4.C.1 Cultural Resources - Archaeological and Paleontological · 2016-09-07 · 4.C.1....

CityofLosAngeles 1020S.FigueroaStreetProjectSCHNo.2016021013 4.C.1‐1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. INTRODUCTION

This section evaluates potential impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources. The analysisprovided in this section is based on a cultural resource records search conducted through the CaliforniaHistorical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC); aSacredLandsFile (SLF) search commissioned through theNativeAmericanHeritageCommission (NAHC)and a paleontological resources records search commissioned from the Natural History Museum of LosAngeles County (NHMLAC). In addition, the City submitted request to consult letters to various NativeAmerican individuals andorganizations from theCity’sNAHCTribal Consultation List pursuant toAB52.TheNativeAmericanconsultationdocumentationand the resultsof thepaleontological resources recordssearch are included in Appendix D‐1, Native American Consultation Documentation and Appendix D‐2,PaleontologicalRecordsSearchResults,ofthisDraftEIR.

Archaeology is the recovery and study of material evidence of human life and culture. Over time, thismaterialevidencebecomesburied,fragmentedorscattered,orotherwisehiddenfromview.InurbanareassuchastheProjectSiteandenvirons,archaeologicalresourcesmayincludebothprehistoricremains(before1769 A.D.) and remains dating to the historical period (1769 to 1950 A.D.). Prehistoric resources caninclude village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, rock art, roasting pits/hearths,millingfeatures, rock features, and burials. Historic archaeological resources can include refuse heaps, bottledumps,ceramicscatters,privies,foundations,andburialsandaregenerallyassociatedinCaliforniawiththeSpanishMissionPeriod(after1769)tothemid‐20thcenturyoftheAmericanPeriod.

Paleontologyisabranchofgeologythatstudiesthelife formsofthepast,especiallyprehistoric life forms,throughthestudyofplantandanimalfossils.Paleontologicalresourcesrepresentalimited,non‐renewable,and impact‐sensitive scientific and educational resource. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, andleaves are found in the geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried.Paleontologicalresourcesincludenotonlytheactualfossilremains,butalsothecollectinglocalities,andthegeologicformationscontainingthoselocalities.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

a. Existing Conditions

(1) Archaeological Setting

ArchaeologistsgenerallydividethehumanhistoryofthesouthernCaliforniacoastregionintothreemajortime intervals: Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic (refer toTable4.C.1‐1, Cultural Chronology of theSouthern California Coast Region, below). Prehistory is subdivided into the Paleocoastal, Milling Stone,Intermediate,andLatePrehistoricperiods. HistoryissubdividedintotheSpanish,Mexican,andAmericanperiods.

4.C.1. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources September 2016


Table 4.C.1‐1

Cultural Chronology of the Southern California Coast Region

Date Range Period

AD1847‐1960 American

AD1822‐1847 Mexican

A.D.1769‐1822 Spanish

A.D.1542‐1769 Protohistoric

1500BPatoAD1542 LatePrehistoric

4,000‐1,500BP Intermediate

7,000‐4,000BP MillingStone

MoreThan7,000BP Paleocoastal

a BP = Before Present. By convention, “present” is set at AD 1950 Source: Adapted from Elsasser (1978) and Schuyler (1978), and modified.

The cultural chronologyof the region is a subjectof ongoing investigation. Thedatingof cultural changecontinues to undergo refinement using the results of new excavations, as does our understanding of theprocessesofculturalchange.Theneedforfurtherresearchaccountsfortheuseofsomebroaddaterangesandthepresentationofsomekeybutuntestedhypotheseswithinthefollowingdiscussion.

(a) Prehistory, Early Holocene to AD 1542

TheProjectSiteislocatedinthecoastalzoneofthenorthernmostPeninsularRangesportionoftheSouthernCalifornia Coast prehistoric culture area, which encompasses the Transverse Ranges, the northernPeninsularRanges,andthecoastalzoneandnear‐shore islandsfromPointConception inthenorthtoSanDiegoBayinthesouth.1Thesubsistenceofprehistorichunter‐gatherersinthecoastalzoneandnear‐shoreislandsdependedonmarineshellfish,fish,andmammals,supplementedwithterrestrialgameandavarietyofterrestrialplants.Furtherinland,subsistenceopportunitieswerelimitedtoterrestrialplantsandanimals.

Theprehistoric chronologyof the region is traditionallydivided intoMillingStone, IntermediateandLatePrehistoricperiods,butmorecurrentlyintoEarly,Middle,andLateHoloceneperiods.2Inrecentyears,someconclusive evidence has emerged supporting human occupation during the late Pleistocene and earliestHoloceneperiods.

1 Elsasser, Albert B., 1978, Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In Handbook of Native American Indians, Volume 8:

California,pp.37‐57,editedbyRobertF.Heizer.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.2 Altschul,J.H,and.D.R.Grenda(editors),2002,IslandersandMainlanders:PrehistoricContextfortheSouthernCaliforniaCoastand

ChannelIslands.TheUniversityofArizonaPress,Tucson.

September 2016 4.C.1. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources


SomeoftheoldesthumanskeletonsfoundintheAmericaswerediscoveredattheHavertySite,onlyabout4.5milessouthwestoftheProjectSite.3AmorerecentstudyoftheHavertyskeletonsconcludesthatatleastsomeoftheskeletonsmaybeof“terminalPleistoceneage.”4HumanbonecollectedfromSantaRosaIslandin1959hasrecentlybeendatedto10,000‐11,500BP5andiscontemporaneouswithpygmymammothbonealsofoundontheisland.6Humananddomesticdogbone,collectedin1994fromLaBreaTarPitsabout5.5milesnorthwestoftheProjectSite,hasbeendatedtothebeginningoftheHolocene,butradiocarbondatingcomplications make the date uncertain.7 The Milling Stone Horizon8 marks a shift from a subsistencestrategywhichemphasizedbiggamehunting(ofwhichlarge,flutedspearpoints,andthebonesofbutcheredlargemammalsarehallmarks)toonewhich,forinlandpopulations,emphasizedplantseeds(asrepresentedby themanos andmetates used tomill them, and carbonized seeds). This presumably adaptive changeoccurredperhapsasearlyas7,000yearsBPandnolaterthanabout4,000or3,000BP.9

MoreelaboratematerialculturerepresentsthesubsequentIntermediateperiod,about4,000or3,000BPtoabout1,500BP:baskethoppermortars,bowlmortars,pestles,broadleaf‐shapedblades,heavyside‐notchedand leaf‐shaped spearpoints, stemmedatlatl dart points, implements andornaments of bone, horn, shell,asphalt,andsteatite,andinhumationswithredocherandstonecairns.Thiselaborationofmaterialculturemayreflectburgeoningandaggregatingpopulations,andintensifiedsocialandpoliticalinteraction.

TheLatePrehistoricperiod,circa1,500BP,markstheadventofthebowandarrowasevidencedbyfinelychipped,stemless,concave‐andconvex‐basedarrowpoints,andsteatitearrowstraighteners.Alsoaddedtothematerial culturewere steatite containers and shell, bone, and stoneornaments. Inhumations includedabundantanddiversegravegoods.Thebowandarrowmayhavebeenadoptedordevelopedprimarilyasaweaponratherthanasahuntingtool,suggestingthefullrealizationofpopulationpressureandterritoriality.Laboriously manufactured and visually attractive containers and ornaments, and mortuary customsrequiring the sacrificeof considerablyvaluablematerialpossessions, suggest a fullydeveloped conceptofwealth.Warfare,territoriality,andwealthallpointtoincipienttribalism.

(b) Protohistory, AD 1542‐1769

TheProtohistoricperiodisthetimebetweeninitialcontactandsubsequent,tenuousandperipheralcontactwitha literateculture to the fullestablishmentofa local literateculture. In theSouthernCaliforniaCoastculturearea,theadventofprotohistoryismarkedbythemaritimeexplorationsofJuanRodriguezCabrilloinAD1542. During the following227years,direct contactbetween local indigenouspeople andEuropeans3 Brooks,S.,etal.,1990,TheHavertyHumanSkeletons:Morphological,Depositional,andGeochronologicalCharacteristics.Journalof

CaliforniaandGreatBasinAnthropology12(1).4 Ibid.5 Johnson,J.R.,2002,ArlingtonSpringsRevisited.InProceedingsoftheFifthCaliforniaIslandsSymposium,pp.541‐545.USDIMinerals

ManagementServiceandtheSantaBarbaraMuseumofNaturalHistory,SantaBarbara,California.6 Agenbroad,L.D.,etal.,2005,MammothsandHumansasLatePleistoceneContemporariesonSantaRosaIsland.InProceedingsof

theSixthCaliforniaIslandsSymposiumeditedbyD.GarcelonandC.Schwemm,pp.3‐7.NationalParkServiceTechnicalPublicationCHIS‐05‐01,InstituteforWildlifeStudies,Arcata,California.

7 Erlandson,J.M.1994,EarlyHunter‐GatherersoftheCaliforniaCoast.PlenumPress,NewYork.8 Wallace,W. J.,1955,ASuggestedChronology forSouthernCaliforniaCoastalArchaeology.Southwestern JournalofAnthropology

11(3):214‐230.9 Elsasser,A.B.,1978,DevelopmentofRegionalPrehistoricCultures.InHandbookofNativeAmericanIndians,Volume8:California,

pp.37‐57,editedbyRobertF.Heizer.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington.



was limited to occasional European visits by sea. Spanish exploration and the establishment of SpanishcoloniesinMexico,includingalongtheBajaCaliforniaPeninsula,affordedopportunitiesforbriefepisodesofdirect contact and for peripheral contact such as “down‐the‐line” or “neighbor‐to‐neighbor” exchange ofinformationandgoods.10

Europeanartifacts,althoughrare,arefoundinprotohistoricarchaeologicaldeposits11Glasstradebeadsarethemostcommon.Oneexample,albeitfromfarthernorthalongtheCaliforniacoast,isthatofChinaceramicfragmentsfromanAD1595SpanishshipwreckwhichwerecollectedandreworkedbytheCoastMiwokforgenerations.12 European diseases likely took a toll on indigenous populations during protohistory.13HistoricaldocumentationoflocalpeopleandeventsbeganwiththeoverlandPortoláexpeditionin1769andtheestablishmentofSpanishmissionsinthe1770s.

In1542,whenCabrillo,leaderofthefirstEuropeanexplorationoftheCaliforniacoast,sailedhisshipsintotheSanPedroandSantaMonicabays,a“greatnumberofIndianvillages”wereobserved:14

Villagesweresituatedall along thePacific shorewherever freshwaterwasavailable from flowingspringsorcañonstreams.Inthissemi‐aridlandestablishedvillageswerealmostinevitablewherevertherewasastretchoflevellandalongthebanksoftheLosAngelesRiverandthefewotherstreamswithin the county area. In themountains, the cañons usuallywere too narrow to afford sites forvillages;butsettlementsitesaretobefoundwherethecañonsopenoutandthelandlevelsoff…

ItisnotablethatthecoursesoftheriversoftheLosAngelesBasin,priortomodern,artificialchannelization,fluctuatedhorizontallyassedimentsbuiltup,orweretransportedandshiftedduetostormwatersand,attheir estuaries, tidal andwave forces. Prehistoric village site locations, hence,may correlatewith former,pluvialriverchannelsratherthanwithcurrentchannels.Priortofloodsin1824‐1825,forexample,theLosAngelesRiveremptiedintoSantaMonicaBay,notSanPedroBay.15

(c) Ethnohistory, Early History, AD 1769‐1847

TheProjectSiteislocatedintheheartofGabrielino16tribalterritorywhich,atthestartoftheSpanishPeriod,includedtheLosAngelesBasinandadjacentareas,andSanClemente,SantaCatalina,andSanNicolasislands.TheirmainlandterritoryextendedfromtheSanFernandoValleyandtheSanGabrielMountainsinthenorthtoAlisoCreekandtheSantaAnaMountainsinthesouth,andfromMountRubidouxintheeasttoTopanga

10 Lightfoot, K. G., andW. S. Simmons, 1998, Culture contact in Protohistoric California: Social Contexts of Native and European

Encounters.JournalofCaliforniaandGreatBasinAnthropology20(2):138‐170.11 King,C.,1978,ProtohistoricandHistoricArchaeology. InHandbookofNativeAmerican Indians,Volume8:California,pp.58‐68,

editedbyRobertF.Heizer.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington.12 Starr,K.,2005,California:AHistory.ModernLibrary,NewYork.13 Erlandson,J.M.,andK.Bartoy,1995, Cabrillo, the Chumash, and Old World Diseases. Journal of California and Great Basin

Anthropology17(2):153‐173.14 Walker, E. F., 1951, Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles,

California.15 Johnston,B.E.,1962,California’sGabrielinoIndians.SouthwestMuseum,LosAngeles.16 TheGabrielino(alternativelyspelledGabrieleño)aresocalledfortheiraggregationattheMissionSanGabrielArcángelduringthe

earlySpanishPeriod.Currently,manyGabrielinospreferthetermGabrielino‐Tongva,orsimplyTongva,orKizh.



Canyoninthewest.Thisterritoryincludedmountain,foothill,prairie,coastalzones,andtheislands,whichofferedavarietyofresourcestoGabrielinoforagers.

TheGabrielinoreliedongatheredwildplantsandtrappedorhuntedanimals17forfood.Acornsandpiñonnutswerefoodstaplesfoundonlyinthemountainsandfoothills.Ontheislandsandcoast,marineresources,especiallyshellfish,fish,andseamammals,greatlysupplementedterrestrialresources.Plantsalsoprovidedbuildingmaterialandrawmaterial forcraftmanufacturingsuchasbasketmaking. Animalbone,skin, fur,andfeatherswerealsousedasrawmaterialforcraftmanufacturing.Whalebonesweresometimesusedinbuildingwindbreaksandhouses. Certain typesof stonewerequarriedandasphaltum18wasgathered fortoolandcontainermanufacturing,and forwater‐proofingboats. SantaCatalina Islandprovidedabundantsteatite19whichwasvaluedasarawmaterialforbowlsandanarrayofotheritems,notablybodyornaments.

TheGabrielinointeractionspherewasconsiderablylargerthantheirtribalterritoryperse:20

With the possible exception of the Chumash [their westward neighbors], the Gabrielinowere thewealthiest,most populous, andmost powerful ethnic nationality in aboriginal southernCalifornia,their influencespreadingas farnorthas theSan JoaquinValleyYokuts,as fareastas theColoradoRiver,andsouthintoBajaCalifornia.

TheGabrielinospokeseveraldialectsofaCupanlanguageintheTakicfamily,andneighboringtribestothenorth,east,andsouthalsospokelanguagesintheTakicfamily.21

Spain established two Franciscan missions in Gabrielino tribal territory: Mission San Gabriel Arcángel,foundedin1771inthenorth‐centralLosAngelesBasin,andMissionSanFernandoReydeEspaña,founded1797 in the north‐central San Fernando Valley. Prior to aggregation at the missions, the Gabrielinosettlementpattern includedprimaryvillagesandsecondarycamps;bothvillagesandcampsweresituatedalongsidefreshwaterwaysorsprings.

FortheGabrielinoandotherNativeAmericans,Euro‐Americanexplorationandsettlement,andtheSpanishmissionsystem,meantdisease,strife,capture,displacement,andpopulationdeclinefromfirstcontactuntilthe 20th century.22 Several Gabrielino villages (Apachianga,Otsunga,Yaanga,andSonagna) are known tohave existednearor in theheartof theCityofLosAngeles; however, their exact location isunknown. AGabrielinoIndiansiteisalsoknowntohavebeenlocatedatDodgerStadiumandapproximately2.15miles

17 Plantswerenotdomesticatedanddomesticatedanimalswerelimitedtodogs.Archaeologicaldatacollectedtodatedoesnotsuggest

thatdogswereusedforfood.18 Asphaltumisatar‐likesubstancethatwashesashorefromnatural,underseaoilseepages.19 Asoftrockconsistinglargelyoftalcandalsoknownassteatite.20 Bean,L.J.,andC.R.Smith,1978,Gabrielino.In:HandbookofNorthAmericanIndians,Vol.8,California.RobertF.Heizer,ed.,pp.538‐

549.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington.21 Shipley,W.F.,1978,NativeLanguagesofCalifornia.InHandbookofNorthAmericanIndians,Vol.8,California.RobertF.Heizer,ed.,

pp.80‐90.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington.22 Castillo,E.D.,1978,TheImpactofEuro‐AmericanExplorationandSettlement.InHandbookofNativeAmericanIndians,Volume8:

California,pp.99‐127,editedbyRobertF.Heizer.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington.Costo,R.,andJ.H.Costo,(editors), 1987,TheMissionsofCalifornia:ALegacyofGenocide.IndianHistorianPress,SanFrancisco.McCawley,W.,1996,TheFirstAngelinos:TheGabrielinoIndiansofLosAngeles.MalkiMuseumPress,Banning,California.



northoftheProjectSite.Inaddition,GabrielinovillagesarealsoknowntohaveexistedthroughouttheLosAngelesBasin.ThisinformationisbasedonCabrillo’sarrivalaccountsof1542intheSanPedroBay,callingthelandthe“BayofSmokes”becausehehadseensomanyvillagefiresinland.23

During the Spanish and Mexican periods, from the time of the overland Portolá expedition until theculminationof theMexican‐AmericanWar, theProjectSitewasnot far fromthecentersofpopulationandcommerce. El Pueblo de La Reina de Los Angeles, established in 1781, was about 1.75miles northeast,MissionSanFernandowasabout19.5milestothenorthwest,andMissionSanGabrielwasabout10milestothenortheast.24LaterhistoryisdiscussedinSection4.C.2,HistoricalResources,ofthisDraftEIR.

(2) Resources Identified in the Project Vicinity

(a) Archaeological Resources

Results of the cultural resources records search indicate that a total of 45 cultural resource studies havebeen conducted within a one‐half mile radius of the Project Site. Of the 45 studies, three have beenconductedimmediatelyadjacenttotheProjectSite.OnestudyalsoappearstohavepreviouslyincludedtheProjectSite.ThisstudyconsistsofalettertoinitiateconsultationwiththeStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(datedApril12,2013)regardingtheproposedrestorationoftheHistoricStreetcarServiceinDowntownLosAngeles25.

Atotalof38resourceshavebeenrecordedwithintheone‐halfmileradiusoftheProjectSite,althoughonlyoneoftheresources,19‐003287, isanarchaeologicalresource. Thisresourceisdescribedas fivediscreterefuse scatters dating to the early 1900s that were recovered below the surface during constructionmonitoring of the Belmont New Primary Center Number 11 Project.26 Of these 38 resources, one (19‐173054) has been recorded immediately east of the Project Site’s northern boundary. This resource is abuilt environment described as the 11‐story Petroleum Building27. This resource is discussed further inSection4.C.2,HistoricResources,ofthisDraftEIR. NohistoricorprehistoricarchaeologicalresourceshavebeenrecordedwithincloseproximityorwithintheboundariesoftheProjectSite.

The1906SanbornMapshowsthatthelotsthatnowcomposetheProjectSiteanditsimmediateareaweredeveloped with single‐family homes or duplexes. Review of the 1951 Sanborn Map indicates that thenorthernportionoftheProjectSitewasdevelopedwith:agasstationwithparking,oneautostorage,fourstores,andastand‐aloneoffice. Thesouthernportionof theProjectSiteappears tohavebeendevelopedwith: one stand‐alone office, a two‐story building (first floor: office and auto parts, second floor: autorepairing), one auto trimming shop, a two‐storybuilding (Rms), one stand‐alone small structure, a repairshopandanautosaleslot.

23 TongvaPeople.com,2016,Villages,http://tongvapeople.com/villages.html,accessedJanuary12,2016.24 Beck,W.A.,andY.D.Haase,1974,HistoricalAtlasofCalifornia.UniversityofOklahomaPress,Norman.25 Rogers,Leslie,2013,InitiationofSection106ConsultationfortheRestorationofHistoricStreetcarServiceinDowntownLosAngeles,

ReportonfileatSCCIC.26 Underwood,Jackson,2004,DPRSiteFormfor19‐003287.RecordonfileattheSCCIC.27 Hatheway,RogerG.,1979,DPRSiteFormfor19‐173054,RecordonfileatSCCIC.



Results of a SLF searchdidnot indicate any recordedNativeAmerican cultural resources from theNAHCdatabase on the Project Site.28 Pursuant to NAHC suggested procedure, follow‐up letters were sent viacertifiedmailonFebruary25,2016tothefiveNativeAmericanindividualsandorganizationsidentifiedbythe NAHC as being affiliated with the vicinity of the Project Site. The letters request any additionalinformation or concerns the affiliated parties may have about any potential Native American culturalresourcesontheProjectSiteforwhichrecordsmaynotbeavailable.Todate,responseswerereceivedbytheCityofLosAngeles,DepartmentofCityPlanningfromtwoNativeAmericancontacts.ThefirstresponsewasreceivedonFebruary9,2016fromMr.AndrewSalas,ChairmanoftheGabrielinoBandofMissionIndians‐KizhNation. The lettermentioned that the entireDowntown area is “highly sensitive” and therefore theTribe requests a Tribal monitor to be present at the Project Site during all ground disturbing activitiesincluding,butnot “limited [to]pavement removal,pot‐holingorauguring,boring,grading,excavationandtrenching”.ThesecondresponseletterwasreceivedonMarch8,2016fromMr.JosephOntiveros,CulturalResourcesDirectorfromtheSobobaBandofLuiseñoIndians.Mr.OntiverosmentionedthattheBanddeferstotheGabrielino,astheyareclosertotheProjectSite.

(b) Paleontological Resources

Results of the paleontological resources records search indicate that the Project Site has surface depositscomposedofyoungerQuaternaryAlluvium(derivedfromthefloodplainofLosAngelesRiver)whicharenotknown for containing significant fossil vertebrates in the upper layers. However, in the older underlyinglayers of olderQuaternaryAlluviumare conducive to retainingpaleontological resources. Moreover, it ispossible that the Project Site could contain deposits of the Fernando and Puente Formations as thesegeologic unitswere encountered just north of theProject Site. The closest vertebrate fossil locality fromolderQuaternarydepositsisLACM1755(locatedapproximately.35milessoutheastoftheprojectsiteandneartheintersectionofHillStreetand12thStreet)whichproducedafossilspecimenofahorseatadepthof43feetbelowsurface.FossillocalityLACM6204(locatedapproximately2.65milesnorthwestoftheprojectsite and near the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Serrano Avenue) yielded a fossil specimen ofmammothatanunknowndepthwhileLACM1893[situated2.75milessouthwestoftheprojectsiteandneartheSantaMonicaFreeway(I‐10)]producedfossilspecimensofmammothandbison. Four fossil localitiesfromtheFernandoFormation,LACM3868,LACM6971,LACM4726andLACM7730(locatedbetween.50toabout1.15milesnorthof theprojectsite)havealsoyieldedcombined fauna including fossil specimensofstingray, eagle ray, skate, chimaerid, bull shark, dusky shark, hammerhead shark, white sharks, herring,hake,sheepshead,mackerel,bird,rorqualbaleenwhale,andtoothedwhale.ThreeotherlocalitiesfromthePuente Formation are also located approximately 1 to 1.5 miles northwest of the Project Site that haveyielded fossil fish specimens of deep sea smelt, needlefishes,moras, lanternfishes,mackerels, and a fossilwhale rib fragment at depths between 40 and 80 feet below surface. LACM 5961 also from the PuenteFormationwasfoundduringexcavationfortheMetrorailstation(approximately1.15milesnortheastoftheProjectSite)andproducedspecimensofthefossilbristlemouthfish.

b. Regulatory Framework

Numerous laws and regulations require State and local agencies to consider the effects of a Project onculturalresources.Theselawsandregulationsstipulateaprocessforcompliance,definetheresponsibilities28 Request forSacredLandsFileSearchandNativeAmericanContactList for the1020S.FigueroaStreetProject in theCityofLos

Angeles, California. Prepared by Gayle Totton, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, California Native American HeritageCommission,February10,2016.



ofthevariousagenciesproposingtheaction,andproscribetherelationshipamongotherinvolvedagencies.Adescriptionoftheapplicablelawsandregulationsisbelow.

(1) State Level


(i) California Register of Historical Resources

CreatedbyAssemblyBill2881,whichwassignedintolawonSeptember27,1992,theCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources(CaliforniaRegister)is“anauthoritativelistingandguidetobeusedbystateandlocalagencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and toindicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantialadversechange.”29 Thecriteria foreligibility for theCaliforniaRegisterarebaseduponNationalRegistercriteria.30 Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the CaliforniaRegister,includingCaliforniapropertiesformallydeterminedeligiblefor,orlistedin,theNationalRegister.31

TobeeligiblefortheCaliforniaRegister,apre‐historicorhistoricpropertymustbesignificantatthelocal,state,and/orfederallevelunderoneormoreofthefollowingcriteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns ofCalifornia’shistoryandculturalheritage;

2. Isassociatedwiththelivesofpersonsimportantinourpast;

3. Embodies thedistinctivecharacteristicsofa type,period,region,ormethodofconstruction,orrepresentstheworkofanimportantcreativeindividual,orpossesseshighartisticvalues;or

4. Hasyielded,ormaybelikelytoyield,informationimportantinprehistoryorhistory.

AresourceeligiblefortheCaliforniaRegistermustmeetoneofthecriteriaofsignificancedescribedaboveand retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historicalresourceandtoconveythereasonforitssignificance.ItispossiblethatahistoricresourcemaynotretainsufficientintegritytomeetthecriteriaforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,butitmaystillbeeligibleforlistingintheCaliforniaRegister.

Archaeologicalresources,incontrasttobuiltenvironmenthistoricperiodresources,aremostofteneligibleunderCriterion4fortheir“informationpotential.”ForpropertieseligibleunderCriterion4,lessattentionisgiventotheiroverallcondition,thaniftheywerebeingconsideredunderCriteria1,2,or3. Archeologicalsites,inparticular,donotexisttodayexactlyastheywereformedastherearealwaysculturalandnaturalprocesses that alter the depositedmaterials and their spatial relationships. For properties eligible under

29 CaliforniaPublicResourcesCodeSection5024.1(a).30 CaliforniaPublicResourcesCodeSection5024.1(b).31 CaliforniaPublicResourcesCodeSection5024.1(d).



Criterion4, integrity isbasedupontheproperty'spotentialtoyieldspecificdatathataddressesimportantresearchquestions.32

Additionally, the California Register includes resources that are listed automatically and those that arenominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automaticallyincludesthefollowing:

CaliforniapropertieslistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesandthoseformallyDeterminedEligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.

CaliforniaRegisteredHistoricalLandmarksfromNo.770onward.

ThoseCalifornia Points ofHistorical Interest that have been evaluatedby theOHP andhavebeenrecommendedtotheStateHistoricalCommissionforinclusionontheCaliforniaRegister.

ResourcesthatmaybenominatedtotheCaliforniaRegisterinclude:

HistoricalresourceswithasignificanceratingofCategory3through5.33

Individualhistoricalresources.

Historicalresourcescontributingtohistoricdistricts.

Historicalresourcesdesignatedorlistedaslocallandmarks,ordesignatedunderanylocalordinance,suchasanhistoricpreservationoverlayzone.

(ii) California Environmental Quality Act

TheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)istheprincipalstatutegoverningenvironmentalreviewofprojectsoccurringintheState.CEQArequiresleadagenciestodetermineifaproposedprojectwouldhaveasignificanteffectonarchaeologicalresources(PublicResourcesCodeSections21000etseq.).AsdefinedinSection 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeologicalartifact,object,orsite,aboutwhichitcanbeclearlydemonstratedthatwithoutmerelyaddingtothecurrentbodyofknowledge,andthereisahighprobabilitythatitmeetsanyofthefollowingcriteria:

Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is ademonstrablepublicinterestinthatinformation.

Hasaspecialandparticularqualitysuchasbeingtheoldestofitstypeorthebestavailableexampleofitstype.

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

32 NationalRegisterBulletin15,page46.33 Those properties identified as eligible for listing in theNationalRegister ofHistoricPlaces, theCaliforniaRegister ofHistorical

Resources,and/oralocaljurisdictionregister.



Inaddition,StateCEQAGuidelines§15064.5broadenstheapproachofclassifyingarchaeologicalresourcesbyusing the term“historical resource” insteadof “uniquearchaeological resource.” TheGuidelines recognizethatcertainarchaeologicalresourcesmayalsohavesignificance. TheGuidelinesrecognizethatahistoricalresourceincludes:(1)aresourceintheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources;(2)aresourceincludedina local registerofhistorical resources,asdefined inPublicResourcesCode§5020.1 (k)or identifiedassignificant inahistoricalresourcesurveymeetingtherequirementsofPublicResourcesCode§5024.1(g);and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agencydeterminestobehistoricallysignificantorsignificantinthearchitectural,engineering,scientific,economic,agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency,providedtheleadagency’sdeterminationissupportedbysubstantialevidenceinlightofthewholerecord.

Ifaleadagencydeterminesthatanarchaeologicalsiteisahistoricalresource,theprovisionsof§21084.1ofthePublicResourcesCodeand§15064.5oftheGuidelinesapply.IfanarchaeologicalsitedoesnotmeetthecriteriaforahistoricalresourcecontainedintheGuidelines,thenthesiteistobetreatedinaccordancewiththe provisions of Public Resources Code §21083.2,which refer to a unique archaeological resource. TheGuidelinesnotethatifanarchaeologicalresourceisneitherauniquearchaeologicalnorahistoricalresource,theeffectsoftheprojectonthoseresourcesshallnotbeconsideredasignificanteffectontheenvironment.(§15064.5(c)(4)).

(iii) Assembly Bill 52

AssemblyBill52(AB52)isrecentlegislationthatamendsCEQAandrequiresleadagenciestoconsultwithCalifornia Native American tribes to identity, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to a new type of culturalresource called “tribal cultural resources”, if the tribes formally request consultation. A tribal culturalresourceisanyofthefollowing:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to aCaliforniaNativeAmericantribethatareeitherofthefollowing:

o IncludedordeterminedtobeeligibleforinclusionintheCaliforniaRegister.

o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section5020.1.

Aresourcedeterminedbytheleadagency,initsdiscretionandsupportedbysubstantialevidence,tobe significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of California Public Resources CodeSection5024.1.Inapplyingthecriteriasetforthinsubdivision(c)ofSection5024.1forthepurposesofthisparagraph,theleadagencyshallconsiderthesignificanceoftheresourcetoaCaliforniaNativeAmericantribe.

Aprojectwithaneffect thatmaycauseasubstantialadversechange in thesignificanceofa tribalculturalresourceisaprojectthatmayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment.

(iii) California Health and Safety Code

CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCodesections7050.5,7051,and7054addresstheillegalityofinterferencewithhumanburial remains (exceptasallowedunderapplicablesectionsof thePublicResourceCode),and thedispositionofNativeAmericanburialsinarchaeologicalsites.Theseregulationsprotectsuchremainsfromdisturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establish procedures to be implemented ifNative



American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including treatment of theremainspriorto,during,andafterevaluation,andreburialprocedures.


(i) California Environmental Quality Act

Paleontological resources are afforded protection by environmental legislation set forth under CEQA.Appendix G (part V) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance relative to significant impacts onpaleontological resources, stating that “a project will normally result in a significant impact on theenvironment if it will …disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological resource or site or unique geologicfeature.”TheGuidelinesdonotdefine“directlyorindirectlydestroy,”butitcanbereasonablyinterpretedasthe physical damage, alteration, disturbance, or destruction of a paleontological resource. TheGuidelinesalsodonotdefinethecriteriaorprocesstodeterminewhetherapaleontologicalresource issignificantor“unique.”

(ii) Other State Regulations

CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Division3,Chapter1,Section4307states,partthat“nopersonshalldestroy,disturb,mutilateorremove...paleontologicalfeatures.”CaliforniaPublicResourcesCodeSection5097.5 protects cultural resources on public lands and specifies that any unauthorized removal ofpaleontological remains is a misdemeanor. California Penal Code Section 622½ states that damage orremoval of archaeological or historical resources (which may be interpreted to include paleontologicalresources)onpublicorprivatelandsconstitutesamisdemeanor.

(2) Local Level – City of Los Angeles


(i) General Plan Conservation Element

TheCityofLosAngeles’sGeneralPlanConservationElement (ConservationElement),Chapter II,Section3,defers to theStateCEQAGuidelines inregardto the identification,evaluation,andmitigationof impacts toarchaeological resources. The Conservation Element states that the City has primary responsibility forprotectingsignificantarchaeologicalresources.Furthermore,ifitisdeterminedthatadevelopmentprojectmay disrupt or damage an archaeological site, the project is required to providemitigationmeasures toprotect the site or enable study and documentation of the site, including funding of the study by theApplicant. The City's environmental guidelines require the Applicant to secure services of a qualifiedarchaeologisttomonitorexcavationsorothersubsurfaceactivitiesassociatedwithadevelopmentprojectinwhichalloraportionisdeemedtobeofarchaeologicalsignificance.Discoveryofarchaeologicalmaterialsmaytemporarilyhalttheprojectuntilthesitehasbeenassessed,potentialimpactsevaluatedand,ifdeemedappropriate,theresourcesprotected,documented,and/orremoved. 34

The Conservations Element lists the following objective and policy for archaeological and paleontologicalresources:

34 CityofLosAngelesGeneralPlanConservationElement,ChapterII,Section3,adoptedSeptember2001,pagesII‐3throughII‐6.



o Objective: Protect the City’s archaeological and paleontological resources for historical,cultural,research,and/oreducationalpurposes.

Policy: Continue to identify and protect significant archaeological and paleontologicalsites and/or resources known to exist or that are identified during land development,demolitionorpropertymodificationactivities.


(i) General Plan Conservation Element

The City’s General Plan Conservation Element, Chapter II, Section 3,35 protects endangered paleontologicsitesbyiteratingCEQAmandates.TheConservationElementstatesthattheCityhasprimaryresponsibilitytoprotect significantpaleontological resources. TheConservationElement indicates that apaleontologistmust assess a project’s potential impact to a paleontologic site and should determine the appropriatemitigation if a paleontologic site will be destroyed. If significant paleontologic resources are uncoveredduringaproject’sexecution,adesignatedpaleontologistmustbeallowedtoorderassessment,removal,orprotectionoftheresource.

To protect paleontological resources and pursuant to CEQA, if a land development project is within apotentiallysignificantpaleontologicalarea,thedeveloperisrequiredtocontactaqualifiedpaleontologisttoarrange for assessmentof thepotential impact andmitigationofpotentialdisruptionofordamage to thesite. If significantpaleontological resources areuncoveredduringproject execution, authorities are tobenotified and designated qualified paleontologist may order excavations stopped, within reasonable timelimits, to enable assessment, removal, or protection of the resources. For the City and County, the LosAngeles County Museum of Natural History, in particular the George C. Page Museum, is the acceptedauthorityconcerningpaleontologicalresources.

(ii) Society for Vertebrate Paleontology

TheSocietyofVertebratePaleontology(SVP)hasestablishedguidelines for the identification,assessment,andmitigationofadverseimpactsonnonrenewablepaleontologicalresources(SVP,1995) Mostpracticingpaleontologists in the nation adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoringrequirements outlined in these guidelines, which were approved through a consensus of professionalpaleontologistsandarethestandard.TheSVPoutlinedcriteriaforscreeningthepaleontologicalpotentialofrock units (High, Undetermined, Low) and established assessment andmitigation procedures tailored tosuchpotential.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

a. Methodology

(1) Archaeological Resources

TheanalysisofarchaeologicalresourcesisbasedonculturalrecordssearchesandanSLFsearchconductedby theNAHC. Anassessmentof theProject Site’s existing conditions indicatednoexposednativeground35 CityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan,ConservationElement,ChapterII,Section3,adoptedSeptember2001,pagesII‐5andII‐6.



surface, which prevents any detection of typical surface clues regarding the potential presence ofarcheological resources. Therefore, no archaeological field survey was undertaken. To identify potentialpresent cultural resources, a cultural resource records search was conducted at the CHRIS‐SCCIC atCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton,36andincludedareviewofallrecordedarchaeologicalresourceswithina one‐half mile radius of the Project Site, as well as a review of cultural resource reports and historictopographicmaps on file. Reviews of the following resourceswere also performed: California Points ofHistorical Interest (CPHI),CaliforniaHistoricalLandmarks (CHL), theCaliforniaRegister,and theNationalRegister.Therecordssearchindicateswhetherpreviouslyrecordedarchaeologicalresourcesexistwithinornear theProject Site. Thepotential for theProject Site to contain archaeological resourceswas assessedbasedonthefindingsoftherecordssearch(i.e.,presenceandproximityofknownresources),historiclanduse,andtheproposedexcavationparametersfortheProject.

Inaddition,anSLFsearchwasconductedbytheNAHC,with follow‐upconsultationwithNativeAmericangroupsand/orindividualsidentifiedbytheNAHCashavingaffiliationwiththeProjectSitevicinity.37 EachNativeAmericangroupand/orindividuallistedwassentaProjectnotificationletterandmapandwasaskedto communicate any knowledge regarding prehistoric orNativeAmerican resources (archaeological sites,sacred lands, or artifacts) located within the Project Site or its vicinity. The letter included the Projectlocationandabriefdescription.ResultsoftheSLFsearchandareusedtoidentifythelocationofadditionalprehistoric or Native American archaeological resources for which records may not be available at theCHRIS‐SCCIC.

(2) Paleontological Resources

Theanalysisofpaleontologicalresourcesisbasedonareviewoffossil,soilandrockinventoriescompiled,synthesized,andevaluatedbythestaffoftheVertebratePaleontologySectionoftheNHMLAC.BecausetheProject Site is entirely developed or paved and lacks any visible native ground surface or potential forsurfaceexposureofresources,nopaleontologicalfieldsurveywasundertaken.

Theobjectiveof therecordsearchwastodeterminethegeological formationsunderlyingtheProjectSite,whetheranypaleontologicallocalitieshavepreviouslybeenidentifiedwithintheProjectSiteorinthesameorsimilarformationsneartheProjectSite,andthepotentialforexcavationsassociatedwiththeProjectSitetoencounterpaleontologicalresources.ThesemethodsareconsistentwiththeSVPguidelinesforassessingtheimportanceofpaleontologicalresourcesinareasofpotentialenvironmentaleffect.

Aswitharchaeologicalresources,sincenoknownresourceswereidentifiedwithintheProjectSitefromtheNHMLAC search, this did not preclude the existence of previously unknown buried resources within theProjectSitethatmaybeimpactedduringconstructionoftheProject.TheCityhasdeterminedthatthereispotential for grounddisturbance associatedwith theProject to encounterburied resources, basedon theresultsof therecordsearches,depthofnativeversus fillsoils, landusehistory,pastdisturbances,andtheproposedexcavationparametersfortheProject.

36 PCRServices,December3,2015.37 PCRServices,February8,2016andFebruary25,2016,respectively.



(3) Tribal Cultural Resources

Theanalysisof tribalculturalresources isbasedonProjectnotificationandrequest toconsult letters thatthe City submitted to eight (8) Native American individuals and organizations on the City’s AB 52NotificationListonMarch24,2016.TheserequesttoconsultlettersandtheresponsestothemareprovidedinAppendixD‐1ofthisDraftEIR.

b. Thresholds of Significance

AsdiscussedintheInitialStudy,providedinAppendixAofthisDraftEIR,nofurtheranalysisonthetopicofhumanremainsintheEIRsectionisrequiredandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.AsdiscussedintheInitialStudy,humanremainsthatareinadvertentlyuncoveredduringexcavationactivitiesshallbetreatedinaccordancewith StateHealth and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.98, and CEQAGuidelinesSection15064.5(e).


AppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelinesprovidesthefollowingscreeningquestiontoaddressimpactswithregardtoarchaeologicalresources:

Wouldtheproject:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant toSection15064.5?

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide incorporates the screening questions contained in Appendix G. Inaccordance with the City’s thresholds, the Project would normally have a significant impact uponarchaeologicalresourcesifitcoulddisturb,damage,ordegradeanarchaeologicalresourceoritssettingthatisfoundtobeimportantunderCEQAbecauseit:

IsassociatedwithaneventorpersonofrecognizedimportanceinCaliforniaorAmericanprehistoryorofrecognizedscientificimportanceinprehistory;

Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressingscientificallyconsequentialandreasonablearchaeologicalresearchquestions;

Hasaspecialorparticularquality, suchas theoldest,best, largest,or lastsurvivingexampleof itskind;

Isatleast100yearsoldandpossessessubstantialstratigraphicintegrity;or

Involvesimportantresearchquestionsthathistoricalresearchhasshowncanbeansweredonlywitharchaeologicalmethods.

Basedonthesefactors,theProjectwouldhaveasignificantimpactonarchaeologicalresourcesifit:

ARCH‐1 Substantially disturbs, damages, or degrades an archaeological resource or its setting in amannerthatwouldchangethesignificanceoftheresourcepursuanttoSection15064.5oftheStateCEQAGuidelines.




AppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelinesprovidesthefollowingscreeningquestiontoaddressimpactswithregardtopaleontologicalresources:

Wouldtheproject:

Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?

TheL.A.CEQAThresholdsGuideincorporatesthescreeningquestioncontainedinAppendixG.InaccordancewiththeCity’sthresholds,thedeterminationofsignificanceforimpactsonpaleontologicalresourcesshallbemadeonacase‐by‐casebasis,consideringthefollowingfactors:

Whether,orthedegreetowhich,theprojectmayresultinthepermanentlossof,orlossofaccessto,apaleontologicalresource;and

Whetherthepaleontologicalresourceisofregionalorstatewidesignificance.

Basedonthesefactors,theProjectwouldhaveasignificantimpactonpaleontologicalresourcesifit:

PALEO‐1 Resultsinthepermanentlossof,orlossofaccessto,auniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteofregionalorStatewidesignificance,orauniquegeologicfeature.


The OPR has recommended the following screening question to address impacts with regard to tribalculturalresources:

Wouldtheproject:

CauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofatribalculturalresourceasdefinedinPublicResourcesCodeSection21074?

Basedonthesefactors,theProjectwouldhaveasignificantimpactontribalculturalresourcesifit:

TCR‐1 Substantially disturbs, damages, or degrades a tribal cultural resource or its setting in amanner thatwould change the significance of the resource as defined in Public ResourcesCodeSection21074.

c. Project Characteristics

TheProjectproposestodemolishtheLuxeCityCenterHotel(LuxeHotel),andconstructanewmixed‐useprojectincludinghotel,residential,andcommercialdevelopment.ExcavationsfortheProjectwouldconsistof the construction of up to four subterranean parking levels and other foundation elements that wouldextenddownto45to50feetbelowtheexistinggrade.



d. Project Impacts


Threshold ARCH‐1: The Project would result in a significant archaeological resources impact if itsubstantiallydisturbs,damages,ordegradesanarchaeologicalresourceoritssettinginamannerthatwouldchangethesignificanceoftheresourcepursuanttoSection15064.5oftheStateCEQAGuidelines.

ImpactStatementARCH‐1: Impactsonburiedhistoricarchaeologicalresourcesareconsideredpotentiallysignificant,as theProjectwould involve excavations into soilswith thepotential to retain resourcesassociatedwiththeformerturnofthe20thcenturyresidentialusesontheProjectSite.

Asdiscussedearlier, resultsof theSanbornMapreviewrevealed that themajorityof theProjectSitewasdevelopedwithsingle‐familyhomes,duplexes,andotherresidentialuses in1906,whichwere laterrazed.Prior to the1964constructionof theexistinghotelbuilding, theProjectSitewasdevelopedwithmultiplecar‐related uses including large public car garages (1919 and 1920), automobile showrooms and repairfacilities,andgasolineservicestations(1939and1965).Excavationsassociatedwiththeconstructionoftheexisting Luxe Hotel building has likely displaced buried historic archaeological resources (such as privyfeaturesorrefusepits/dumps)associatedwiththepriorresidentialusesattheProjectSitethataredepictedon the1906SanbornMap. However, it ispossible that theburiedhistoricalarchaeological resourcesstillexist underneath the areas of theProject Site, currently developed as surface parking lots, as these areaswouldnothavebeensubjectedtodeepexcavationsthatwouldhavedisplacedordestroyedresourcesthatmaybepresent.ThispotentialwasreflectedinarecentdowntownprojectthatexhibitedasimilarlandusehistoryastheProjectSite. Specifically,duringarchaeologicalconstructionmonitoringservicesofamixed‐useprojectintheArtsDistrict(locatedapproximatelyonemileeastoftheProjectSite)in2013‐2014,PCRencountered multiple historic period refuse deposits associated with former turn of the 20th centuryresidential uses in areas that were later developed with surface parking lots. Also, as discussed above,resource19‐003287 (historic refuse scatter)was recoveredbetween3 to5 feetbelow the surfaceduringarchaeological construction monitoring of a project located a half‐mile to the west of the Project Site.Therefore, the sequence of development at the Project Site has likely allowed preservation of buriedarchaeological resources associated with previous occupations. Because the Project would includeconstructionexcavationsthatcouldencounterthesehistoricalarchaeologicalresources, impactsonburiedhistoricarchaeologicalresourcesareconsideredpotentiallysignificant.

Noknownprehistoricarchaeologicalresourcesareknowntobe locatednearorunder theexistingpavingbased on the records search results acquired from SCCIC. However, Gabrielino villages (Apachianga,Otsunga,Yaanga,andSonagna) are known tohave existed in theheartof ornear theCity of LosAngeles(althoughtheirexactlocationisunknown),andarchaeologicalresourcesmaybepresent. TheSLFrecordssearchthroughtheNAHCyieldednegativeresultsforNativeAmericanresourcesfromtheNAHCdatabaseattheProject Site. TheCity received twoNativeAmerican letters from theSobobaBandofLuiseño Indians(Mr. Joseph Ontiveros onMarch 3, 2016) and the Gabrieleno Band ofMission Indians ‐ KizhNation (Mr.AndrewSalas on February9, 2016) regarding theproject. Mr.Ontiveros indicated that the SobobaBanddeferstotheGabrieleno.Mr.SalasindicatedthatthetribehasconcernsregardingtheProject’spotentialtoimpactculturalresourcesbecausetheentireDowntownareaishighlysensitive. Therefore,theGabrielenoBand requests that a Native American monitor be on‐site during any type of ground disturbance at the



ProjectSite. Accordingly,thepotentialfordamagingordestroyinguniquearchaeologicalresourcesduringexcavationintoundisturbednativesoilsisconsideredapotentiallysignificantimpact.


ThresholdPALEO‐1: TheProjectwouldresultinasignificantpaleontologicalresourcesimpactifitresultsin the permanent loss of, or loss of access to, a unique paleontological resource or site of regional orStatewidesignificance,orauniquegeologicfeature.

ImpactStatementPALEO‐1: Although the Project Site has been previously disturbed through gradingand/ordevelopmentfortheconstructionoftheLuxeCityCenterHotel,itispossiblethatProjectgradingand excavationmay encounter native soil/sediment associatedwith olderQuaternary Alluvium, theFernandoFormation,andthePuenteFormationdepositsthathavehighpotentialforcontainingburiedpaleontological resources. As a result, the potential exists for construction to directly or indirectlydestroyburieduniquepaleontologicalresourcesorsitesoruniquegeologicfeatures.Impactstoburiedpaleontologicalresourcesareconsideredpotentiallysignificant.

Severalfossiliferousgeologicalunitsorformationsareeitherknown(olderQuaternaryalluvium)orlikelytoexist (Fernando and Puente Formations) beneath the Project Site. Although no known paleontologicalresourceshavebeenrecordedwithintheProjectSite,numerousfossillocalitieshavebeenrecoverednearbyinthesamedepositsthatunderlietheProjectSite.TheProjectwouldincludeexcavationtopotentialdepthsof45and50feetbelowthesurfaceforthesubterraneanparkinglevelsandfoundationelements.Asaresult,thedeepexcavationsforthesubterraneanparkinglevelshaveahighpotentialforencounteringnativesoilsthathavethepotentialtoyieldpaleontologicalresources.ThispotentialfortheProjecttodestroyorcreatealoss of access to paleontological resources of regional or stateside significance, if present, is considered apotentiallysignificantimpact.


ThresholdTCR‐1:TheProjectwouldresultinasignificanttribalculturalresourcesimpactifitsubstantiallydisturbs,damages,ordegradesa tribalcultural resourceor itssetting inamanner thatwouldchange thesignificanceoftheresourceasdefinedinPublicResourcesCodeSection21074.

ImpactStatementTCR‐1: TheProjectwouldnotresultinasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofatribalculturalresourceasdefinedinPublicResourcesCodeSection21074.

Asof June29,2016, theCityhasreceivedoneresponse to theirAB52request toconsult letters fromtheNativeAmericancontacts.ThisresponsewasreceivedbytheCityfromMr.JosephOntiverosoftheSobobaBandofLuiseñoIndiansinaletterdatedApril19,2016(receivedbytheCityonApril26,2016).Inhisletter,Mr.Ontiverosstatedthat:1)theSobobaBandhadnospecificconcernsregardingknownculturalresourceswithin the Project Site, 2) the Soboba Band requests that a Native Americanmonitor be present duringfuture ground‐disturbing activities, and 3) the Soboba Band defers consultation to Gabrielino tribalconsultantswhoarelocatedincloserproximitytotheProjectSitethantheSoboba.Mr.Ontiveros;however,didnotrequestformalconsultationwiththeCityinregardstotheidentificationoftribalculturalresourcespursuanttoAB52.Mr.Ontiveros’letterisprovidedinAppendixD‐1ofthisDraftEIR.AsaresultoftheAB



52consultations,noevidencehasbeenpresentedthattribalculturalresourcesexistat theprojectsite.Assuch,theProjectwouldnotcauseanimpacttoknowntribalculturalresources.

e. Cumulative Impacts


ManyofthecumulativeprojectsidentifiedinChapter3,GeneralDescriptionofEnvironmentalSetting,wouldrequire excavation that couldpotentially expose or damagepotential archaeological resources. However,these cumulative projects are located in developed urban areas with sites that have been previouslydisturbed, and the potential to encounter and cause a significant impact on surface resources is unlikely.Further, in association with CEQA review, and depending on the depth of excavation and sensitivity ofrespective sites, mitigation measures would be required for projects that have the potential to causesignificant impacts to undiscovered resources. Implementation of suchmitigationmeasureswould avoidsignificant impacts. State requirements regarding impacts on archaeological resources and CEQAcompliance require monitoring of excavation activities and treatment and/or curation of discoveredresources where appropriate (CEQA Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). Suchstandardconstructionpractices,particularlyoverarangeofprojectsites,provide forprotection,recoveryand curation of discovered resources and preserve their contributions to the knowledge base of pastpopulationactivityinthearea.ForthoseprojectsnotsubjecttoCEQAreview,therewouldbesomepotentialfor impacts on archaeological resources in the event there are excavations that extend into native soils.Therefore,thecumulativeeffectsfromcumulativeprojectsareconsideredsignificant.

The Project is required to comply with the mitigation measures MM‐ARCH‐1 through MM‐ARCH‐3 andregulationscitedaboveintheeventresourcesarefound,thusensuringproperidentification,treatmentandpreservation of any resources, and reducing significant impacts on archaeological resources to less thansignificant levels. These regulations require excavation monitoring, and treatment and curation ofdiscoveries. Therefore, to the extent impacts on archaeological resources from cumulative projects mayoccur, further contribution from the Projectwould not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulativeimpactsoftheProjectwouldbelessthansignificant.


ThecumulativeprojectswouldincludethosewiththepotentialtodisturbgeologicalunitsthatareconducivetoretainingpaleontologicalresourcessuchasolderQuaternaryalluvium,FernandoFormationandPuenteFormation deposits. Generally, projectswith the potential for substantial excavationwould be subject toenvironmentalreview. If thepotential forsignificant impactsonpaleontologicalresourceswereidentifiedgiven the site characteristics and development program of the cumulative project, mitigation measuressimilar to those for the Project would be implemented. These measures would include a monitoringprogramandtreatment/curationofdiscoveredfossils.Implementationofthesemeasureswouldreducethepotential for adverse effects on fossil resources individually and cumulatively; and will preserve andmaximize the potential of these resources to contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. For thoseprojectsnotsubjecttoCEQAreview,therewouldbesomepotentialforimpactsonpaleontologicalresourcesin the event there are excavations that extend into geological units that are conducive to retainingpaleontologicalresources.



TheProject is required to complywith themitigationmeasuresMM‐PALEO‐1 throughMM‐PALEO‐4, thusavoiding significant impacts on paleontological resources. Thesemitigationmeasures require excavationmonitoring,andtreatmentandcurationofdiscoveries. Therefore,totheextentimpactsonpaleontologicalresources from cumulative projects may occur, contribution from the Project would not be cumulativelyconsiderableandcumulativeimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.


Manyof thecumulativeprojects identifiedwouldrequireredevelopmentofproperties inurbanareasthatare currently developed and have been previously disturbed, and the potential to encounter and cause asignificantimpactontribalculturalresourcesisunlikely. Further,inassociationwithCEQAreview,futureAB 52 consultations with Native American tribes in order to identify tribal cultural resources would berequired for projects that have the potential to cause significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.Therefore, to the extent impacts on tribal cultural resources from cumulative projects may occur,contribution from the Projectwould not be cumulatively considerable and therewould be no cumulativeimpact.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES

a. Archaeological Resources

Thefollowingmitigationmeasuresarerequiredtoreducepotentiallysignificantimpactsonarchaeologicalresourcestoalessthansignificantlevel:

ThefollowingmitigationmeasuresarerequiredtoreduceImpactARCH‐1toalessthansignificantlevel.

MM‐ARCH‐1:The Applicant shall retain a qualified Archaeologistwhomeets the Secretary of theInterior’sProfessionalQualificationsStandardsforanarchaeologist,whoshallsuperviseanarchaeologicalmonitor thatwill bepresentduring constructionexcavations such asgrading,trenching,grubbing,oranyotherexcavationactivityassociatedwiththeProject.ThefrequencyofmonitoringshallbedeterminedbytheArchaeologistbasedontherateof excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, thematerials being excavated (native versus fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and iffound,theabundanceandtypeofarchaeologicalresourcesencountered. Full‐timefieldobservation can be reduced to part‐time inspections or ceased entirely if determinedappropriatebytheArchaeologist.

MM‐ARCH‐2: In the event that historic or prehistoric archaeological resources (e.g., bottles,foundations, refuse dumps, Native American artifacts or features, etc.) are unearthedduringground‐disturbingactivities,theApplicantshallhaltorredirectground‐disturbingactivities away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by aqualifiedArchaeologist. Abufferareaofat least25feetshallbeestablishedaroundthefindwhereconstructionactivitiesshallnotbeallowedtocontinue.Workshallbeallowedtocontinueoutsideofthebufferarea.AllarchaeologicalresourcesunearthedbyProjectconstruction activities shall be evaluated by the Archaeologist. The Applicant shallcoordinatewiththearchaeologistandtheCitytodevelopanappropriatetreatmentplanfor the resources if they are determined to be potentially eligible for the CaliforniaRegister or potentially qualify as unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA.



Preservationinplace(i.e.,avoidance)shallbeconsideredasatreatmentmeasurefirst.Ifpreservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include the implementation ofarchaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource from the Project Sitealongwithsubsequent laboratoryprocessingandanalysis. Anyarchaeologicalmaterialcollectedshallbecuratedatapublic,non‐profitinstitutionwitharesearchinterestinthematerials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the FowlerMuseum,ifsuchaninstitutionagreestoacceptthematerial.Ifnoinstitutionacceptsthearchaeological material, it shall be donated to a local school or historical society foreducational purposes. The Archaeologist shall determine the need for archaeologicalconstructionmonitoringinthevicinityofthefindthereafter.

MM‐ARCH‐3:TheArchaeologistshallprepareafinalreportandappropriateCaliforniaDepartmentofParksandRecreationSiteFormsattheconclusionofarchaeologicalmonitoring. Thereport shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, treatment of theresources,resultsoftheartifactprocessing,analysis,andresearch,andevaluationoftheresourceswithrespecttotheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources.ThereportandtheSiteFormsshallbesubmittedbytheApplicanttotheCity,theSouthCentralCoastalInformation Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies tosignify the satisfactory completion of the Project construction. The Applicant, inconsultation with the archaeologist and the City, shall designate repositories meetingStatestandards in theevent thatarchaeologicalmaterial is recovered. Projectmaterialshall be curated in accordance with the State Historical Resources Commission’sGuidelinesforCurationofArchaeologicalCollections.

b. Paleontological Resources

ThefollowingmitigationmeasuresarerequiredtoreduceImpactPALEO‐1toalessthansignificantlevel.

MM‐PALEO‐1:A qualified Paleontologist shall attend a pre‐grade meeting and develop apaleontological monitoring program for excavations into older Quaternary Alluviumdeposits. A qualified Paleontologist is defined as a Paleontologistmeeting the criteriaestablishedbytheSocietyforVertebratePaleontology.ThequalifiedPaleontologistshallsupervise a paleontological monitor who shall be present during constructionexcavationsintoolderQuaternaryAlluviumdeposits.Monitoringshallconsistofvisuallyinspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate,collectingwetordryscreenedsedimentsamplesofpromisinghorizonsforsmallerfossilremains. The frequency of monitoring inspections shall be determined by thePaleontologist and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities,proximity to known paleontological resources or fossiliferous geologic formations (i.e.,Quaternary Alluvium deposits), the materials being excavated (i.e., native sedimentsversusartificialfill),andthedepthofexcavation,andiffound,theabundanceandtypeoffossilsencountered.Full‐timefieldobservationcanbereducedtopart‐timeinspectionsorceasedentirelyifdeterminedadequatebythequalifiedPaleontologist.

MM‐PALEO‐2:If a potential fossil is found, the paleontological monitor shall be allowed totemporarilydivertorredirectgradingandexcavationactivitiesintheareaoftheexposedfossil to facilitateevaluationand, ifnecessary, salvage. Abufferareaofat least25 feetshallbeestablishedaroundthefindwhereconstructionactivitiesshallnotbeallowedtocontinue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. At the



Paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading andexcavationcontractorshallassistinremovingrocksamplesforinitialprocessing.

MM‐PALEO‐3:Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point ofidentificationandcataloguedbeforetheyaredonatedtotheirfinalrepository.Anyfossilscollectedshallbecuratedatapublic,non‐profitinstitutionwitharesearchinterestinthematerials,suchastheLosAngelesCountyNaturalHistoryMuseum,ifsuchaninstitutionagrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall bedonated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes,maps,andphotographsshallalsobefiledattherepositoryand/orschool.

MM‐PALEO‐4:Followingthecompletionoftheabovemeasures,thePaleontologistshallprepareareportsummarizingtheresultsofthemonitoringandsalvagingefforts,themethodologyusedintheseefforts,aswellasadescriptionofthefossilscollectedandtheirsignificance.The report shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the lead agency, theNaturalHistory Museum of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate orconcerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and requiredmitigationmeasures.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

a. Archaeological Resources

With implementationof themitigationmeasuresabove, theProjectwouldnotcauseasubstantialadversechange in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQAGuidelines.Theimplementationoftheabovemitigationmeasuresprovideforappropriatetreatmentand/orpreservationofresourcesifencountered.Potentiallysignificantimpactstoarchaeologicalresourceswouldbereducedtoalessthansignificantlevel.

b. Paleontological Resources

The implementationof themitigationmeasures aboveprovide for avoidance and recoveryof resources ifencountered. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicalresourceor site, or auniquegeologic feature. Potentially significant impacts topaleontological resourceswouldbereducedtoalessthansignificantlevel.

c. Tribal Cultural Resources

TheProjectwouldnotcauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofatribalculturalresourceasdefined inPublicResourcesCodeSection21074of theStateCEQAGuidelines, therefore, theProjectwouldcausenoimpacttotribalculturalresourcesandnomitigationmeasuresarewarranted.

4.C.1 Cultural Resources - Archaeological and Paleontological · 2016-09-07 · 4.C.1....

Documents

Transcript of 4.C.1 Cultural Resources - Archaeological and Paleontological · 2016-09-07 · 4.C.1....