -War Suburbia and the Ranch House. Research did not reveal that any significant events related to other aspects of Riverside’s history occurred on the property during the potential period of significance. As such, ASM recommends the residence at 4618 Jones Avenue is not eligible under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: None of the known occupants or owners of 4618 Jones Avenue appear to be historically significant individuals. H. C. Blackford, owner of the property from the 1950s to at least the late 1960s, and his family were intertwined with the local community and at various times were featured in local newspapers. However, research did not reveal them to be historically significant individuals on the local, state, or national level. As such, ASM recommends the residence at 4618 Jones Avenue is not eligible under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: To evaluate the property under Criterion 3, ASM carefully considered whether the residence located at 4618 Jones Avenue embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, whether it represents the work of a master, or whether it possesses high artistic values. The residence was built in the California Ranch style in 1955, and as such, falls under the theme of Post -War Suburbia and the Ranch House, the sub- theme of California Ranch, and is represented by the associated property type of Single -Family Tract Houses (residential). Under this theme and as defined by this associated property type, the Modernism HCS states that individual resources of this property type do not qualify for individual listing under Criterion C. ASM then assessed whether this property is eligible as an excellent embodiment of the California Ranch style. The Modernism HCS ident ifies character-defining features of the California Ranch style, of which the property retains: horizontal rambling layout, low pitched roof, and an attached garage. It does not retain many of the character-defining features of this style.
Therefore, it cannot be considered a good example of the California Ranch style, as there are other better examples of the style that can be found in Riverside as identified in the Modernism HCS. Because it is a standard construction, with no distinctive elements of style that can differentiate it from other low -form California Ranch residences in the Riverside area, it does not possess high artistic values. Finally, research did not reveal that a master architect or builder was associated with the construction of the property. As such, ASM recommends this property is not eligible under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: The residence at 4618 Jones Avenue is recommended not eligible for Criteri on 4. The house is a common property type that does not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historic research.
Lastly, the residence at 4618 Jones Avenue does not appear eligible as a contributor to a historic district as it is not within the bounds of an identified historic district in the City of Riverside and a potential historic district was not identified during the survey effort.
5.0 Evaluation of Eligibility
48 ASM Affiliates
5.1.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue
ASM carefully considered whether the residence at 4663 Hedrick Avenue is individually eligible under any CRHR criteria.
Criterion 1 : The residence at 4663 Hedrick Avenue was built in 1960 as one of many single -family residences constructed in the La Sierra/Arlington neighborhood of Riverside, then Riverside County, and therefore falls under the theme of Post -War Suburbia and the Ranch House, 1945-1965 as defined by the City of River side Modernism Historic Context Statement (Modernism HCS), prepared by the City of Riverside in 2009. The Modernism HCS identifies single-family tract houses (residential) as an associated property type to this theme. Because of the history of subdivisions of this property, and the fact that it was subdivided for housing in the 1950s in a uniform tract akin to other subdivisions in the immediate vicinity, it can be defined as tract housing during this period. The Modernism HCS states that tract houses do no t qualify for individual eligibility under Criterion 1 and cannot individually convey the theme of Post -War Suburbia and the Ranch House. Research did not reveal that any significant events related to other aspects of Riverside’s history occurred on the property during the potential period of significance. As such, ASM recommends the residence at 4663 Hedrick Avenue as not eligible under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: None of the known occupants or owners of 4663 Hedrick Avenue appear to be historically significant individuals. Donald E. Hibbard, owner of the property from 1960 to at least the late 1970s, was a floor manager and his wife, Ida M. Hibbard, was a nurse. Research did not reveal them to be historically significant individuals on the local, state, or national level. As such, ASM recommends the residence at 4663 Hedrick Avenue as not eligible under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: To evaluate the property under Criteri on 3, ASM considered whether the residence at 4663 Hedrick Avenue embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, whether it represents the work of a master, or whether it possesses high artistic values. The residence was built in the California Ranch style in 1960, and as such, falls under the theme of Post-War Suburbia and the Ranch House, the sub-theme of California Ranch, and is represented by the associated property type of Single - Family Tract Houses (residential). Under this theme and as defined by this associated property type, the Modernism HCS states that individual resources of this property type do not qualify for individual listing under Criterion C. ASM then assessed whether this property is eligible as an excellent embodiment of the California Ranch style. The Modernism HCS identifies character-defining features of the California Ranch style, of which the property retains: horizontal rambling layout, low pitched gabled roof, an attached garage, and a brick accent. It does not retain many of the character-defining features of this style. Therefore , it cannot be considered a good example of the California Ranch style, as there are other better examples of the style that can be found in Riverside as identified in the Modernism HCS. Because it is a standard construction, with no distinctive or unique elements of style that can differentiate it from other California Ranch residences in the Riverside area, it does not possess high artistic values. Finally, research did not reveal that a master architect or builder was associated with the construction of the property. As such, ASM recommends this property is not eligible under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: The residence at 4663 Hedrick Avenue is recommended not eligible for Criterion 4. The house is a common property type that does not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historic research.
Lastly, the residence at 4663 Hedrick Avenue does not appear eligible as a contributor to a historic district as it is not located within the bounds of an identified historic district in the city of Riverside and a potential historic district was not identified during the survey effort.
5.0 Evaluation of Eligibility
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 49
5.2 CITY OF RIVERSIDE EVALUATION
ASM considered whether the addresses of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, 4618 Jones Avenue, and 4663 Hedrick Avenue individually qualify as City Landmarks or Structures of Merit under the criteria stipulated in the City’s Title 20 Cultural Resources Ordinance within the Riverside Municipal Code.
5.2.1 4705 Hedrick Avenue (Smith Farm)
ASM carefully considered whether the residence at 4705 Hedrick Avenue meets the criteria to individually qualify as a City Landmark. The criteria for the local designation of City Landmark closely follow the criteria of the CRHR. Because 4705 Hedrick Avenue was found not eligible under any CRHR criteria, the residence is recommended as not eligible as a City Landmark.
ASM then carefully considered whether the residence of 4705 Hedrick Avenue meets the criteria to individually qualify as a Structure of Merit.
• 4705 Hedrick Avenue is not located at a unique location, does not retain singular physical characteristics, and is not a view that represents an established and familiar visual feature of the La Seirra Community or the City.
• As a single-story residence, constructed without reference to a specific architectural style, located in a suburban area, 4705 Hedrick Avenue is not a good example of a type of building that was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood.
• 4705 Hedrick Avenue was once connected to a 2-acre agricultural farm, and thus is connected with a business and use that was once common but is now rare. • 4705 Hedrick Avenue has not yielded nor is it likely to yield information important to prehistory.
Because 4705 Hedrick Avenue meets one of the criteria to qualify as a Structure of Merit, an assessment of integrity is warranted to its period of significance of 1944-1957 when the property served as an agricultural farm.
Location: The residence has not been moved, although all ancillary agricultural buildings that originally comprised the agricultural complex have been demolished, and the property therefore retains low integrity of location.
Setting: The setting of the residence and farm has changed drastically since its period of significance. The 2-acre farm was later subdivided and what remains is approximately an eighth of its original size. There are no longer any elements of agricultural work on the present parcel, and the area is now suburban. Therefore, the residence retains low integrity of setting.
Design: The residence was constructed without reference to architectural style as a three-room house in the center of an agricultural lot. It has experienced additions and alterations that diminish its ability to convey its original design. Additionally, all ancillary agricultural buildings that originally comprise d the agricultural complex have been demolished. As such, its design of the property does not convey its connection to agriculture, and therefore it retains low integrity of design.
Materials: There are no longer any extant materials that could convey the property’s original use as an agricultural farm. Therefore, the residence retains low integrity of materials.
Workmanship: There are no longer an extant example of workmanship that could convey the property’s original use as an agricultural farm. Therefore, the residence retains low integrity of workmanship.
5.0 Evaluation of Eligibility
50 ASM Affiliates
Feeling: There are no longer any elements that can provide a feeling of an agricultural landscape or of a farm on the present parcel, nor in the surrounding parcels that comprised the 2-acre farm. As such, the residence retains low integrity of feeling.
Association: The property was once a 2-acre farm associated with the agricultural history of Riverside, a use of the land and an agricultural business type that is now rare within the City. However, the farm was subdivided about 10 years after the construction of the residence into suburban tract housing development.
As such, the property retains low integrity of association.
Thus, 4705 Hedrick Avenue does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historical association. Because sufficient integrity is necessary to qualify the residence as a Structure of Merit, ASM recommends 4705 Hedrick Avenue is not eligible as a Structure of Merit in the City of Riverside.
5.2.2 4618 Jones Avenue
ASM considered whether the residence of 4618 Jones Avenue meets the criteria to individually qualify as a City Landmark. The criteria for the local designation of City Landmark closely follow the criteria of the CRHR. Because 4618 Jones Avenue was found not eligible under any CRHR criteria, the residence is recommended as not eligible as a City Landmark.
ASM then considered whether the residence of 4618 Jones Avenue meets the criteria to individually qualify as a Structure of Merit.
• 4618 Jones Avenue is not located at a unique location, does not retain singular physical characteristics, and is not a view that represents an established and familiar visual feature of the La Seirra Community or the City.
• As a single -story residence, constructed in a California Ranch style, located in a suburban area, 4618 Jones Avenue is not a good example of a type of building that was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood.
• 4618 Jones Avenue is not connected to a business or use that was once common but is now rare. • 4618 Jones Avenue has not yielded nor is it likely to yield information important to prehistory.
Because 4618 Jones Avenue does not meet any of the above criteria, ASM recommends 4618 Jones Avenue is not eligible as a Structure of Merit in the City of Riverside.
5.2.3 4663 Hedrick Avenue
ASM considered whether the residence of 4663 Hedrick Avenue meets the criteria to individually qualify as a City Landmark. The criteria for the local designation of City Landmark closely follow the criteria of the CRHR. Because 4663 Hedrick Avenue was found not eligible under any CRHR criteria, the residence is recommended as not eligible as a City Landmark.
ASM then carefully considered whether the residence of 4663 H edrick Avenue meets the criteria to individually qualify as a Structure of Merit.
• 4663 H edrick Avenue is not located at a unique location, does not retain singular physical characteristics, and is not a view that represents an established and familiar visual feature of the La Seirra Community or the City.
• As a single -story residence, constructed in a California Ranch style, located in a suburban area, 4663 Hedrick Avenue is not a good example of a type of building that was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood.
5.0 Evaluation of Eligibility
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 51 • 4663 Hedrick Avenue is not connected to a business or use that was once common but is now rare. • 4663 Hedrick Avenue has not yielded nor is it likely to yield information important to prehistory.
Because 4663 Hedrick Avenue does not meet any of the above criteria, ASM recommends 4663 Hedr ick Avenue is not eligible as a Structure of Merit in the City of Riverside.
5.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT HISTORICAL
RESOURCE
As the residences associated with the address es of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, 4618 Jones Avenue, and 4663 Hedrick Avenue were recommended not eligible for the CRHR nor City criteria , they do not meet the definition of a historical resource as defined by CEQA.
6.0 Management Summary and Recommendations
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 53
6.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ASM performed an architectural history and archaeological survey, evaluation, and analysis of effects as part of the Mikasa Multifamily Development Project to identify and document cultural resource sites that are eligible or are potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR or City registers for the purposes of compliance with CEQA. The current survey identified three residential buildings within the API. All three residential properties were evaluated as potential historical resources under CRHR and City of Riverside Landmark or Structure of Merit criteria. A s ASM recommends the properties of 4705 Hedrick Avenue, 4618 Jones Avenue, and 4663 Hedrick Avenue not eligible for the CRHR or the local register under any criteria, there is no potential for significant adverse impacts to built-environment historical resources.
No cultural resources ha ve been previously documented within the Project parcel, and no previously undocumented archaeological resources were encountered during the pedestrian survey. No further cultural resources study is recommended; however, the following standard measures are recommended to avoid potential impacts from the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during project -related ground- disturbing activities.
6.1 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt, and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 2009) must be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted.
6.2 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant.
The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
References
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 55
REFERENCES
Arlington Times
1953 “Zoning Plan Study to be Continued Monday Night.” March 13.
Bean, Lowell J., Jerry Schaefer, and Sylvia Brakke Vane 1995 Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnohistoric Investigations at Tahquitz Canyon, Palm Springs, California. Prepared by Cultural Systems Research for Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Bean, Lowell J., and Charles Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 570 -574. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Charkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Charkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, California.
Christenson, Lynne Newell, and Ellen L. Sweet
2008 Ranchos of San Diego County. Arcadia Publishing.
City of Riverside
1870 Plat Map. Crabtree, Robert H.
1963 City of Riverside Directory.
1971 Plumbing Permit for 4705 Hedrick Avenue.
2009 Modernism Context Statement.
n.d. Permit for 4663 Hedrick Avenue; Plot Plan.
Dumke, Glenn S.
1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino, California. On file at the San Bernardino County Museum, Archaeological Information Center, Redlands, California.
Engstrand, Iris
2005 San Diego: California’s Cornerstone. Sunbelt, San Diego.
Fagan, Brian
2003 Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants . National Book Network, Lanham, Maryland.
Galvin Preservation Associates
2006 Camp Anza/Arlanza, Historical Resource Inventory and Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Riverside.
References
56 ASM Affiliates
Goldberg, Susan K. (editor)
2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations . Volumes I -IV. Applied Earthworks. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories . Rubidoux Printing, Riverside, California.
Hamner, Viola F.
2003 Moreno Valley, California: In the Beginning. Viola Hamner, Moreno Valley, California.
Hanna, Paul Townsend
1951 The Dictionary of California Land Names. The Automobile Club of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Hinton, Leanne, and Lucille J. Watahomigie
1984 Spirit Mountain: An Anthology of Yuman Story and Song. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Historicaerials.com
Aerial photos of Hedrick and Jones Avenues, California; 1948, 1959, 1966, 1980.
JM Research and Consulting
2005 Reconnaissance Survey and Context Statement for a Portion of the Northside. Prepared for the City of Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York.
La Sierra Community Services District
1958 Permit Application for Connecting Sewer
La Sierra Land Use Maps
1964 La Sierra land use maps. Riverside Planning Department.
LSA Associates
2008 Reconnaissance Survey: The Five Points Area in La Sierra, City of Riverside, Riverside Count, California. Prepared for the City of Riverside.
Lugo, D. J. de. C.
1950 (1877) Life of a Rancher (Vida de un Ranchero). 1877 document translated in Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly Vol. 33.
McCarthy, Daniel
1982 The Coco-Maricopa Trail Network. Appendix C in Cultural Resource Inventory and National Register Assessment of the Southern California Edison Palo Verde to Devers Transmission Line Corridor (California Portion) . Westec Services, San Diego. Prepared for Southern California Edison, Rosemead, California.
1993 Prehistoric Land-Use at McCoy Spring: An Arid -Land Oasis in Eastern Riverside County, California. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of California, Riverside.
References
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project 57 McDonald, Alison Meg
1992 Indian Hill Rockshelter and Aboriginal Cultural Adaptation in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Southeastern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer
1982 Hohokam and Patayan, Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona. Academic Press, New York.
McWilliams, Carey
1973 Southern California: An Island on the Land. Peregrine Smith, Santa Barbara and Salt Lake City.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Moreno Valley Historical Society
n.d. “A Brief History of Moreno Valley, California.” Published online at http://www.morenovalleyhistoricalsociety.org/about-usalley; accessed September 6, 2023.
National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin No. 15.
Washington, D.C.
Patterson, Tom
1996 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. The Museum Press of the Museum Associates, Riverside, California.
Pruett, C. J.
1973 History of the Hole Ranch. Hobart Press, Corona, California.
Rappaport, Roy A.
1968 Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Riverside Daily Press
1945 “Dorset Strawberry Plants…” February 3.
1953 “La Sierra Girls Conducting Sale.” November 3.
1954 “Tractor…” February 6.
1955 “Rabbits with litters…” May 13.
1960 “City Sailor Returns.” May 31.
Riverside Enterprise
1950 “2 Acres…” April 14.
1957 “Lot 60x18.” July 19.
Riverside Press
1953a “Pioneering Period Over, La Sierra Comes of Age.” George Ringwald. October 2. 1953b “Grape Vines…” February 6.
Riverside Press-Enterprise
1959 Advertisement for Sale. October 25.
References
58 ASM Affiliates
1974 “La Sierra: An Area of Contrasts in Period of Transition.” Diane Milkan. August 4.
Riverside Redevelopment Agency
2005 Riverside, California Retail Opportunities.
Robinson, W. W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167-198.
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16:60-80. 1995 Site Descriptions. In Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnohistoric Investigations at Tahquitz Canyon, Palm Springs, California, by Lowell J. Bean, Jerry Schaefer, and Sylvia Brakke Vane. Cultural Systems Research, Inc. Prepared for Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Schroeder, Albert H.
1975 The Hohokam, Sinagua and the Hakataya. Imperial Valley College Occasional Paper No. 3. El Centro, California.
1979 Prehistory: Hakataya. In Southwest, pp. 100-107, edited by Alfonso Ortiz. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Scott, M. B.
1977 Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810-1968.
Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, San Bernardino es Valley Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County.
Tibbet, Casey
2005 Suburban Residential Growth in Riverside, California, 1886 to 1960. Maste r’s thesis, University of California, Riverside.
U.S. Census Bureau
1950 Seventeenth Census of the United States, Riverside County, California.
Walker, Clifford
1986 Back Door to California: The Story of the Mojave River Trail. Mojave River Valley Museum Association. On file, San Bernardino County Museum, Archaeological Information Center, Redlands.
Warren, Claude
1984 The Desert Regions. In California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339-430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Appendices
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project
APPENDICES
Appendices
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project
APPENDIX A
Records Search Result Tables
Appendices
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project
APPENDIX B
NAHC and Native American Correspondence
July 17, 2023
California Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, California 95691
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Sacred Lands File Search Request for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California
To whom it may concern,
ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) is conducting a cu ltural resources study for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project, located at 4618 Jones Avenue and 4663/4705 Hedrick Avenue in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. The proposed Project is depicted on the USGS Riverside West, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (see attached). This study is being undertaken in compliance with CEQA.
A records search has been requested from the East ern Information Center. I am writing to request a search of your Sacred Lands File and to inquire if you have registered any cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, or areas of heritage sensitivity within this proposed project area. Please send the results of this search to me at our Pasade na office, listed below, and feel free to call, write, fax (626) 793-2008, or e-mail ([email protected] ) if you have any questions. We appreciate any information you can provide on this project.
Sincerely,
Sherri Andrews, M.A., J.D., RPA
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Senior Archaeologist
Attachment:
Figure 1. Mikasa Multifamily Housing Developmen t Project area shown on the USGS Riverside West, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
July 17, 2023
NAHC
Figure 1. Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project shown on the USGS Riverside West, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
August 16, 2023
Sherri Andrews
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Andrews:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)
Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Last Updated Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians F Patricia Garcia, Director of Historic Preservation
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
(760) 699-6907 (760) 699-6919 [email protected] Cahuilla 7/20/2023 Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission
Indians
F Amanda Vance, Chairperson 84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
(760) 398-4722 (760) 369-7161 [email protected] Cahuilla Cabazon Band of Mission Indians F Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Indio, CA, 92203
(760) 342-2593 (760) 347-7880 [email protected] Cahuilla Band of Indians F BobbyRay Esparza, Cultural
Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Band of Indians F Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Band of Indians F Daniel Salgado, Chairperson 52701 CA Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 972-2568 (951) 763-2808 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Campo Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians
F Ralph Goff, Chairperson 36190 Church Road, Suite 1
Campo, CA, 91906
(619) 478-9046 (619) 478-5818 [email protected] Diegueno Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians F Robert Pinto, Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine, CA, 91901
(619) 368-4382 (619) 445-9126 [email protected] Diegueno Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians F Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
(619) 933-2200 (619) 445-9126 [email protected] Diegueno La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians
F Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
(619) 478-2113 (619) 478-2125 [email protected] Diegueno La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians
F Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
(619) 478-2113 (619) 478-2125 [email protected] Diegueno Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and
Cupeño Indians
F Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-
0189
(760) 782-0711 (760) 782-0712 Cahuilla
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation F Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA, 91905
(619) 766-4930 (619) 766-4957 Diegueno
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians
F Michael Linton, Chairperson P.O Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
(760) 782-3818 (760) 782-9092 [email protected] Diegueno Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 (951) 755-5177 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5259 (951) 572-6004 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians F Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road
Pala, CA, 92059
(760) 891-3537 [email protected] Cupeno
Luiseno
3/23/2023
Pala Band of Mission Indians F Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Road
Pala, CA, 92059
(760) 891-3515 (760) 742-3189 [email protected] Cupeno Luiseno
3/23/2023
Pechanga Band of Indians F Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Pechanga
Cultural Analyst
P.O. Box 2183
Temecula, CA, 92593
(951) 770-6313 (951) 695-1778 [email protected] Luiseno 8/2/2023 Pechanga Band of Indians F Steve Bodmer, General Counsel for Pechanga Band of Indians
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
(951) 770-6171 (951) 695-1778 [email protected] Luiseno 8/2/2023 Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 210-8739 culturalcommittee@quechantribe
.com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(760) 919-3600 executivesecretary@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 261-0254 historicpreservation@quechantri
be.com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Ramona Band of Cahuilla F Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Denise Turner Walsh, Attorney General
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 689-5727 [email protected] Luiseno 7/7/2023
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Linton, Tribal
Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 803-3548 [email protected] Luiseno 5/31/2023 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Cheryl Madrigal, Cultural Resources Manager/Tribal
Historic Preservation Office
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 648-3000 [email protected] Luiseno 5/31/2023 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Laurie Gonzalez, Tribal Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 484-4835 [email protected] Luiseno 5/31/2023 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Thomas Tortez, Chairperson P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 (760) 397-8146 thomas.tortez@torresmartinez- nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
8/16/2023
Counties
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Imperial,Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Imperial,Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Imperial,Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Imperial,Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Imperial,Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa
Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa
Barbara,Ventura
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa
Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa
Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa
Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa
Barbara,Ventura
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
08/16/2023 01:44 PM
1 of 2
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
8/16/2023
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project, Riverside C Record: PROJ-2023-004099
Report Type: AB52 GIS
Counties: Riverside
NAHC Group: All
08/16/2023 01:44 PM
2 of 2
September 1, 2023
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California
Dear Chairperson Vance,
ASM Affiliates (ASM) is conducting a cultural resources study for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project, located at 4618 Jones Avenue and 4663/4705 Hedrick Avenue in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. The proposed Project is depicted on the USGS Riverside West, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (see attached). This study is being undertaken in compliance with CEQA.
A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File has been undertaken with negative results. The NAHC response also included a list of additional contacts, upon which you appear. As a result, we would appreciate any information you may wish to share regarding Native American cultural resources located in or near the proposed Project location or concerns you may have regarding the proposed Project. This query is for informational purposes only. Any information concerning the location, identity, character, and traditional use of cultural places identified will be considered strictly confidential.
You may contact me at sandrews@ asmaffiliates.com, (626) 793 -7395, or the Pasadena office address provided below. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request.
Respectfully yours,
Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
September 1, 2023
Chairperson Vance
Map of the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project Area shown on the USGS Riverside West, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
AUGUSTINE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
84-481 Avenue 54, Coachella CA 92236
Telephone: (760) 398-4722
Fax (760) 369-7161
Tribal Chairperson: Amanda Vance
Tribal Vice-Chairperson: Victoria Martin
Tribal Secretary: Geramy Martin
Date: 09/08/2023
Dear: Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
SUBJECT: Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California
Thank you for the opportunity to offer input concerning the development of the above- identified project. We appreciate your sensitivity to the cultural resources that may be impacted by your project and the importance of these cultural resources to the Native American peoples that have occupied the land surrounding the area of your project for thousands of years.
Unfortunately, increased development and lack of sensitivity to cultural resources have resulted in many significant cultural resources being destroyed or substantially altered and impacted.
Your invitation to consult on this project is greatly appreciated.
At this time, we are unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project, however, in the event, you should discover any cultural resources during the development of this project please contact our office immediately for further evaluation.
Very truly yours,
Geramy Martin, Tribal Secretary
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
/0 /1 /2 /3 /1 /4/5/6/7 /8 /i255 /4 /1 /10 /i255/11/12/13 /14 /15 /14 /i255/11/16/17 /18 /12 /19 /14/20/12/17 /21 /i255 /22 /23 /16 /15 /12 /24 /25 /i255 /26 /27 /28 /27 /17 /23 /29/20/27/24 /18 /i255 /30 /31 /23 /32 /27 /33 /18 /34 /35 /36 /37/38/i255/40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /45 /46 /47 /42 /48 /i255 /49 /50 /40 /51 /40 /52 /53 /35 /36 /37/38/54 /55/48 /44 /55 /56 /55 /45 /47 /57 /42 /46 /57 /58 /42 /57 /46 /59 /60/41/42 /i255 /61 /62 /63/63 /62 /64 /65 /64 /66 /i255 /67 /68 /64 /65 /i255 /50 /60 /35 /41 /68 /50/69/55/42/70 /55 /i255 /71 /41 /72 /57 /45 /55 /i255 /49 /55 /73 /41 /72 /57 /45 /55/54/55/43/69/55/74 /74 /47 /45 /47 /55 /46 /57 /43 /58 /56 /41/69/59 /40 /56 /68 /75 /76 /57 /77 /77/47 /i255 /50 /42 /70 /77 /57 /78 /43 /i255 /49 /43 /55 /42 /70 /77 /57 /78 /43/54/55/43/69/55/74 /74 /47 /45 /47 /55 /46 /57 /43 /58 /56 /41/69/59 /79 /80 /81 /82 /83 /84 /85/86/i255 /35 /76 /47 /43 /i255 /57/69/55/47 /45 /i255 /47 /43 /i255 /74 /77 /41/69/i255/55 /42 /i255 /87 /88 /35 /87 /89 /90 /50 /91 /i255 /43 /57 /42 /70 /57 /77 /58 /i255 /51 /57 /i255 /43 /55 /74 /57 /i255 /55 /42 /70 /i255 /92 /57 /77 /47 /74 /93 /i255 /45 /47 /42 /72 /43 /i255 /55 /42 /70 /62 /41 /77 /i255 /55 /46 /46 /55 /56 /76/69/57/42 /46 /43 /i255 /94 /77 /47 /41 /77 /i255 /46 /41 /i255 /41 /94 /57 /42 /47 /42 /48 /58 /95/96/97 /97 /98 /99 /100 /101 /102 /103
/104 /i255 /96 /97 /106 /107 /96 /108 /102 /i255/106 /109 /97 /106 /110 /i255 /107 /111 /i255 /98 /109 /97 /i255 /112 /96 /99 /113 /114 /115 /i255/116/99/102 /98 /107 /96 /99 /106 /i255 /117 /96 /97 /102 /97 /96 /118 /114 /98 /99 /107 /100 /i255/119/111/111 /99 /106 /97 /120 /102 /i255 /106 /121 /115 /98 /121 /96 /114 /115 /i255 /96 /97 /101 /99 /102 /98 /96 /122 /i255 /96 /97 /118 /97 /114 /115 /97 /108 /i255 /98 /109 /114 /98 /i255 /98 /109 /99 /102 /123 /96 /107 /124 /97 /106 /98 /i255 /99 /102 /i255/100 /107 /98 /i255 /115 /107 /106 /114 /98 /97 /108 /i255/125/99/98 /109 /99 /100 /i255 /98 /109 /97 /i255 /112 /96 /99 /113 /97 /120 /102 /i255 /112 /96 /114 /108 /99 /98 /99 /107 /100 /114 /115 /i255/126/102/97 /i255 /104 /96 /97 /114 /127 /i255 /112 /109 /97 /96 /97 /111 /107 /96 /97 /103 /i255/125/97/i255 /108 /97 /111 /97 /96 /i255 /98 /107 /i255 /98 /109 /97 /i255 /107 /98 /109 /97 /96 /98 /96 /99 /113 /97 /102 /i255 /99 /100 /i255 /98/109 /97 /i255 /114 /96 /97 /114 /127 /i255 /112 /109 /99 /102 /i255 /115 /97 /98 /98 /97 /96 /i255 /102 /109 /114 /115 /115 /i255 /106 /107 /100 /106 /115 /121 /108 /97 /i255 /107 /121 /96 /i255 /106 /107 /100 /102 /121 /115 /98 /114 /98 /99 /107 /100 /i255 /97 /111 /111 /107 /96 /98 /102 /127 /112 /109 /114 /100 /110 /i255 /122 /107 /121/103
/i255
/129 /99 /98 /115 /114 /115 /122 /i255/130/114/108 /96 /99 /101 /114 /115 /131 /132 /133 /134 /132 /135 /136 /133 /i255 /138 /139 /140 /141 /132 /135 /142 /139 /140 /i255 /143 /144 /136 /133 /145 /140 /134 /146/147/114/108 /96 /99 /101 /114 /115/148/114/101 /121 /114 /106 /114 /115 /99 /97 /100 /98 /97 /127 /100 /97 /98 /149 /150 /i255 /151 /152 /153 /154 /155 /i255 /156 /157 /158 /159 /158 /156 /160 /161 /i255 /162 /i255/163/150/i255 /151 /152 /153 /154 /155 /i255 /160 /160 /158 /159 /153 /160 /157 /164 /161 /156 /154 /165 /i255/163/99/100 /114 /109 /i255 /166 /109 /107 /96 /97 /i255/163/96/99 /118 /97 /103 /i255 /117 /114 /115/147/i255/166 /123 /96 /99 /100 /101 /102 /103 /i255 /149 /104 /i255 /164 /157 /157 /153 /156 /i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/168 /169 /170/171/172/i255 /173/174/175/176
/177 /175 /i255 /178 /179 /180 /181 /182 /175 /i255 /183 /175 /184 /179 /180 /181 /182 /175/185/175/186/174/175/187/182/188 /175 /189 /181 /186 /190 /191 /179/174/192 /193 /194 /195 /196 /172 /i255 /197 /198 /188 /177 /175 /199/200 /i255 /201 /181 /202 /189 /181/174/203/181 /198 /i255 /204 /200 /i255 /205 /206 /205 /207 /i255 /208 /206 /209 /208 /210 /i255 /173 /211 /212 /170 /172 /i255 /213 /175 /198 /191 /188 /175 /200 /i255 /214/175 /189 /198 /188 /191 /188 /175 /i255 /215 /216 /217 /218 /219 /220 /i255 /183 /202 /175 /221 /175 /198 /191 /188 /175/185/175/221 /222 /175 /191 /175 /182 /188 /181 /176 /189 /181 /190 /176 /181 /189 /192 /223 /224 /172 /i255 /201 /225 /181 /198 /198 /188 /i255 /173 /176/177 /198 /181 /226 /186 /i255 /183 /186 /175 /176 /177 /198 /181 /226 /186/185/175/186/174/175/187/182/188 /175 /189 /181 /186 /190 /191 /179/174/192 /193 /227 /228 /229 /194 /224 /196 /172 /i255/211/188/180/175 /186 /175 /i255/211/222/182 /230 /231 /175/174/188/182 /199 /i255 /232 /179 /222 /186 /188 /176 /221 /i255 /233 /181 /234 /181 /182 /179 /202/174/181/176 /189 /i255 /214 /198 /179 /184 /181 /191 /189 /200 /i255
/235 /235 /i255 /35 /76 /47 /43 /i255 /87 /69/55 /47 /45 /i255 /56 /55/69/57/i255 /74 /77 /41/69/i255/55 /42 /i255 /87 /236 /46 /57 /77 /42 /55 /45 /i255 /75 /41 /44 /77 /56 /57 /i255 /235 /235 /233 /181 /175 /198 /i255/211/186/190 /i255 /213 /175/198 /191 /188 /175 /200 /i255
/173 /237 /175 /191 /225 /181 /177 /i255 /202 /182 /181/175 /186 /181 /i255 /238 /176 /177 /i255 /179 /222 /198 /i255 /182 /181 /237 /181 /198 /i255 /198 /181 /239 /222 /181 /186 /230 /176 /221 /i255 /199 /179 /222 /198 /i255 /191 /179/174/174/181/176 /189 /186 /200 /i255 /188 /231 /i255 /175 /176 /199 /200 /i255 /179 /176 /i255 /189 /225 /181 /i255/211/188/180 /175 /186 /175 /i255/211/222/182 /230 /231 /175/174/188/182 /199 /i255 /232 /179 /222 /186 /188 /176 /221 /i255 /233 /181 /234 /181 /182 /179 /202/174/181/176 /189 /200 /i255 /217/188 /234 /181 /198 /186 /188 /177 /181 /200 /217 /188 /234 /181 /198 /186 /188 /177 /181 /i255 /240 /179/222 /176 /189 /199 /200 /i255 /240 /175 /182 /188 /231 /179 /198 /176 /188 /175 /190 /i255 /216 /225 /175 /176 /180 /i255 /199 /179 /222 /i255 /231 /179 /198 /i255 /189 /175 /180 /188 /176 /221 /i255 /230/174/181/i255 /189 /179 /i255 /198 /181 /234 /188 /181 /226 /i255 /189 /225 /188 /186 /i255 /182 /181 /237 /181 /198 /i255 /175 /176 /177 /i255 /182 /181/241/176/221 /i255 /222 /186 /i255 /180 /176 /179 /226 /i255 /188 /231 /i255 /189 /225 /181 /198 /181 /i255 /175 /198 /181 /i255 /175 /176 /199 /i255 /188 /186 /186 /222 /181 /186/i255 /179 /198 /191 /179 /176 /191 /181 /198 /176 /186 /190
/218 /181 /186 /189 /i255 /198 /181 /221 /175 /198 /177 /186/200 /201 /225 /181 /198 /198 /188
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255 /i255
/1/2/3/4 /5 /3 /i255 /7 /8 /9 /10 /11 /3 /i255/i255 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /15 /16 /15 /17 /18 /19 /17 /i255 /14 /20 /21 /22 /18 /23 /24 /25 /24 /26 /16 /15 /17 /27 /27 /28 /29 /i255 /30 /18 /25 /31 /24 /18 /i255 /14 /32 /23 /33 /34 /i255 /35 /36 /16 /17 /23 /i255 /37 /29 /37 /i255 /35 /18 /19 /i255 /38 /16 /23 /26 /24 /34 /i255 /39 /14 /i255 /13 /i255/40/41/i255 /42 /43 /28 /44 /45 /i255 /27 /37 /46 /47 /48 /29 /37 /29 /i255 /13 /i255/49/41 /18 /50 /24 /51 /23 /25 /18/52/18/15/53/18/54 /54 /16 /25 /16 /18 /17 /23 /15 /33 /21 /24/53/i255/13 /i255/22 /17 /17 /55 /15 /41 /56 /56 /18 /15/53/18/54 /54 /16 /25 /16 /18 /17 /23 /15 /33 /21 /24 /53 /57 /58 /59 /60 /61/62/63/64 /65 /66 /67 /68 /69 /60 /70/71/58/72/71/73/74/64/75 /76 /77 /78 /79 /i255 /81 /82/83 /78 /84 /i255 /77 /83 /79 /i255 /85 /81 /81 /86 /i255 /79 /87 /83 /86 /86 /81 /88 /i255 /85 /89 /i255 /90 /86 /85 /91 /92 /86 /88 /i255 /93 /77 /78 /81 /84 /88 /94 /i255
Appendices
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project
APPENDIX C
DPR 523 Form
Appendices
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Mikasa Multifamily Housing Development Project
APPENDIX D
Selected Building Permits