IV.D Cultural Resources (3rd screencheck) - Los...

CityofLosAngeles IV.D‐1 BarlowHospitalReplacementandMasterPlanProjectENV2009‐2519‐EIR DraftEIR. April2012

IV.D CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. INTRODUCTION

This sectiondescribespaleontological, archaeological, andhistorical resourceson theProjectsite

anddiscussespotentialdirectandindirectimpactstothoseresourcesduetoimplementationofthe

proposedProject.

ThepaleontologicalresourceanalysisdescribestherockunitsunderlyingtheProjectsiteandthe

correspondingpotentialforcontainingpaleontologicalresources.ItalsoidentifiesproposedProject

activities that might directly or indirectly affect resources, and methods for the recovery and

evaluationofanyresourcesencounteredduringconstruction.Thepaleontologicalresourceanalysis

is based on a records search conducted by the Natural HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County,

VertebratePaleontologySection,forinformationregardingtheoccurrencesofvertebratefossilsites

withinand/orneartheProjectsite.Theletterreportcontainingthefindingsoftherecordssearchis

providedinAppendixIV.DofthisDraftEIR.1

ThearchaeologicalresourceanalysisisbasedonarecordssearchconductedbytheSouthCentral

CoastalInformationCenteroftheCaliforniaStateUniversity,FullertonDepartmentofAnthropology

fortheproposedProject.Theletterreportcontainingthefindingsoftherecordssearchisprovided

inAppendixIV.DofthisDraftEIR.2

The historical resource analysis is based on the Historical Resources Technical Report: Barlow

HospitalReplacementandMasterPlanProjectpreparedbyHistoricResourcesGroup,datedOctober

2011 and provided in Appendix IV.D of this Draft EIR.3 The analysis focuses on exterior

architectural features, landscape characteristics, public spaces and the spatial organization of

BarlowHospital.

1 NaturalHistoryMuseumofLosAngelesCountyVertebratePaleontologySection,SamuelA.McLeod,Ph.D.,September

14,2009.ProvidedinAppendixIV.D.2 SouthCentralCoastalInformationCenteroftheCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton,DepartmentofAnthropology,

RecordsSearchforBarlowReplacementHospitalandMasterPlan.(2009).ProvidedinAppendixIV.D.3 Historic Resources Group, Historical Resources Technical Report: Barlow Hospital Replacement and Master Plan

Project,(2011).ProvidedinAppendixIV.D.

IV.D Cultural Resources


2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

a. Federal Regulations

i. National Register of Historic Places

The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation's master inventory of

knownhistoricresourcesandincludes listingsofbuildings,structures,sites,objects,anddistricts

that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the

national,state,orlocallevel.TheNationalParkServiceadministerstheNationalRegisterprogram.

TheNationalRegistercriteriaandassociateddefinitionsareoutlined inNationalRegisterBulletin

Number15:HowtoApplytheNationalRegisterCriteriaforEvaluation.BulletinNumber15provides

thefollowinglistofdefinitions:

Astructureisaworkmadeupofinterdependentandinterrelatedpartsinadefinitepattern

oforganization.Generallyconstructedbyhumans,itisoftenanengineeringobjectlargein

scale.

Asiteisdefinedasthelocationofasignificantevent,aprehistoricorhistoricoccupationor

activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the

location itself maintains historical or archaeological value regardless of the value of any

existingstructure.

Buildingsaredefinedasstructurescreatedtoshelterhumanactivity.

Adistrict is ageographicallydefinablearea ‐urbanor rural, smallor large ‐possessinga

significantconcentration,linkage,orcontinuityofsites,buildings,structures,and/orobjects

unitedbypasteventsoraestheticallybyplanorphysicaldevelopment.Adistrictmayalso

compriseindividualelementsseparatedgeographicallybutlinkedbyassociationorhistory.

Anobject is amaterial thingof functional, aesthetic, cultural,historical,or scientificvalue

thatmaybe,bynatureordesign,moveableyetrelatedtoaspecificsettingorenvironment

suchasanhistoricvessel.

TobeeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegister,apropertymustpossesssignificanceinAmerican

historyandculture,architecture,orarchaeology.Astructure,site,building,districtorobjectcanbe

consideredsignificantandeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterifitmeetsoneormoreofthe

followingfourcriteria:



CriterionA:Isassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroad

patternsofhistory(suchasaCivilWarbattlefieldoraNavalShipbuildingCenter);

CriterionB:Isassociatedwiththelivesofpersonssignificantinourpast(suchasThomas

Jefferson'sMonticelloortheSusanB.Anthonybirthplace);

Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or

representsasignificantanddistinguishableentitywhosecomponentsmay lack individual

distinction (such as Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin or the Midwestern Native American

IndianMounds);or

CriterionD:Hasyieldedormaylikelyyieldinformationimportantinprehistoryorhistory

(such as prehistoric ruins in Arizona or the archaeological sites of the first European

settlementsinSt.Augustine,Florida).

Thereisalsoageneralstipulationthattheresource(structure,site,building,district,andobject)be

atleast50yearsold,althoughthereareexceptionstothatrule(seeTitle36,Part50.4oftheFederal

Code of Regulations, Criteria Considerations a–q). Properties under 50 years of age that are of

exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included on the National

Register.TheeligibilityofaculturalresourcefornominationtotheNationalRegistermaybebased

onanyoftheabovefourcriteriatogetherwiththeirintegrity.

Period of Significance

ForanyresourceeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisteritsperiodofsignificancemustalsobe

established.AccordingtoNationalRegisterBulletin16A,theperiodofsignificanceisdefinedasthe

length of time that a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or

attained the characteristics that qualify it for National Register listing. The following guidelines

havebeenestablishedtodefinetheperiodofsignificanceforresourcesmeetingoneormoreofthe

fourcriteriaofhistoricalsignificance:

CriterionA:Forthesiteofanimportantevent, theperiodofsignificanceisthetimewhen

the event occurred. For properties associated with historic trends, such as commercial

development, the period of significance is the span of time when the property actively

contributedtothetrend.



CriterionB:TheperiodofsignificanceforapropertysignificantforCriterionBisusuallythe

lengthoftimethepropertywasassociatedwiththeimportantperson.

CriterionC:Forarchitecturallysignificantproperties,theperiodofsignificanceisthedateof

constructionand/orthedatesofanysignificantalterationsandadditions.

CriterionD:Theperiodofsignificance foranarcheologicalsiteistheestimatedtimewhenit

wasoccupiedorusedforreasonsrelatedtoitsimportance,forexample,3000‐2500B.C.

Integrity

Inadditiontomeetinganyorallofthecriteriaofhistoricalsignificance,integritymustbepresentin

orderforapropertytobeeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegister.Historicintegrityistheability

ofaproperty toconvey itssignificanceandisdefinedasthe"authenticityofaproperty'shistoric

identity, evidencedby the survival ofphysical characteristics that existedduring theproperty's...

historicperiod."4AccordingtoNationalRegisterBulletin15,SectionVIII,historicpropertieseither

retainintegrity(thatis,conveytheirsignificance)ortheydonot.Withintheconceptofintegrity,the

National Register criteria recognize the seven aspects or qualities listed below that, in various

combinations,defineintegrity.

Location: Location is the placewhere the historic propertywas constructed or the place

wherethehistoriceventoccurred.

Design:Design is thecombinationofelements thatcreate the form,plan,space,structure,

andstyleofaproperty.

Setting:Settingisthephysicalenvironmentofanhistoricproperty.

Materials:Materials are the physical elements thatwere combinedor depositedduring a

particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form an historic

property.

Workmanship:Workmanshipisthephysicalevidenceofthecraftsofaparticularcultureor

peopleduringanygivenperiodinhistoryorpre‐history.

4 NationalRegisterBulletin16.How toComplete theNationalRegisterRegistrationForm.WashingtonD.C.:National

ParkService,U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,(1997)4.



Feeling:Feelingisaproperty'sexpressionoftheaestheticorhistoricalsenseofaparticular

periodoftime.

Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person

andanhistoricproperty.

To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these

aspects.

Context

A property must also be significant within an historic context as the significance of an historic

propertycanbe judgedonlywhenit isevaluatedwithin itshistoriccontext.Historiccontextsare

“thosepatterns, themes,or trends inhistorybywhichaspecific ...propertyorsite isunderstood

anditsmeaning...ismadeclear.”5

Historic Districts

Standardpreservationpracticeevaluatescollectionsofbuildingsfromsimilarperiodsandhistoric

contexts as districts. The National Park Service defines an historic district as “a significant

concentration,linkage,orcontinuityofsites,buildings,structures,orobjectsunitedhistoricallyor

aesthetically by plan or physical development.”6 An historic district derives its significance as a

singleunifiedentity.

Districtsarecomprisedofresourcesidentifiedaseithercontributingornon‐contributingresources.

Someresourceswithintheboundariesofthedistrictmaynotmeetthecriteriaforcontributingto

thehistoriccharacterofthedistrictalthoughtheresourceiswithinthedistrictboundaries.

Contributing resources add to the historic association, historic architectural qualities, or

archaeologicalvaluesforwhichthedistrictissignificantbecausetheresourcewaspresentduringthe

period of significance (the period of time during which the resource acquired its historically

significantcharacteristics),relatestothedocumentedsignificantcontexts,andpossessesintegrity.

Non‐contributingresourcesdonotaddtothehistoricassociations,historicarchitecturalqualities,

orarchaeologicalvaluesforwhichthedistrict issignificantbecausetheresourcewasnotpresent

5 NationalRegisterBulletinNumber15,7.6 NationalRegisterBulletinNumber15,5.



duringtheperiodofsignificance,doesnotrelatetothedocumentedsignificantcontexts,ordoesnot

possessintegrity.

ii. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation

TheSecretaryoftheInterior’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricPropertieswithGuidelinesfor

Preserving,Rehabilitating,Restoring,andReconstructingHistoricBuildingswerepublishedin1995

and codified as 36 CFR 67.7 Neither technical nor prescriptive, these standards are intended to

promoteresponsiblepreservationpracticesthathelpprotectirreplaceableculturalresources.8The

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Secretary’s Standards, or Standards)

consist of ten basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive character of an historic

buildinganditssitewhileallowingforreasonablechangetomeetnewneeds.TheStandardsapply

tohistoricbuildingsofallperiods,styles,types,materials,andsizes,andapplytoboththeexterior

andtheinteriorofhistoricbuildings.TheStandardsalsoencompassrelatedlandscapefeaturesand

the building's site and environment, including attached, adjacent, or related new construction.

These Standards have been adopted, or are used informally, by many agencies at all levels of

government to review projects that affect historic resources. The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standardsareusedasameasureindeterminingwhetherornotaprojectornewdevelopmentor

rehabilitationadverselyimpactsanhistoricresource.

The purpose of the Standards is to promote responsible preservation practices to help protect

cultural resources.TheStandardsprovideconsistency in theapproachtopreservationofhistoric

resources.ThepreambletotheStandardsstatesthatthey"aretobeappliedtospecificrehabilitation

projectsinareasonablemanner,takingintoconsiderationeconomicandtechnicalfeasibility."

TheSecretaryoftheInterior’sStandardsstate:

1. A property shall be used as its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires

minimalchangetothedefiningcharacteristicsofthebuildinganditssiteandenvironment.

7 “Preservation” acknowledges a resource as a document of its history over time and emphasizes stabilization,

maintenance,andrepairofexistinghistoricfabric.“Rehabilitation,”whilealsoincorporatingtheretentionoffeaturesthat convey historic character, also accommodates alterations and additions to facilitate continuing or new uses.“Restoration” involves the retention and replacement of features from a specific period of significance.“Reconstruction,”theleast‐usedtreatment,providesabasisforrecreatingamissingresource.

8 Weeks,KayD.andAnneE.Grimmer.TheSecretaryoftheInterior’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricPropertieswithGuidelinesforPreserving,Rehabilitating,Restoring,andReconstructionHistoricBuildings.WashingtonD.C.:U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,NationalParkService(1995).



2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of

distinctivematerialsoralterationoffeatures,andspacesthatcharacterizeapropertyshall

beavoided.

3. Eachpropertyshallberecognizedasaphysicalrecordof its time,placeanduse.Changes

that createa false senseofhistoricaldevelopment, suchasaddingconjectural featuresor

architecturalelementsfromotherbuildings,shallnotbeundertaken.

4. Mostpropertieschangeovertime;thosechangesthathaveacquiredhistoricsignificancein

theirownrightshallberetainedandpreserved.

5. Distinctivefeatures,finishesandconstructiontechniquesorexamplesofcraftsmanshipthat

characterizeapropertyshallbepreserved.

6. Deterioratedhistoricfeaturesshallberepairedratherthanreplaced.Wheretheseverityof

deteriorationrequiresreplacementofadistinctivefeature,thenewfeatureshallmatchthe

old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.

Replacementofmissingfeatureswillbesubstantiatedbydocumentary,physicalorpictorial

evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic

materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be

undertakenusingthegentlestmeanspossible.

8. Significantarcheologicalresourcesaffectedbyaprojectshallbeprotectedandpreserved.If

suchresourcesmustbedisturbed,mitigationmeasuresshallbeundertaken.

Infill and redevelopment projects that could affect historic resources may be subject to review

basedonStandards9and10oftheStandards,whichstate:

9. New additions, exterior alterations or relatednew construction shall not destroyhistoric

materialsthatcharacterizetheproperty.Thenewworkshallbedifferentiatedfromtheold

andshallbecompatiblewith themassing, size, scaleandarchitectural features toprotect

theintegrityofthepropertyanditsenvironment.

10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a

manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic

propertyanditsenvironmentwouldbeunimpaired.



b. State Regulations

i. California Register of Historical Resources

TheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources (CaliforniaRegister)9 is theauthoritativeguide to

thestate'ssignificanthistoricalandarcheologicalresources.Itservestoidentify,evaluate,register,

and protect California's historic resources. The California Register program encourages public

recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural

significance, identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes, determines

eligibility for historic preservation grant funding, and affords certain protections under the

CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA).

TheCaliforniaRegisterautomaticallyincludesthefollowing:

California properties listed or formally determined eligible for listing in the National

RegisterofHistoricPlaces;

CaliforniaRegisteredHistoricalLandmarksfrom#0770onward;and

CaliforniaPointsofHistorical Interest thathavebeenevaluatedbytheOfficeofHistorical

Preservation (OHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources

CommissionforinclusionintheCaliforniaRegister.

Inaddition,propertiesdesignatedundermunicipalorcountyordinancesarealsoeligibleforlisting

intheCaliforniaRegister.ResourcesthatarenotautomaticallylistedintheCaliforniaRegistermust

benominated for listing throughanapplicationandpublichearingprocess.Theymustalsomeet

oneormoreofthefollowingfourcriteria,whicharebaseduponthefourNationalRegistercriteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events or patterns of events that havemade a significant

contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of

CaliforniaortheUnitedStates.

Criterion2:Isassociatedwiththelivesofpersonsimportanttolocal,California,ornational

history.

Criterion3:Embodiesthedistinctivecharacteristicsofatype,period,region,ormethodof

construction,orrepresentstheworkofamaster,orpossesseshighartisticvalues.

9 PublicResourceCodeSection21084.1.



Criterion 4: Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the

prehistoryorhistoryofthelocalarea,stateorthenation.10

AswiththeNationalRegister,allpropertieseligibleforlistingontheCaliforniaRegistermustretain

historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and

association.Most resourcesmust also be at least 50 years old; however, resources less than 50

years of agemay be eligible for listing on the California Register if it can be demonstrated that

sufficienttimehaspassedtounderstandtheirhistoricalimportance.11

ii. California Environmental Quality Act

Aresourceisconsideredhistoricallysignificant,andthereforea"historicalresource"underCEQA,if

it falls into one of the three following categories as defined by Section 21084.1 of the California

PublicResourcesCode:

Mandatory historical resources are resources "listed in, or determined to be eligible for

listingin,theCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources."

Presumptive historical resources are resources "included in a local register of historical

resources,asdefinedinsubdivision(k)ofSection5020.1,ordeemedsignificantpursuantto

criteriasetforthinsubdivision(g)ofSection5024.1"ofthePublicResourcesCode,unless

the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or

culturallysignificant.

Discretionaryhistoricalresourcesarethoseresourcesthatarenotlistedbutdeterminedto

beeligibleunderthecriteriafortheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources.12

Properties formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places

(National Register) are automatically listed in theCaliforniaRegister.13 Properties designatedby

local municipalities can also be considered historical resources. A review of properties that are

potentiallyaffectedbyaprojectforhistoriceligibilityisalsorequiredunderCEQA.

Section15064.5(a)oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesprovidesthefollowingguidelinesfordetermining

whetherapropertyisanhistoricresource,andthereforesignificant,forpurposesofCEQA:

10 StateCEQAGuidelinesSection15064.5(a)(3).11 CaliforniaCodeofRegulation,Chapter11,Title14,Section4842(d)(2).12 CaliforniaPRC,Section21084.1.13 CaliforniaPRC,Section5024.1(c).



Aresourcelisted,ordeterminedtobeeligiblebytheStateHistoricalResourcesCommission

forlisting,intheCaliforniaRegisterisconsideredanhistoricresource.

Aresourceincludedinalocalregisterofhistoricresources,asdefinedinSection5020.1(k)

of the Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in an historical resource survey

meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be

presumedtobehistoricallyorculturallysignificant,unlessthepreponderanceofevidence

demonstratesthatitisnothistoricallyorculturallysignificant.

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, ormanuscript that a lead agency

determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,

scientific,economic,agricultural,educational,social,political,military,orculturalannalsof

California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s

determinationissupportedbysubstantialevidenceinlightofthewholerecord.Generally,a

resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the

resourcemeetsthecriteriaforlistingontheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources.

Thefactthataresourceisnotlisted,ordeterminedtobeeligibleforlisting,intheCalifornia

Register, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not identified as

significant in an historical resources survey does not preclude a lead agency from

determiningthattheresourcemaybeanhistoricalresource,asdefinedinPublicResources

CodeSections5020.1(j)or5024.1.

In addition to having significance, resourcesmust have integrity for a period of significance, the

date or span of timewithinwhich significant events transpired at a site or the period inwhich

significant individuals made their important contributions to a site. Integrity is the ability of a

property to convey its significance. The seven primary aspects of integrity are location, design,

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Simply stated, resources must retain

enoughoftheirhistoricalcharacterorappearancetoberecognizableashistoricalresourcesandto

conveythereasonsfortheirsignificance.14

Ifhistoricalresourcesaredeterminedtobesignificantandunique,thenapublicagencyconducting

environmental review must determine whether the project may result in a substantial adverse

change to these historic resources. According to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a

substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is defined as the physical

14 CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Section4852.



demolition,destruction,relocation,oralterationoftheresourceoritsimmediatesurroundingssuch

that the significance of an historic resource would bematerially impaired. Material impairment

occurswhenaproject:

Demolishesormateriallyalters inanadversemanner thosephysical characteristicsofan

historicalresourcethatconveyitshistoricalsignificanceandthatjustifyitsinclusionin,or

eligibilityfor,inclusionintheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources;

Demolishes ormaterially alters in an adversemanner those physical characteristics that

account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section

5020.1(k)ofthePublicResourcesCodeoritsidentificationinanhistoricalresourcessurvey

meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the

public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of

evidencethattheresourceisnothistoricallyorculturallysignificant;or


historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for

inclusionintheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResourcesasdeterminedbyaleadagency

forpurposesofCEQA.

CEQA regulations identify the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as a measure to be used in

determiningwhetherornotaprojectofnewdevelopmentorrehabilitationadversely impactsan

historic resource. Section 15064.5(b)(3) of theCEQAGuidelines states, "Generally, a project that

follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, andReconstructingHistoricBuildings or the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards forRehabilitation andGuidelines forRehabilitatingHistoric

Buildings(Secretary’sStandards,WeeksandGrimmer,1995)shallbeconsideredasmitigatedtoa

leveloflessthanasignificantimpactonthehistoricresource."15

iii. Senate Bill 18

Senate Bill 18 requires cities and counties to contact, notify, and consult with California Native

AmericanTribesaboutproposedlocallanduseplanningdecisionspriortoamendingoradoptinga

general plan. The purpose of this local and Tribal intergovernmental consultation is to protect,

15 WhilecompliancewiththeSecretary’sStandardsindicatesthataprojectmayhavealessthansignificantimpacton

anhistoricalresource,theconverseofthisdoesnothold.FailuretocomplywiththeSecretary’sStandardsisnot,bydefinition, a significant impact under CEQA. CEQA recognizes that alterations that are not consistent with theSecretary’sStandardsmaystillnotresultinsignificantimpactsonthehistoricalresource.



preserve, or mitigate impacts to Native American Cultural Places. For this purpose, the Native

AmericanHeritageCommissioncreatedanew listofTribalconsultants that isspecific forSenate

Bill18.Thislistismadeupofentitiesthatareconsidered“TribalGovernments,”whichincludesall

federally recognized Tribes and non‐federally recognized Tribes thatmeetminimum criteria set

forthbytheNativeAmericanHeritageCommission.

AccordingtoSenateBill18,NativeAmericanCulturalPlacesreferstoplaces,features,andobjects

includingNativeAmericansanctifiedcemeteries,placesofworship,religiousorceremonialsites,or

sacred shrines on private lands, and Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site on public

lands that are listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register pursuant to Public

ResourcesCodeSection5024.1,includinganyhistoricorprehistoricremains,anyburialground,or

anyarchaeologicalorhistoricsite.16

c. City of Los Angeles

i. City of Los Angeles Historic‐Cultural Monument Designation

TheLosAngelesCityCouncildesignatesHistoric‐CulturalMonumentson the recommendationof

theCity'sCulturalHeritageCommission.Section22.171.7oftheCityofLosAngelesAdministrative

Codedefinesanhistoricalorculturalmonumentas:

"[A]nysite(includingsignificanttreesorotherplantlifelocatedonthesite),buildingor structureofparticularhistoricorcultural significance to theCityofLosAngeles,includinghistoric structuresor sites inwhich thebroadcultural,economicor socialhistory of the nation, State or community is reflected or exemplified; or which isidentifiedwithhistoricpersonagesorwith importantevents in themaincurrentsofnational,Stateorlocalhistory;orwhichembodiesthedistinguishingcharacteristicsofanarchitectural type specimen, inherently valuable fora studyofaperiod, styleormethodofconstruction;oranotableworkofamasterbuilder,designer,orarchitectwhoseindividualgeniusinfluencedhisorherage."

Designation recognizes theuniquehistorical, cultural, or architectural valueof certain structures

and helps to protect their distinctive qualities. Any interested individual or group may submit

nominations for Historic‐Cultural Monument status. Buildings may be eligible for historical or

culturalmonument status if theymeet the criteria in theCulturalHeritageOrdinance and retain

theirhistoricdesigncharacteristicsandmaterials.

16 PublicResourcesCodeSections5097.9and5097.993



ii. City of Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zones

The Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZ) Ordinance (Section 12.20.3 of the Los Angeles

Municipal Code) was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council in 2004. A designated Historic

PreservationOverlayZonemayapplytoanyareaoftheCityofLosAngelescontainingstructures,

landscaping, natural features, or sites having historic, architectural, cultural, or aesthetic

significance.ThepurposeofanHistoricPreservationOverlayZoneisto:

Protectandenhancetheuseofstructures,features,sitesandareasthatareremindersofthe

City’shistoryorwhichareuniqueandirreplaceableassetstotheCityanditsneighborhoods

orwhichareworthyexamplesofpastarchitecturalstyles;

Develop and maintain the appropriate settings and environment to preserve these

structures,landscaping,naturalfeatures,sites,andareas;

Enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, and/or communities, render property

eligibleforfinancialbenefits,andpromotetouristtradeandinterest;

Fosterpublicappreciationof thebeautyof theCity,of theaccomplishmentsof itspastas

reflectedthroughitsstructures,landscaping,naturalfeatures,sitesandareas;

Promote education by preserving and encouraging interest in cultural, social, economic,

politicalandarchitecturalphasesofitshistory;and

ToensurethatallprocedurescomplywiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct.

Therearecurrently24HistoricPreservationOverlayZonesinLosAngelesranginginsizefrom26

properties in theVinegarHillHistoricPreservationOverlayZone toover2,000properties in the

Highland Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. Currently, 15 more Historic Preservation

OverlayZonesareproposed.TheProjectsitedoesnot liewithinanexistingorproposedHistoric

PreservationOverlayZone.

iii. Silver Lake‐Echo Park‐Elysian Valley Community Plan

ThePlancontainsthefollowinggoalsandprogramrelatedtohistoricresources:

Objective1‐5: Preserve and enhance neighborhoods with distinctive and significant

historicorarchitecturalcharacter.



Policy1‐5.2: Encourage reuse of historic resources in a manner that maintains and

enhancesthehistoriccharacterofstructuresandneighborhoods.

Program: Encourage,whereappropriate,there‐useofhistoricallysignificantbuildings

whentheproposedusesarefoundtobecompatiblewithboththebuilding’s

historiccharacterandsurroundinguses.

Thepotential fortheProjecttoconflictwithapplicableGeneralPlangoalsandpoliciesrelatingto

historicandculturalresourcesisdiscussedinSectionIV.H,LandUseandPlanning,ofthisDraftEIR.

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS

a. Paleontological Resources

The records searchperformedby theNaturalHistoryMuseumofLosAngelesCountyVertebrate

PaleontologySectionfoundnovertebratefossillocalities(siteswherevertebratefossilshavebeen

found)thatliewithintheProjectsiteboundaries.However,fossilshavebeenfoundintheProject

vicinitywithinthesamesedimentarydepositsthatoccurbeneaththeProjectsite.

SurficialdepositscomposedofyoungerQuaternaryAlluviumarelocatedinthelow‐lyingportionof

theProjectsite(theformerChavezRavine).17Therearenoknownvertebratefossillocalitiesinthe

Project vicinity in deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium; however, where the layer of

QuaternaryAlluviumisthinnerneardowntownLosAngeles,vertebratefossilshavebeenfound.

BedrockexposuresinthemoreelevatedportionsoftheProjectsiteconsistoflateMioceneupper

Monterey Formation (also known asModelo Formation or Puente Formation in this area). The

closest vertebrate fossil possibly abuts the Project site (LACM 4967), an Elysian Park general

locality. This site produced a holotype specimen (name‐bearing specimen of a species new to

science)oftheextinctfossilclupeidfish(aherring)Clupeatiejei.Thenextclosestlocalitiesfromthe

upperMontereyFormationincludeLACM7507,dueeastoftheProjectsitebetweentheLosAngeles

River and the Golden State Freeway (1‐5), south of the Pasadena Freeway (1‐110). This site

produced fossil snakemackerel,Tlryrsocleskriegeri.LACM3882, furtherdueeastof theProject

siteinthehillsofLincolnHeights,producedtheholotypespecimenofthefossilcetotheriidbaleen

whaleMi'xocetuselysius,oneofthemostcompletefossilwhaleskullsknownfromCalifornia.LACM

17 AsdiscussedinSectionIV.E,GeologicHazards,ofthisDraftEIRandasshowninFigureIV.E‐1,alluvialdepositswereencounteredin

thenorthernportionofthewesternProjectsite,colluvialdepositswereencounteredonthemajorityoftheeasternProjectsiteandthe northeastern and northwestern portions of the western Project site, and entire site is underlain by Puente Formation (orMioceneupperMontereyFormation).AsshowninFigureIV.E‐1,thePuenteFormationisexposedalongthewesternmajorityofthewesternProjectsiteandpartofthenorthernandeasternportionsoftheeasternProjectsite.



1880,northeastof theProject site betweenFigueroa Street andCypressAvenue, thatproduced a

suite of fossil bony fish including hatchetfish, Argyropelecus bullockii, bristlemouth, Cyclothone,

herring, Etringus, rockfish, Scorpaenidae, extinct deep‐sea fish, Chauliodus, slickheads,

Alepocephalidae,cod,Eclipes,andcroaker,Lompoquia.

Other nearby localities from the upper Monterey Formation include LACM 6934, farther north‐

northeastoftheProjectsitedirectlyeastoftheMt.WashingtonSchool,thatproducedafossilbaleen

whaleskull (asyetunprepared),andLACM7017,alsonortheastoftheProjectsitejustbelowthe

SouthwestMuseumnearthePasadenaFreeway(1‐110),thatproducedfossilbonyfish.

b. Archaeological Resources

Noarchaeologicalsitesorisolatedartifactshavebeenidentifiedonorwithinahalf‐mileradiusofthe

Project site. This does not preclude the potential for archaeological sites to be identified during

projectactivities.

c. Historic Resources

i. Tuberculosis and the Sanatorium Movement in California

Priortotheisolationandidentificationofantibioticcompoundstocombatbacterialdiseasesinthe

mid‐twentiethcentury,tuberculosiswasacommonanddeadlydisease.In1900,thedeathratefrom

tuberculosisintheUnitedStateswascalculatedat194deathsforevery100,000people.Although

thediseasewasproventobecontagiousby1865,andtheinfectingbacterium,tuberbacillus,was

isolated in 1882, effective treatmentwas poorly understood. The diseasewas highly feared and

victimsoftuberculosiscarriedasocialstigmaevenaftertheirrecovery.Isolationfromthegeneral

population,completerest,andexposuretofresh,cleanairbecamethepreferredtreatmentgiving

risetothedevelopmentofspecializedsanatoriumforthetreatmentoftuberculosispatients.

SouthernCalifornia,with itsmildclimate,year‐roundsunandrelative isolation fromthenation's

major East Coast and Mid‐West cities became a favored location for convalescent facilities. The

population throughout Southern California increased both with the influx of those in need of

treatmentaswellasthoseprovidingfortheircare.SouthernCaliforniaarchitecturaltrendsofthe

early twentieth century directly reflect the health concerns of the time. The Craftsman style of

domestic architecture and the popular "California Bungalow" included wide porches, multiple

windows,ventilatedattics,andaprofusionofsleepingporches,ensuringplentyof lightandfresh

airfortheoccupants.Theseelementswereincorporatedinsanatoriumdesign.



ii. History of Barlow Hospital

BarlowSanatoriumwasfoundedin1901byDr.WalterJarvisBarlowwiththepurposeofproviding

careforindigenttuberculosispatientswhoresidedinLosAngelesCounty.Patientswerelimitedto

those who were unable to work because of their affliction but who would likely respond to

treatment. Those admittedwere of limitedmeans and could not afford private care, but did not

qualify formunicipalorcharitablecare. Incorporated in1902, thesanatoriumwasnon‐sectarian.

While families of the patients were asked to contribute to the cost of care, the services were

subsidized by considerable financial contributions raised by Dr. Barlow from wealthy and

prominentmembersoftheLosAngelescommunity.Inmanycases,patientcareandtreatmentwere

providedfreebythesanatoriumforaslongastwoyears.

Walter Jarvis Barlowwas born in 1868 in upperNew York State toWilliam and Catherine Lent

Barlow.HewaseducatedattheMountPleasantMilitaryAcademy,andcontinuedhiseducationat

ColumbiaUniversitywherehereceivedanA.B.in1886,anM.D.degreein1892,andanMAdegree

in1919.After a two‐year internshipatMt. SinaiHospital inNewYorkCity,Dr.Barlowopeneda

privatemedicalpracticeandalsoservedashousephysicianfortheSloanHospitalforWomen.

In1895,Dr.Barlowcontractedtuberculosis.Believingthatadryandsunnyclimatewouldhelphis

recovery, he moved west, settling in Los Angeles in 1897. After a year of convalescence and

complete recovery, Dr. Barlow began a private practice. HemarriedMarionBrooks Patterson in

1898.Mrs.Barlowwouldworkcloselywithherhusbandinsupportofhismedicalcareer.

Because ofDr. Barlow's personal experiencewith tuberculosis, he specialized in the disease and

decided to open a sanatorium. In 1901,Dr. Barlow chose an approximately twenty‐five acre site

adjacenttotheCity‐ownedElysianParkonChavezRavineRoad(nowStadiumWay)asthelocation

for his sanatorium. Set in a ravine surrounded by rising hillsides, the configuration of hills was

believed to provide the clean air critical to the tuberculosis cure. The adjacent park provided

privacyandwouldprotectthesanatoriumfromencroachingfuturedevelopment.

Dr. Barlow purchased the property from J.B. Lankershim for $7,300. A Board of Directors and a

fifteen‐member Advisory Board were formed, two groups which soon became important to the

operation of Barlow Sanatorium. The Board of Directors (which in 1915 became the Board of

Trustees) and the Advisory Board included prominent business and civic leaders of Southern

California, including generations of families such as O'Melveny, Milbank, Newhall, Kerckhoff,

Slauson,Bonfilio,Hancock,andTorrance.



Dr.Barlowadvocatedthebenefitsoftheopenaircurefortuberculosisandhissanatoriumoperated

a"cottage"systemoftreatment.OnlytheseriouslyillwerehousedinthemainInfirmary,patients

whowere less ill stayed in stand‐alone cottages sharedwith other patients at the same stage of

recovery. Patients were then "graduated" to other cottages as their conditions improved. Each

cottage was equipped with large porches and provided maximum exposure to fresh air and

sunshine.Thecottagesystemwasbelievedatthetimetoprovidethebestconditionsforrecovery.

Thefirstsanatoriumbuildingsincludedakitchen,aninfirmary,andseveral"tent"cottages.Thetent

cottagesweresimplewood‐framestructureswithshingledroofsandcanvassidewalls.Additional

cottageswerebuilt insubsequentyearstohousepatientsandstaff.Allstructureswerebuiltwith

donatedfunds.Decorativelandscapinggraduallyreplacedthebarrenhillsides.

BarlowSanatoriumadmittedits firstpatient in1903.Withinayear,thirty‐fourpatientshadbeen

treated and the sanatorium had fifteen beds. Because the treatment regimen required extended

stays,thenumberofpatientsthatcouldbeservedwaslimited.AsthereputationofDr.Barlowand

hiscolleaguesgrew,increaseddonationsallowedfortheconstructionofmorecottagesandsupport

buildingsmakingthetreatmentofmorepatientspossible.

Anexcellentfundraiser,Dr.Barlowsuccessfullyestablishedanendowmentfundfortheinstitution.

An annual fundraising bazaar, lawn parties and other social events were given by the Barlows,

donors, and Boardmembers to raise additional funds. Dr. Barlow established relationshipswith

many well‐known charitable and service organizations in Los Angeles. Like the sanatorium's

individualdonors,manyoftheseorganizationsdonatedcottagesandotherfacilitiestoimprovethe

sanatorium.

Dr. Barlow also developed affiliations with hospitals that led to an arrangement where student

nurseswerebrought toBarlow. In thisway, thenursingstudentswereprovidedwithon‐the‐job

trainingwhile at the same time improving Barlow staff. In the early 1930s, a doctor's residency

programwas developed at the sanatorium for the study of tuberculosis. A laboratorywas later

addedwhere testswere performed and patient progresswasmonitored on an outpatient basis.

Through these programs,Dr. Barlowandhis sanatoriumplayed an important role in developing

patient treatments,advocating theopenair treatmentmethod,providingmedical training,and in

furtheringresearchandunderstandingoftuberculosis.

Maintaining associations with his eastern colleagues, Dr. Barlow created a strong national

reputationforhissanatorium.Overtheyears,Dr.Barlowandhissanatoriumcolleagueswereactive

instate,andnationalhealthorganizations,includingtheCaliforniaTuberculosisAssociationandthe



National Tuberculosis Association and received wide recognition for their contributions both

individuallyandasaninstitution.

During and immediately after WorldWar I, more permanent bungalow‐style cottages gradually

replaced the temporary tent cottages. The new cottages, like the previous tent cottages, were

constructed to allow exposure to fresh air and sunlight, still considered vital to recovery from

tuberculosis.Thecottageshadopenpatios,sleepingporches,andscreenedbedrooms.

During World War I, the majority of patients at the sanatorium consisted of returning military

personnelwithtuberculosis,asaresultofacontractbetweenthesanatoriumandtheUnitedStates

Veteran'sAdministration.Thesubsequentstrainon thesanatorium's resourceswasalleviatedby

generous donations from theAmericanRed Cross and the LosAngelesTuberculosisAssociation.

Thecontributionswereusedtobuildadditionalpatient facilities tosatisfy thewartimeandpost‐

war demand. The Barlow Guild, founded in 1943, was established by ex‐patients to provide

financialandothersupporttothesanatorium.

Dr.Barlowremainedinprivatepracticethroughouthisthirty‐fiveyearsofrunningthesanatorium.

WorkingfirstasResidentPhysicianattheVanNuysHotel,helaterestablishedaprivatepracticein

downtownLosAngeles.He servedaschiefof themedical staffof thesanatoriumuntil1925,and

also served as secretary‐treasurer of the Barlow Board of Directors from the inception of the

sanatoriumuntilhisdeathin1937.Throughouthislifetime,heassumedthemajorresponsibilityof

the administration and general conduct of the business affairs of the sanatorium, and played a

major role in fundraising. Inaddition,heandhiswifeweresignificantdonors to thesanatorium.

Mrs.Barlowwasanactivememberofthesanatorium'sExecutiveCommitteefromitsinceptionand

continuedherworkatthesanatoriumlongafterherhusband'sdeath.Shediedin1964.

In1938anofficialaffiliationbetweenBarlowSanatoriumandtheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia

(USC)MedicalSchoolwasestablished,formalizingalongstandingrelationshipbetweenDr.Barlow

andUSC.In1897,Dr.BarlowhadbecomeaffiliatedwiththestrugglingnewUSCMedicalSchool,the

firstmedical school inLosAngeles.Hedonateda librarybuilding to theschoolwhichserved the

entire Los Angeles medical community for many years. He had also served as Dean of the USC

Medical School from 1907 to 1910. Through this 1938 affiliation with USC, Barlow Sanatorium

became a teaching hospital,which identified it as amedical institutionwith high standards that

conductedactiveandproductiveresearch.

By the late 1940s, Barlowwas still a teachinghospital forUSCMedical School students, offering

post‐graduatecoursesfordoctors,andhadaffiliationswith84otherteachinghospitals.In1952the



sanatorium had 35 buildings, 50 hospital beds, 70 convalescent beds, 100 employees, and 26

student nurses. With the discovery of antibiotics and continuing advances in the treatment of

tuberculosis, however, Barlow Sanatorium began to reevaluate its statedmission and goals. The

eventualreductionintheincidenceoftuberculosisgreatlyreducedthenumberofpatientsandled

to discussion of expanding the sanatorium's scope to include patients with non‐tubercular

pulmonaryconditions.Advancedmedical technologyandequipmentrequirednewbuilding types

andthecottagesfellintodisuse.Inaddition,theconstructionofDodgerStadiumandthewidening

ofChavezRavineRoadtocreateStadiumWayalteredtheoriginalisolationofthesanatoriumsite.

Bythelate1960s,thesanatoriumhadassumedtheformofamoretraditionalhospitalfocusingon

non‐tubercular pulmonary disease. By the 1970s, the transformation into today's Barlow

Respiratory Hospital was complete. Barlow Hospital's medical staff has continued their

contributionstomedicalresearchandtheHospitalformallyreneweditsaffiliationwithUSCinthe

1970s.Underthisagreement,BarlowprovidestheUSCMedicalSchoolwithaccessto itsteaching

andresearchfacilities,whileUSCprovidesBarlowwithqualifiedmedicalstudentsandFellowswho

trainedonthejob.SomeBarlowphysiciansalsoholdprofessorshipsatUSC.

iii. Site Development History

ExistingdevelopmentislistedinTableIV.D‐1,SummaryofExistingFacilities.

Initial Development (1902‐1913)

By1904, two years after incorporation and one year after admission of the first patient, Barlow

Sanatoriumhadconstructedseveralbuildingsonthesite:theAdministrationBuilding,aninfirmary

called Solano Cottage, two tent cottages, and a stable. Of these original structures, only the

AdministrationBuilding,builtin1902andremodeledandenlargedmanytimes,stillstands.

Between 1904 and 1913 fourteen patient tent cottages were added, steadily increasing the

sanatorium'spatientcapacity.Severalcottagesforemployeeswereaddedby1914,allofwhichare

stillextant.Otherbuildingsaddedbefore1914thatarestillextantincludeWilliamsHall(#3),the

Laundry (#6), and the Patient's Workshop and Storeroom (#28). Williams Hall was built in

1909/10asthesanatorium'srecreationhall.Thisbuilding,attributedtoB.B.Bixby,helpedformthe

centralcoreofthecampus,alongwiththeinfirmaryandtheAdministrationBuilding.



Table IV.D‐1

Summary of Existing Facilities

BuildingNo.a BuildingName BuildingFunctionDateof

ConstructionAdministration

1 Administration AdministrativeOffices 1961PatientServices

2 Hospital Infirmary/Hospital 1927/1972/19782A Administration AdministrativeOffices 1902/19193 WilliamsHall Recreation 19094 Library PatientEducation 192128 Warehouse PatientWorkshopand

Storage1912

ProfessionalandWorkerHousing 5 HelpBuilding(GuildHouse) WorkerHousing 19207 BirgeHall StaffHousing 19198 Physician’sResidence StaffHousing 1908/1913/19419 BosworthHall Nurses’Housing 194937 Doctor’sCottage StaffHousing 194038 MedicalDirector’sResidence StaffHousing 1936

Maintenance 6 LaundryBuilding LaundryServices 191010 CentralSupplyII Storage/AnimalTesting 1924/197021 Carpenter’sShop AnimalBreeding 194022 Shed Maintenance Post‐195423 GardeningShed Workers’Cottage 1907/190824 GardeningShed Maintenance Various25 PaintLocker Workers’Cottage 1906/190726 MaintenanceShop/ElBaño Bath/Maintenance 191627 Garage StaffGarage 1920/1923

PatientHousing 11 ElizabethG.BonfilioMemorial

CottagePatientCottage 1914

12 St.BernardineCottage PatientCottage 192713 Lyon’sMemorialCottage PatientCottage 192414 BeemanMemorialCottage PatientCottage 192215 Slauson&McNeillMemorial

CottagePatientCottage 1919

16 MilbankCottage PatientCottage 192617 RedCrossIICottage PatientCottage 191918 RedCrossICottage PatientCottage 191919 RedCrossIIICottage PatientCottage 191920 RedCrossVICottage PatientCottage 191929 BigRedCrossCottage PatientCottage 191930 StevensCottage PatientCottage 191931 HCR PatientCottage 191832 AllenCottage PatientCottage 1918



Table IV.D‐1

Summary of Existing Facilities


Construction33 ThorneCottage PatientCottage 191734 ShrineCottage PatientCottage 191835 MorrisonCottage PatientCottage 192136 EshmanCottage PatientCottage 1927

a Buildingnos.correspond tonumberedbuildingsdepicted inSection II,ProjectDescription, inFigure II‐5,SitePlan–ExistingConditions.

Sources:M2AMilofskyandMichaliArchitectsandHistoricResourcesGroup,January2001;HistoricResourcesGroup,October2011

TheLaundryBuildingwasconstructed in1909/10at thesouthendof thegroundsnear thestaff

cottageswhenacityordinancewaspassedwhichprohibitedhospitallaundryfrombeingsentout.

DonatedbyDr.Barlow,thebrickbuildingwaslocated.ThePatients'WorkshopandStoreroomwas

builtin1912/13.

The original stable, built in 1902, was remodeled in 1917 into a garage when the sanatorium

purchasedanautomobile;thiswasdemolishedsometimeafter1954.Thetwooriginaltentcottages,

thefirstofseveralthatwouldbebuiltoverthesubsequent10years,weretheMedicalandDental

Student'sCottageand thePotterBazaarCottage(laterdemolished).Otherstructuresbuiltduring

this period that are no extant on theproperty include a crematory or incinerator (1904/5), two

summerhouses(1905,1911),abathhouse1905/6),andNursesBuilding(1910/11).

The sanatoriumgroundswere continually improvedduring thisperiod, including theplantingof

trees, palms, shrubbery, flowers, and lawns as well as the addition of curbs, storm drains, and

cementwalkingpaths.

Sanatorium Expansion (1914‐1927)

TheElizaMcMillanMemorialMedicalBuilding,constructedin1914,providedexaminationrooms,

anx‐raydepartment,throatdepartment,recordroom,waitingrooms,dressingrooms,andinterns'

quarters, and provided for examinations of all patients and applicants so they no longer had to

entertheInfirmary.Thisbuildingwasdemolishedin1978.



Theeraoftentcottagescametoanendwiththeconstructionofthefirst"permanent"cottagesin

1914.Between1914and1927,eighteenpermanentcottageswerebuilttoreplacethetentcottages,

accelerated followingWorldWar I by the demands of treating military personnel afflicted with

tuberculosis.ElizabethG.BonfilioMemorialCottage(#11)wasthefirstpermanentcottage;thetwo‐

patient cottage featured screened bedrooms and connecting shower/baths, toilet, and dressing

rooms,andsetanewstandardforpatientcottagesatthesanatorium.

El Baño (#26) was built in 1916 as a bath building with separate areas for men and women

featuringmultipleshowers,dressingrooms,andtoilets.Withinstallationofbathingfacilitiesinthe

newcottages,therewasnofurtherneedforthebathhouseby1919anditappearsthestructurewas

movedfromthenorthtothesouthsideofthegarage,whereitfunctionedasaworkshopandgarage

after1926.

Duringthisperiod,thesanatoriumexpandedtothewestsideofwhatisnowStadiumWaywiththe

constructionofeightpermanentcottages tohousemalepatients.Allweresimilar indesign,plan,

andmaterials.GeorgianaP.AdamsMemorialCottage(#33,laterrenamedThorneCottage),builtin

1917,wasthefirst four‐patientcottage.Subsequentcottages includedAlMalaikahShrineCottage

(#34,ShrineCottage) constructed in1918by theShriners to replace their1906/07 tentcottage;

JustinMorrellMcKennaMemorialCottage (#32, later renamedAllenCottage)wasconstructed in

1918;andIsaacNortonMemorialCottage(#31,nowcalledH.C.R.)wasbuiltin1919toreplacetwo

earliertentcottages.AmericanRedCrossBuildingNo.1(#29,BigRedCross)wasbuiltin1919to

house twelve male military patients. After the sanatorium canceled its contract with the U.S.

Veteran'sAdministrationtotreatmilitarypersonnel,thebuildingwasmodifiedin1924toserveas

asix‐patientwardandagainin1937toaccommodateeightpatients.HoratioG.andJuliaA.Brooks

MemorialCottage(#30,StevensCottage)wasbuilt in1919andwasthenorthernmostcottageon

thewestsideofStadiumWay.GerhardandLouiseEshmanCottage(#36,EshmanCottage)wasbuilt

in1927andwasthelastcottagebuiltwestofStadiumWay.

Fouridenticalcottages,AmericanRedCrossCottages1,2,3,and4(#18,#17,#19,#20),werebuilt

attheendof1919ontheeasternProjectsiteforservicemenreturningfromWorldWarI.Because

theywere built close to themain sanatoriumbuildings, these cottageswere sometimesused for

non‐ambulatorypatientsthatcouldnotbeaccommodatedintheinfirmary.

A collection of five cottagewas constructed on the hillside above the fourRed Cross cottages to

satisfy thegrowingneed for facilities tohousewomenpatients, includingbuildings#15(Slauson

Cottage, 1919); #35 (Morrison Cottage, 1921/22); #14 (State Cottage, built in 1922 to house



teacherswithtuberculosis);#13(LyonsCottage,1924);#16(MilbankCottage,1926);and#12(St.

Bernardine,1927).

The sanatorium also constructed professional and worker housing and upgraded and expanded

servicefacilities.GeorgeK.BirgeMemorialNursesHome(#7,BirgeHall)wasconstructedin1919

to house 14 resident nurses needed as a result of continually increasing patient capacity. To

complementtheincreasedhousingforsanatoriumstaff,agarage(#27)wasalsobuilt in1920/21

fornursesanddoctors.Followingtheconstructionofanewnurse’sresidence,BosworthHall(#9),

in1949,BirgeHallhousedotherfemalesanatoriumworkers.

The Help Building (#5, Guild House) was built in 1920 as a residence for male sanatorium

employees.Inthe1970s,theGuildtookovertheHelpBuildingandrenovateditasagiftshop;Guild

volunteersareresponsiblefortheshop’soperationsandforrenovationandongoingmaintenance

ofthebuilding.

TheLibrary(#4)wasconstructedin1921/22.Thereinforcedconcretebuildingfeaturedatileroof,

stuccoexteriorwalls,andtwostainedglasswindowsflankingaBatcheldertilefireplace.

TheEllaBrooksSolanoInfirmary(#2,thepresentHospital)wasbuiltin1927toreplacetheoriginal

infirmary,whichburneddownin1924.Thetwo‐storystructurewasbuilttohousethirtypatients,

andfeaturedlargeporchesonthreesidesofbothfloors,athree‐storycentertowerwithhippedtile

roof, and a seven‐bay arcade. Infirmary patients were wheeled in their beds into the arcade,

spendingthemorninghoursinthefreshair.Overtheyears,severaladditionsweremade,thetower

wasremoved,andthestructurewasremodeledseveraltimes.Themostrecentremodelresultedin

thecurrenthospitalbuilding.

Sanatorium Consolidation (1928‐present)

VeryfewmajorbuildingshavebeenaddedtoBarlowSanatoriumsince1927.Thosebuiltsince1927

thatarestillextantincludetheMedicalDirector'sResidence(#38)whichwasbuiltin1936onthe

west side of Chavez Ravine Road on the hill overlooking Chavez Ravine Road. The seven‐room

bungalow,attachedgarages,andattachedapartmentfortheAssistantSecretaryweredesignedby

H. Roy Kelley. Until this time, the sanatorium had maintained its business offices downtown. A

decisiontomovethebusinessofficestotheBarlowgroundsledtotheconstructionofthisresidence

forboththeMedicalDirectorandtheAssistantSecretary.TheResidencewasfirstinhabitedbyDr.

BosworthwhobecameMedicalDirectorin1937.



AsecondDoctor'sCottage(#37,Physician'sResidence)wasbuiltin1940.Thisfive‐roombungalow

and garage helped satisfy the shortage of quarters for married resident physicians. It was built

adjacenttotheMedicalDirector'sResidence.

Howard Bosworth Hall (#9) was built in 1949 to house student and graduate nurses. It was

constructedontheeastsideofthesanatoriumsiteonthehilloverlookingthegroundsandprovided

29sleepingrooms,a livingroom,akitchenandadiningroom.Theconstructionofthisresidence

freed up several cottages used until that time by student nurses, thereby increasing the

sanatorium'spatientcapacity.

TheFrancesWhitakerAdministrationBuilding(#1)wasbuiltin1961.Alsobuiltduringthisperiod

wereanAnimalBreedingHouse(#21),constructedcirca1940tobreedandhouseguineapigsfor

useinresearch,andtwosheds(#21and#24).Twobuildingsbuiltafter1927thatnolongerexist

includetheAviary(1930)andtheElksTuberculosisLibrary(1947).

iv. Previous Evaluation and Identification of Historical Resources

BarlowHospitalwasdesignatedasHistoric‐CulturalMonumentNo.504bytheCityofLosAngeles

in1990. In1992,BarlowHospitalwasdetermined eligible for listingon theNationalRegisterof

Historic Places as an Historic District18 and is therefore automatically listed on the California

Register of Historical Resources. Select buildings and landscape features on the Project site are

recognizedascontributorstotheHistoricDistrict,whichcollectivelyderivetheirsignificanceasa

single unified entity. No single building or portion of the Project site was determined to be

individually significant. TheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrictboundariesarecontiguouswith the

legal boundaries of the Barlow Hospital property. Figure IV.D‐1, Barlow Respiratory Hospital

HistoricDistrict,depictstheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrict.

Barlow Hospital is historically significant as a rare, largely intact example of an early twentieth

century tuberculosis treatment facility in Southern California. It was one of several sanatoriums

built around the turn of the century that utilized Southern California's benign climate, abundant

sunshine, and clean, fresh air to combat tuberculosis before the discovery of antibiotics. The

treatmentsadvocatedbyBarlowHospitalsetastandardofhealthcarefortuberculosispatientsand

helpedestablishSouthernCaliforniaasadestinationforthoseseekingcuresaswellashealthcare

practitioners.

18 TheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrictisenteredontheCaliforniaHistoricResourcesInventorywithastatuscodeof

252,or"determinedeligibleforseparatelistingontheNationalRegisterbyconsensusdetermination."ContributingresourceswithintheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrictareenteredwithastatuscodeof2D2,or"determinedeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterasacontributorbyconsensusdetermination."

Figure IV.D-1Barlow Respiratory Hospital Historic District

LEGEND

0 200 400

Scale (Feet)

Source: Historic Resources Group, December 2010.



BarlowSanatorium'sstyleoftreatment,focusedonhousingpatientsinsmall,detachedbungalows,

resulted inadistinctivemedicalcampusresemblingasmallvillage.Groupingsofbungalows,staff

housing,andsupportstructuresarearrayedaroundacentralcoreofmedical,administrativeand

patient service buildings. Buildings are set within a park‐like setting of lawns, trees and paved

footpaths. The collection of buildings, structures, and landscape featureson theBarlowproperty

continue to exhibit the distinctive development pattern, spatial relationships, and architectural

styles of Southern California sanatorium built between the turn of the century through the late

1920s. Themajority of buildingswere constructedbefore 1930 and share common architectural

stylesincludingShingle,Craftsman,andSpanishRevival.

Barlow Hospital is also associated with persons important to local, state and national history

including its founder, Dr. Jarvis Barlow as well as numerous donors to the sanatorium which

numbered some of Los Angeles's most important families and organizations. These include the

Hellman,O'Melveny,Lankershim,Lasky,Solano,Potter,Milbank,McMillanandTorrancefamiliesas

wellastheAmericanRedCross,AlMalaikahShrineTemple,andtheLosAngelesOptimistsClub.

Period of Significance

The period of significance for BarlowHospital extends from1902when purchase of the Elysian

Park site was completed, thru 1952 when methods of treatment changed and expansion of the

sanatorium's focusontuberculosistootherpulmonarydiseaseswasfirstseriouslycontemplated.

This fifty‐year timeframe captures the period duringwhich the "cottage" treatment embodied in

BarlowHospital'scampusplanwasthepreferredmethodoftreatmentfortuberculosispatients.

Topography and Setting

LocatedwithinanarrowravinesurroundedbythehillsidesoftheElysianParkHills,thedistinctive

topographyoftheProjectsiteisadefiningfeatureoftheHistoricalDistrict.Thelowerportionsof

the ravine provided a protected location for sanatorium functions while the steep surrounding

hillsidesremainedinanopen,naturalstate.Thegeneraleffectofaprivateenclavesetinanatural,

park‐likesettinghaslargelybeenmaintainedsincetheperiodofsignificance.

Contributing Buildings

TheHistoricDistrictcontains thirty‐two(32)buildings thatcontribute to itshistoricsignificance.

Although several buildings are in poor condition and show significant signs of damage and

disrepair,nocontributingbuildinghassustainedchangesoralterationssuchthatitcouldnolonger

be considered a contributor to the Historic District. A map of the Historic District indicating



contributingandnon‐contributingbuildings isprovided inFigureIV.D‐1. Contributingbuildings

arelistedinTableIV.D‐2,ContributingBuildingstotheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrict.

Contributing Landscape Features

The Historic District also contains landscape features that date from the period of significance.

These include the configuration of sidewalks, stairs, and planted areas surrounding the cottages

#29 through#36on thewestsideofStadiumWayandcottages#13through#19 locatedeastof

StadiumWay, Portions of the central green space that frontsbuilding#2Aand the spacebehind

cottage#20alsodatefromtheperiodofsignificance.

Thenatural,undevelopedhillsidesontheeasternandwesternProjectsites,bothsidesofStadium

Way,arealsoconsideredcontributorstotheHistoricDistrict.

Non‐Contributing Resources

Seven buildings have been identified as non‐contributors to the Historic District. These are

buildingsthatwereeitherconstructedaftertheperiodofsignificanceorhavebeenheavilyaltered

sincetheperiodofsignificanceandnolongerretainhistoricintegrity.AmapoftheHistoricDistrict

whichindicatesthecontributingandnon‐contributingbuildingsisprovidedinFigureIV.D‐1.Non‐

contributingbuildingsarelistedinTableIV.D‐3,Non‐ContributingBuildingstotheBarlowHospital

HistoricDistrict,below.

Individually Significant Resources

TheHistoricalResourcestechnicalreportpreparedfortheproposedProjectconcludedthatthree

buildings – Williams Hall, Birge Hall, and the Library – appear to be individually significant in

additiontobeingcontributorstotheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrict.Eachisdescribedbelow.

A single‐story, wood‐frame, brick‐ and shingle‐clad building constructed in 1909/1910 as the

sanatorium’srecreationhall,WilliamsHallhostedsmallconcerts,lectures,parties,andfundraisers,

serving a unique and an important function as a social gathering space for the sanatorium

population andmembers of the larger LosAngeles community. By providing an informal public

face for Barlow Hospital, Williams Hall represents an important nexus between the sanatorium

population and the larger community. It is one of the earliest of the Barlow campus’s core

administrative and service buildings that is still intact, and remains largely unaltered since its

originalconstruction.



Table IV.D‐2

Contributing Buildings to the Barlow Hospital Historic District

BuildingNo.a BuildingName BuildingFunction DateofConstruction

Administration 2A Administration AdministrativeOffices 1902

PatientServices3 WilliamsHall Recreation 19094 Library PatientEducation 1921

ProfessionalandWorkerHousing 5 HelpBuilding(GuildHouse) WorkerHousing 19207 BirgeHall StaffHousing 19198 Physician’sResidence StaffHousing 1908/1913/19419 BosworthHall Nurses’Housing 194923 GardenShed Worker’sCottage 1907/190825 PaintLocker Worker’sCottage 1906/190737 Doctor’sCottage StaffHousing 194038 MedicalDirector’sResidence StaffHousing 1936

Maintenance 6 LaundryBuilding LaundryServices 191026 MaintenanceShop/ElBaño Bath/Maintenance 191628 Warehouse PatientWorkshopandStorage 1912

PatientHousing 11 ElizabethG.BonfilioMemorialCottage PatientCottage 191412 St.BernardineCottage PatientCottage 192713 Lyon’sMemorialCottage PatientCottage 192414 BeemanMemorialCottage PatientCottage 192215 Slauson&McNeillMemorialCottage PatientCottage 191916 MilbankCottage PatientCottage 192617 RedCrossIICottage PatientCottage 191918 RedCrossICottage PatientCottage 191919 RedCrossIIICottage PatientCottage 191920 RedCrossVICottage PatientCottage 191929 BigRedCrossCottage PatientCottage 191930 StevensCottage PatientCottage 191931 HCR PatientCottage 191832 AllenCottage PatientCottage 191833 ThorneCottage PatientCottage 191734 ShrineCottage PatientCottage 191835 MorrisonCottage PatientCottage 192136 EshmanCottage PatientCottage 1927

_____________a Buildingnos.correspondtonumberedbuildingsdepictedinSectionII,ProjectDescription,inFigureII‐5,SitePlan–ExistingConditions.Source:HistoricResourcesGroup,HistoricalResourcesTechnicalReport:BarlowHospitalReplacementandMasterPlanProject,October2011.



Table IV.D‐3

Non‐Contributing Buildings to the Barlow Hospital Historic District


ConstructionAdministration

1 Administration AdministrativeOffices 1961PatientServices

2 Hospital Infirmary/Hospital 1927/1972/1978Maintenance

10 CentralSupplyII Storage/AnimalTesting 1924/197021 Carpenter’sShop AnimalBreeding 194022 Shed Maintenance 1954orlater24 GardenShed Maintenance NoDate27 Garage StaffGarage 1920/1923

_____________Source:HistoricResourcesGroup,HistoricalResourcesTechnicalReport:BarlowHospitalReplacementandMasterPlanProject,October2011.

BirgeHallwasconstructedin1919ashousingforresidentnursesatBarlowHospital,andisarare

survivingexampleofanearly20th‐centuryhousingformedicalpersonnel.Itisatwo‐story,wood‐

frame, shingle‐clad buildingwith an addition constructed in 1945 at its north end. Although the

building is currently in some disrepair, it retains the majority of its original character‐defining

features.

TheLibrarywasconstructedin1921/1922asareinforcedconcretebuildingintheSpanishColonial

Revival style. The Library represents a unique patient service building on the Project site and,

together with the Infirmary building (long since incorporated into the current main hospital

building), marked the introduction of this architectural style as well as advanced construction

techniques to theBarlowcampus.Thebuildingwas renovated in1992and retains its character‐

definingfeatures.

Nootherbuilding,structure,objectorsite locatedontheBarlowHospitalpropertyappearstobe

individuallysignificant.Nobuilding,structure,objectorsiteappearstobeindividuallyassociated

with important persons or events in history beyond those associatedwith BarlowHospital as a

whole.Noindividualbuilding,structure,objectorsiteisaparticularlydistinctiveexampleoftype,



period,designormethodofconstruction,andnonecanindividuallybeconsideredarepresentative

workofamasterarchitect,designer,artistorcraftsman.19

v. Application of Criteria for Current Evaluation of Historical Significance

Evaluation of the Barlow Sanatorium Historic District for the National Register

Historic District

BarlowHospitalwasdeterminedeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasanhistoric

district by consensus determination in 1992. The Barlow Hospital Historic District was found

significantunderNationalRegisterCriterionAforitsassociationwiththedevelopmentofsanatoria

for tuberculosis patients during the first half of the twentieth century, particularly in Southern

California.BarlowSanatorium's(laterHospital)successful treatmentofrespiratory illnesshelped

toestablishstandardsfortheindustry.

TheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrictwasalsofoundsignificantunderNationalRegisterCriterionB

foritsassociationwithpersonsimportanttothehistoryofLosAngeles,theregion,Californiaand

thenationincludingDr.WalterJarvisBarlowaswellasnumerousdonorstothesanatoriumwhich

numberedsomeofLosAngeles'smostimportantfamiliesandorganizations.

TheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrictwasalsofoundsignificantunderNationalRegisterCriterionC

as a rare example of a sanatorium campus from the early twentieth century. The collection of

buildings, structures, and landscape features on the Barlow property continue to exhibit the

distinctive development pattern, spatial relationships, and architectural styles of Southern

Californiasanatoriumoftheperiod.

The Barlow Hospital Historic District has retained integrity of location, design, workmanship,

materials,feeling,setting,andassociationandremainseligibleforlistingintheNationalRegister.

Williams Hall

WilliamsHallappearstobesignificantunderNationalRegisterCriterionAforitsassociationwith

the social events and gatherings held at Barlow Hospital during the period of significance. As

previouslystated,WilliamsHallhasnotbeensignificantlyalteredsincetheperiodofsignificance,

19 Resources evaluated as significant individually are not considered of higher importance than contributors to a

historic district. The difference relates only to the type of historic resourcebeingdefined. The significance of theBarlowHospital propertyderives from the collective interplayof topography, landscape, circulationpatterns, andbuildings,ratherthanfromanysinglecontributingfeature.



andassuch,hasretainedintegrityoflocation,design,workmanship,materials,feeling,setting,and

association.

Birge Hall

BirgeHallappearstobeindividuallysignificantunderNationalRegisterCriterionCasarare,intact

exampleofaresidentialbuildingfromtheearly20thcenturybuiltonthesiteofamedicalinstitution

tohousemedicalpersonnel.Aspreviouslystated,despiteminoralterationsanda1946addition,it

retains themajorityof itscharacter‐defining featuresandhasnotbeensignificantlyalteredsince

theperiodof significance. It retains integrityof location,design,workmanship,materials, feeling,

setting,andassociation,andassuch,appearseligibleforlistingintheNationalRegister.

Library

The Library appears to be individually significant under National Register Criterion C as a rare,

intactexampleof apatient servicesbuilding fromthe1920sconstructedon thesiteofamedical

institution (i.e., intended specifically to provide a library for recovering patients). The Library



setting,andassociation,andassuch,appearseligibleforlistingintheNationalRegister.

Evaluation of the Barlow Sanatorium Historic District for the California Register

Historic District

The Barlow Hospital Historic District is listed on the California Register by virtue of being

determinedeligiblefortheNationalRegister.It issignificantunderCaliforniaRegisterCriterion1

foritsassociationwiththedevelopmentofsanatoriafortuberculosispatientsduringthefirsthalfof

the twentiethcentury,Criterion2 for itsassociationwithpersons importanttothehistoryofLos

Angeles, the region, California and thenation, andCriterion3 as a rare exampleof a sanatorium

campusfromtheearlytwentiethcentury.

TheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrictalsohasretainedintegrityoflocation,design,workmanship,

materials, feeling, setting, and association. As such, it retains its ability to convey its historic

significanceandremainseligibleforlistingintheCaliforniaRegister.



Williams Hall

WilliamsHallappearstobesignificantunderCaliforniaRegisterCriterion1foritsassociationwith

the social events and gatherings held at Barlow Hospital during the period of significance. As

previouslystated,WilliamsHallhasnotbeensignificantlyalteredsincetheperiodofsignificance.It

hasretainedintegrityoflocation,design,workmanship,materials,feeling,setting,andassociation,

andassuch,appearseligibleforlistingintheCaliforniaRegister.

Birge Hall

Birge Hall appears to be individually significant under California Register Criterion 3 as a rare,

intact exampleof a residential building from theearly20th centurybuilt on the siteof amedical

institutiontohousemedicalpersonnel.Aspreviouslystated,despiteminoralterationsanda1946

addition, it retains themajority of its character‐defining features and has not been significantly

altered since the period of significance. It retains integrity of location, design, workmanship,

materials,feeling,setting,andassociation,andassuch,appearseligibleforlistingintheCalifornia

Register.

Library

The Library appears to be individually significant under CaliforniaRegister Criterion 3 as a rare





setting,andassociationandassuch,appearseligibleforlistingintheCaliforniaRegister.

Evaluation of Eligibility as a City of Los Angeles as an Historic‐Cultural Monument

TheBarlowHospitalpropertywasdesignatedasHistoric‐CulturalMonumentNo.504bytheCityof

LosAngelesin1990inrecognitionofitshistoricsignificanceasnotedabove.TheBarlowHospital

Historic District also has retained integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, feeling,

setting,andassociation.Assuch,itretainsitsabilitytoconveyitshistoricsignificanceandremains

eligibleforlistingasanHistoric‐CulturalMonument.



Williams Hall

Williams Hall appears tomeet the criteria for a Los Angeles Historic‐Cultural Monument for its

associationwiththesocialeventsandgatheringsheldattheBarlowHospitalduringtheperiodof

significance.Constructedin1909/1910,WilliamsHallisoneoftheearliestoftheBarlowcampus’s

coreadministrative andservicebuildings that remains intact, servingauniqueandan important

function as a social gathering space for the Sanitarium population and members of the larger

community. Williams Hall has not been significantly altered since the period of significance. It

retainsintegrityoflocation,design,workmanship,materials,feeling,setting,andassociation.

Birge Hall

Birge Hall appears tomeet the criteria for a Los Angeles Historic‐Cultural Monument as a rare,

intact exampleof a residential building from theearly20th centurybuilt on the siteof amedical

institution tohousemedicalpersonnel.Despiteminoralterationsanda1946addition,BirgeHall

retainsintegrityoflocation,design,workmanship,materials,feeling,setting,andassociation.

Library

TheLibraryappears tomeet thecriteria foraLosAngelesHistoric‐CulturalMonumentasa rare,





setting,andassociation.

Conclusions Regarding Identification of Historic Resources

The Barlow Hospital Historic District has been determined eligible for listing on the National

Register, is listed on theCaliforniaRegister, is a designatedCity of LosAngelesHistoric‐Cultural

Monument(No.504),andincludesthreebuildings–WilliamsHall,BirgeHall,andtheLibrary–that

arepotentially individually significant.Assuch, theProject sitequalifiesasanhistorical resource

underCEQA.



4. IMPACT ANALYSIS

a. Methodology

i. Paleontological Resources

Analysis of potential Project impacts on paleontological resourceswas conductedby theNatural

HistoryMuseumofLosAngelesCountyVertebratePaleontologySectionforinformationregarding

theoccurrencesofvertebrate fossil siteswithinand/ornear theProject site.20Theresultsof the

recordssearchareprovidedinAppendixIV.D.

ii. Archaeological Resources

Analysis of potential Project impacts related to archaeological resources was conducted by the

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California State University, Fullerton,

Department of Anthropology for the proposedProject.21 A records searchwas conductedby the

SCCICforinformationtodeterminethepotentialfortheoccurrenceofarchaeologicalresourcesat

theProjectsite.TheSCCICreviewednumerousdocumentsforarchaeologicalsiteswithinone‐half‐

mile radius of the Project site within the following databases: California Points of Historical

Interest (PHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register of Historical

Resources (CR), the National Register of Historic Places (NR), the California State Historic

ResourcesInventory(HRI),andtheCityofLosAngelesHistoric‐CulturalMonuments(LAHCM).The

technical report also sets forthmeasures for identifying and evaluating anypreviously unknown

cultural resources in theProject site andmitigatingdirect and indirect impacts to any resources

thatmaybecausedbyimplementationoftheproposedProject.Thetechnicalreportisprovidedin

AppendixIV.D.

iii. Historical Resources

Analysis of potential Project impacts on historical resources is based on an historic resources

assessmentof theProject sitepreparedbyHistoricResourcesGroup,datedOctober2011.22This

technicalreportisprovidedinAppendixIV.DofthisEIR.Themethodologyemployedinthereport

includes review of previous research, studies and environmental documents, review of existing

20 NaturalHistoryMuseumofLosAngelesCountyVertebratePaleontologySection,SamuelA.McLeod,Ph.D.,September

14,2010.ProvidedinAppendixIV.D.21 SouthCentralCoastalInformationCenteroftheCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton,DepartmentofAnthropology,

RecordsSearchforBarlowReplacementHospitalandMasterPlan,(2009).(ProvidedinAppendixIV.D)22 Historic Resources Group, Historical Resources Technical Report: Barlow Hospital Replacement

andMasterPlanProject.



documentationofBarlowHospitalasanhistoricresource,archivalresearch,fieldobservationsand

evaluation according to applicable criteria of the National Register of Historic Places and the

CaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources.Theanalysisfocusesonexteriorarchitecturalfeatures,

landscape characteristics, public spaces and the spatial organization of the Barlow Hospital

property.

ThetechnicalreportwascompiledusingthebasicformatforCulturalResourceReportsestablished

bytheNationalParkService(NPS).Thisapproachisbaseduponcurrentprofessionalmethodology

standards and procedures developed by the NPS, the California Office of Historic Preservation

(OHP)andstandardpreservationpractice.

b. Significance Thresholds


TheCityofLosAngelesCEQAThresholdsGuidestates thedeterminationof significance shouldbe

madeonacasebycasebasis,consideringthefollowingfactors:

Whether,orthedegreetowhich,theprojectmightresultinthepermanentlossof,orlossof

accessto,apaleontologicalresource;and

Whetherthepaleontologicalresourceisofregionalorstatewidesignificance.

AppendixGof theStateCEQAGuidelinesprovides sample checklistquestions foruse inan Initial

Study to determine a project’s potential for environmental impacts. According to the questions

contained in Appendix G under Section V, Cultural Resources, a projectwould have a significant

impactifitwould:

V.c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique

geologicfeature.

BasedontheCityofLosAngelesCEQAThresholdsGuideandAppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelines,

theproposedProjectwouldhaveasignificantimpactonpaleontologicalresourcesif:

PALEO1 The Project would result in the permanent loss of, or loss of access to, a unique

paleontological resource or site of regional or statewide significance, or a unique

geologicfeature.




The City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide states that a project would normally have a

significant impact on archaeological resources if it could disturb, damage, or degrade an

archaeological resource or its setting that is found to be important under the criteria of CEQA

becauseit:

Isassociatedwithaneventorpersonof recognized importance inCaliforniaorAmerican

prehistoryorofrecognizedscientificimportanceinprehistory;

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

addressingscientificallyconsequentialandreasonablearchaeologicalresearchquestions;

Hasaspecialorparticularquality,suchastheoldest,best,largest,orlastsurvivingexample

ofitskind;

Isatleast100yearsold23andpossessessubstantialstratigraphicintegrity;or

Involvesimportantresearchquestionsthathistoricalresearchhasshowncanbeanswered

onlywitharchaeologicalmethods.




impactifitwould:

V.b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource

pursuanttoSection15064.5;or

V.d) Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries.

Section21803.2(g)oftheCaliforniaPublicResourcesCode(PRC)alsostatesthatleadagenciesare

requiredtodeterminewhetheraprojectwouldhaveasignificantimpactonuniquearchaeological

resources, defined as artifacts, objects, or sites that can be clearly demonstrated to have a high

probabilityofmeetingthefollowingcriteria:

23 AlthoughtheCEQAcriteriastatethat"importantarchaeologicalresources"arethosewhichareatleast100yearsold,

theCaliforniaRegisterprovidesthatanysitefoundeligiblefornominationtotheNationalRegisterwillautomaticallybeincludedwithintheCaliforniaRegisterandsubjecttoallprotectionsthereof.TheNationalRegisterrequiresthatasiteorstructurebeatleast50yearsold.



1. Containsinformationneededtoanswerimportantscientificresearchquestionsandthat

thereisademonstrablepublicinterestinthatinformation.

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

availableexampleofitstype.

3. Isdirectly associatedwitha scientifically recognized importantprehistoricorhistoric

eventorperson.

ThethresholdsprovidedintheCityofLosAngelesCEQAThresholdsGuideforthedeterminationof

significantarchaeologicalimpactsfullyincorporatethechecklistquestionscontainedinAppendixG

of the State CEQA Guidelines as well as PRC Section 21803.2(g) criteria for defining “unique

archaeological resources” contained in theGuidelines.Therefore,basedon theCityofLosAngeles

CEQA Thresholds Guide, the proposed Project would have a significant impact on archaeological

resources if it coulddisturb, damage, ordegrade an archaeological resourceor its setting that is

foundtobeimportantbecauseit:

ARCH‐1 Is associated with an event or person of recognized importance in California or

Americanprehistoryorofrecognizedscientificimportanceinprehistory;

ARCH‐2 Canprovideinformationwhichisbothofdemonstrablepublicinterestandusefulin

addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research

questions;

ARCH‐3 Hasaspecialorparticularquality,suchastheoldest,best,largest,orlastsurviving

exampleofitskind;

ARCH‐4 Isatleast100yearsold24andpossessessubstantialstratigraphicintegrity;or

ARCH‐5 Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be

answeredonlywitharchaeologicalmethods.

Additionally,basedonAppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelines,theproposedProjectwouldhavea

significantimpactonarchaeologicalresourcesif:

24 AlthoughtheStateCEQAGuidelinesstatethat"importantarchaeologicalresources"arethosewhichareatleast100

yearsold, theCaliforniaRegisterprovides thatanysite foundeligible fornomination to theNationalRegisterwillautomaticallybeincludedwithintheCaliforniaRegisterandsubjecttoallprotectionsthereof.TheNationalRegisterrequiresthatasiteorstructurebeatleast50yearsold.



ARCH‐6 TheProjectwoulddisturbanyhumanremains, includingthose interredoutsideof

formalcemeteries.


The City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide states that a project would normally have a

significant impactonhistorical resources if itwouldresult inasubstantialadversechange in the

significanceofanhistoricresource.Asubstantialadversechangeinsignificanceoccursiftheproject

involvesthefollowing:

Demolitionofasignificantresource;

Relocationthatdoesnotmaintaintheintegrityandsignificanceofasignificantresource;

Conversion,rehabilitation,oralterationofasignificantresourcewhichdoesnotconformto

theSecretaryoftheInterior'sStandardsforRehabilitationandGuidelinesforRehabilitating

HistoricBuildings;or

Constructionthatreducestheintegrityorsignificanceofimportantresourcesonthesiteor

inthevicinity.




impactif:

V.a) TheProjectwouldcauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanhistorical

resourceasdefinedinSection15064.5.

Section15064.5(b)(1)statesthat indeterminingpotential impactsa“substantialadversechange”

means“demolition,destruction,relocation,oralterationsoftheresourcesuchthatthesignificance

of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” The setting of a resource may also

contribute to its significance, as impairment of the setting could affect the significance of that

resource.Materialimpairmentoccurswhenaproject:


historicalresourcethatconveyitshistoricalsignificanceandthatjustifyitsinclusionin,or

eligibilityfor,inclusionintheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources;or



Demolishes ormaterially alters in an adversemanner those physical characteristics that

account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section

5020.1(k)ofthePublicResourcesCodeoritsidentificationinanhistoricalresourcessurvey

meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the

public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of

evidencethattheresourceisnothistoricallyorculturallysignificant;or


historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for

inclusionintheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResourcesasdeterminedbyaleadagency

forpurposesofCEQA.

ThethresholdsusedintheCityofLosAngelesCEQAThresholdsGuideincorporateandgobeyondthe

checklistquestioncontainedinAppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelines.Therefore,thisEIRusesthe

thresholdsprovidedintheCityofLosAngelesCEQAThresholdsGuide.Basedonthesethresholds,the

Projectwouldcauseasubstantialadversechangeinsignificanceif:

HIST‐1 TheProjectwouldinvolvedemolitionofasignificantresource;

HIST‐2 The Project would involve relocation that does not maintain the integrity and

significanceofasignificantresource;

HIST‐3 The Projectwould involve conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a significant

resourcewhich does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for

RehabilitationandGuidelinesforRehabilitatingHistoricBuildings;or

HIST‐4 TheProjectwouldinvolveconstructionthatreducestheintegrityorsignificanceof

importantresourcesonthesiteorinthevicinity.

c. Project Design Features

AsshowninFigureII‐6,ProposedSitePlaninSectionII,ProjectDescription,theapplicantproposes

tosubdividetheProjectsiteinto15parcelsandseekGeneralPlanAmendmentsandZoneChanges

consistentwithproposedredevelopmentoftheparcels.Theproposedsubdivisionwouldcreatea

proposed Historical Parcel that would encompass the core of the eastern Project site and nine

historicallysignificantbuildingsandlandscapefeatures,andaproposedHospitalParcelthatwould

encompass the replacement hospital, administration and support facility, and skilled nursing

facility.Twelveproposedparcelswouldbedevelopedwithresidentialuses(Parcels1–6and8–13)



and one proposed parcel would be developed with residential plus neighborhood‐serving

commercial uses (Parcel 7). The residential uses on proposed Parcels 1‐12 would be

condominiums;thoseonproposedParcel13wouldbetownhomes.

TheproposedHistoricalParcelwouldbelocatedonanapproximately2.13‐acreparcelnorthofthe

proposedHospitalParcel.Nineofthe32contributingbuildingsintheHistoricDistrictandsomeof

thecontributinglandscapefeatureswouldbepreservedintheircurrent(original) locationwithin

this proposed Historical Parcel. The historic buildings to be retained would remain under the

ownershipofthehospitalandwouldbeadaptedtohouseoffices,cultural,recreational,andother

programs and facilities for use by the hospital community, Project residents, and the Echo Park

community.Buildingstoberetainedwouldtotalapproximately8,220squarefeet,andtheFARin

thisparcelwouldbe0.090.

TheresidentialbuildingsonproposedParcels1‐12wouldbefourstories,or75feet,inheightabove

adjacent grade, including partially subterranean parking podiums. The townhome buildings on

proposedParcel13wouldbethreestories,or35feet, inheightaboveadjacentgrade.Residential

buildingswouldbeconstructed inavarietyofarchitecturalstylesthatreflectandarecompatible

withtheexistinghistoricallysignificantbuildingsontheProjectsiteaswellastheEchoParkand

Silver Lake communities, and could includeCraftsman, SpanishColonialRevival, andMidcentury

Modern styles. The buildings would be connected by walkways, or “paseos”, and staircases to

providehillsideaccessandechothetraditionofsuchstaircasesthroughoutEchoPark.

Contributing landscape elements, including trees and plantings, open areas, gardens, and

pedestrianwalkways,wouldberetainedwithintheproposedHistoricalParcel.Theplantpalettefor

theproposedHistoricalParcelwouldreplicatethevariedmixofplantspecieshistoricallyusedon

thehistoricsite, includingornamentalandnativespecies,shade‐andsun‐tolerantspecies,palms,

andfloweringshrubsandtrees.Totheextentpossible,gradingwouldbeminimizedandtreesand

shrubspreservedinthisparcel.TheoveralllandscapedesignfortheproposedHistoricalParcelis

intendedtoreplicatetheinformal,garden‐likeappearanceoftheoriginalcampus,withmeandering

walkwaysandirregularplantings.Thisareawouldserveasamajoropenspacefeatureatthecenter

oftheeasternProjectsite,preservingsomeoftheexistingviewfromStadiumWayandprovidinga

bufferbetweentheproposedhospitalandproposedresidentialuses.



d. Project Impacts


PALEO1 Would the Project result in the permanent loss of, or loss of access to, a

uniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteofregionalorstatewidesignificance,

orauniquegeologicfeature?

Construction

A number of previously recorded fossil sites, some of which have yielded resources that are

considereduniqueand/orofregionalorstatewideimportance,havebeenidentifiedintheProject

vicinitywithin the upperMontereyFormation, a rockunit thatoccurson theProject site. For this

reason, the potential for unrecorded fossil resources to be present within this rock unit on the

Projectsiteisconsideredhigh.

Paleontological resources potentially present on the Project site could be affected by direct and

indirect impacts resulting from earthmoving activities associated with Project construction. The

lossoffossilremains,currentlyunrecordedfossilsites,associatedspecimendataandsitedata,or

fossil‐bearing strata could result from earthmoving activities (e.g., excavation for foundations,

hospital basement, subterranean parking, or other structures, and trenching for pipelines) in

previously undisturbed strata. Earthmoving activities could also bury previously undisturbed

strata,therebyrenderingthestrataandassociatedpaleontologicalresourcesunavailableforfuture

scientificinvestigation.Finally,earthmovingcouldcreateaccesstofreshexposuresofstrataknown

tobearfossilsandincreasethepotentialforunauthorizedfossilcollecting.

Therefore, earthmoving activities within portions of the Project site underlain by the upper

MontereyFormationhavethepotentialtoresultinsignificantimpactsonpaleontologicalresources

by causing the loss of, or lossof access to, resources that areuniqueor of regional or statewide

importance.

Although the Project site exhibits substantial topographic relief, there are no unique geologic

features on‐site that would be removed in the course of construction, and no impacts on such

featuresareanticipated.



Operation

BecausetherockunitsunderlyingtheProjectsitewouldnotbedisturbedfollowingcompletionof

construction activities, no impacts on paleontological resources are anticipated during Project

operation.


ARCH‐1 Would theproposedprojectdisturb,damage,ordegradeanarchaeological

resource or its setting that is associated with an event or person of

recognizedimportanceinCaliforniaorAmericanprehistoryorofrecognized

scientificimportanceinprehistory?

ARCH‐2 Would theproposedproject disturb, damageordegrade an archaeological

resource or its setting that can provide information which is both of

demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically

consequentialandreasonablearchaeologicalresearchquestions?


resource or its setting that has a special or particular quality, such as the

oldest,best,largest,orlastsurvivingexampleofitskin?


resourceoritssettingthatisatleast100yearsoldandpossessessubstantial

stratigraphicintegrity?


resource or its setting that involves important research questions that

historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological

methods?

ARCH‐6 Would the Project would disturb any human remains, including those

interredoutsideofformalcemeteries?

Construction

Asdiscussedabove,noknownarchaeologicalresourcesarelocatedwithintheProjectsiteorwithin

ahalf‐mileoftheProjectsite.However,implementationoftheproposedProjecthasthepotentialto

disturb,damage,ordegradeimportantarchaeologicalresourcesortheirsettingsasdefinedinthe



significance thresholds above during the course of construction‐related earthmoving and

excavation activities. Therefore, Project construction could have a significant impact on

archaeologicalresources.

The potential for earthmoving and excavation activities to uncover prehistoric resources and

associated Native American human remains is considered low on the Project site. However, the

presence of such resources cannot be ruled out. Construction‐related disturbance of human

remainswouldbeapotentiallysignificantimpact.

Operation

OperationsfollowingproposedProjectbuildoutwouldnotnormallyrequiregrading,excavation,or

other ground‐disturbing activities. Routine maintenance activities, such as replacement of

underground pipes requiring ground disturbing activities, could have a potentially significant

impactonarchaeologicalresourcesortheirsettings.


HIST‐1 WouldtheProjectinvolvedemolitionofasignificantresource?

TheProjectwouldretainatotalof11contributingbuildings,includingninebuildingsontheeastern

Project site within the proposed 2.13‐acre Historical Parcel and two buildings on the western

ProjectsitewithinproposedParcel13.Contributingbuildingstoberetainedwithintheproposed

Historical Parcel include buildings #3 (Williams Hall, which also appears to be individually

significant), #4 (the Library,which also appears to be individually significant), and#14 through

#20, which total approximately 8,220 square feet. Outside the proposed Historical Parcel,

contributing building #37 and #38 on the western Project site would be retained, in proposed

Parcel13.Table IV.D‐4,ProposedRetentionorDemolitionofContributingBuildings totheBarlow

HospitalHistoricDistrict,liststhe32contributingbuildingsontheProjectsiteandindicateswhich

wouldberetainedordemolished.

Atotalof28buildingswouldbedemolished,including21contributingbuildings,or66percentof

allcontributingbuildingstotheHistoricDistrict.Contributingbuildingstobedemolishedinclude

alloftheworkerhousingandmaintenancebuildingsaswellas13patientcottages.Thebuildingsto

bedemolishedincludeBirgeHall,whichappearstobeindividuallysignificantaccordingtoNational

Register, California Register, and City of Los Angeles Historic‐Cultural Monument criteria, in

additiontobeingacontributortotheHistoricDistrict.



Table IV.D‐4

Proposed Retention or Demolition of Contributing Buildings to the Barlow Hospital Historic District

BuildingNumber BuildingName RetainorDemolish?Administration

2A Administration DemolishPatientServices

3 WilliamsHall Retain4 Library Retain

ProfessionalandWorkerHousing 5 HelpBuilding(GuildHouse) Demolish7 BirgeHall Demolish8 Physician'sResidence Demolish9 BosworthHall Demolish23 GardeningShed Demolish25 PaintLocker Demolish37 Doctor'sCottage Retain38 MedicalDirector'sResidence Retain

PatientHousing 11 ElizabethG.BonfilioMemorialCottage Demolish12 St.BernardinoCottage Demolish13 LyonsMemorialCottage Demolish14 BeemanMemorialCottage Retain15 Slauson&MacNeilMemorialCottage Retain16 MilbankCottage Retain17 RedCrossI I Retain18 RedCrossI Retain19 RedCrossI I I Retain20 RedCrossVI Retain29 BigRedCross Demolish30 StevensCottage Demolish31 HCR Demolish32 AllenCottage Demolish33 ThornCottage Demolish34 ShrineCottage Demolish35 MorrisonCottage Demolish36 EshmanCottage Demolish

Maintenance 6 LaundryBuilding Demolish26 MaintenanceShop"ElBaño" Demolish28 Warehouse Demolish

_____________Source: Historic Resources Group, Historical Resources Technical Report: Barlow Hospital Replacement andMaster Plan Project,October2011.

The eligibleHistoricDistrict also contains contributing landscape features.TheproposedProject

would retain some of these features within the proposed Historical Parcel, including paved

sidewalksandstairwaysthatprovideaccesstothepatientcottages,aswellassmallplantedareas

surroundingthecottages,andwouldretainaportionoftheopenhillsidesonthewesternProject

site, which are considered a contributing feature to the Historic District. However, the Project



woulddevelopthemajorityof thehillsidesonthewesternProjectsite,andallothercontributing

landscape features across the Project site would be demolished, including hillside areas on the

easternProject siteand theconfigurationofsidewalks, stairways,andplantedareassurrounding

cottages#29through#36onthewesternProjectsite.

As stated above, Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a substantial adverse

change in the significance of an historic resource is defined as the demolition, destruction,

relocation,oralternationoftheresourceoritsimmediatesurroundings,suchthatthesignificance

ofthehistoricresourcewouldbemateriallyimpaired.Theproposeddemolitionof21contributing

buildings would constitute removal of 66 percent of the contributing buildings to the Historic

District, including all of the worker housing and maintenance building types. The majority of

contributing landscape features would also be removed. In addition to the loss of contributing

resources, theproposedProjectwouldsignificantlyalter theBarlowHospital’shistoricdesignby

eliminatingallcontributingresourcesonthewestsideofStadiumWay.

Theproposeddemolitionofcontributingbuildingsandlandscapefeatures,togetherwithalteration

ofthehistoricsettingandoveralldesign,meantheHistoricDistrictwouldnolongerretainintegrity

of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association. Consequently, the

Historic Districtwould no longer be eligible for listing in theNational Register or the California

Register or constitute an intact City Historic‐Cultural Monument. Therefore, Project–related

demolitionwouldhaveasignificantimpactonhistoricresources.

HIST‐2 WouldtheProjectinvolverelocationthatdoesnotmaintaintheintegrityand

significanceofasignificantresource?

Project implementationwoulddemolish themajorityof thecontributingbuildingsand landscape

featuresthatcomprisetheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrict,suchthattheHistoricDistrictwouldno

longerbeeligiblefortheNationalRegister,listedontheCaliforniaRegister,orconstituteanintact

CityHistoric‐CulturalMonument.AsstatedaboveunderHIST‐1,whileBarlowHospitalasawhole

constitutesanHistoricDistrict,nobuildingsqualifyindividuallyashistoricalresources.TheProject

would preserve nine contributing buildings to the Historic Districtwithin the proposedHistoric

Parcel on the eastern Project site, and no relocation of any buildings or landscape features is

proposedwithin theProject siteor tooff‐site locations.Therefore,no impactwouldoccurunder

SignificanceThresholdHIST‐2.

HIST‐3 Would the Project involve conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a

significantresourcewhichdoesnotconformtotheSecretaryoftheInterior's



Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic

Buildings?

As discussed above under Significance Threshold HIST‐1, the proposed Project would retain 9

contributingbuildings(includingWilliamsHall,oneofthreebuildingsthatappeartobeindividually

significant) and some of the original landscape on the eastern Project site within the proposed

Historical Parcel. Outside the proposed Historical Parcel, two contributing buildings would be

retainedonthewesternProjectsite.Adaptivereuseofthebuildingsandlandscapefeaturestobe

retainedwithintheproposedHistoricalParcelisproposed.However,theProjectisintendedtobe

implementedovera10‐yearperiodandspecificusesforcontributingbuildingstoberetainedhave

notyetbeendetermined.

Whilethecollectionofresourcesthatareproposedtoberetainedwouldhaveinterpretivevaluein

theunderstandingofBarlowHospital'shistoryand thehistoryof early20th century tuberculosis

sanatoriums in California, Project implementation would demolish the majority of contributing

resources to the Historic District and the Historic District would no longer be eligible for the

NationalRegisterortheCaliforniaRegister,mitigationwouldnotreduceimpactstolevelsthatare

lessthansignificant.

HIST‐4 Would the Project involve construction that reduces the integrity or

significanceofimportantresourcesonthesiteorinthevicinity?

As discussed above under Significance Threshold HIST‐1, the demolition of 66 percent of the

buildings and the majority of the landscape elements determined to contribute to the Historic

Districtwouldresult insignificantimpactstotheHistoricDistrictsuchthatitwouldnolongerbe

eligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterortheCaliforniaRegister.

TheProjectisintendedtobeimplementedovera10‐yearperiodandtheexactsitingofallproposed

buildings has not yet been determined. The location of the proposed replacement hospital,

administration and support building, and skilled nursing facility are relatively well defined, but

theirdesignremainsconceptual,andtheproposedresidentialandcommercialprojectcomponents

aredefinedonlywithrespecttogenerallocation,buildingfootprint,andmaximumbuildingheight,

asdiscussedinSectionII,ProjectDescription.

Dependingontheproximityofproposedbuildingsandotherfeaturestoexistingbuildings,Project

construction could result in potential impacts on the structural integrity of the historically

significantbuildingsandlandscapefeaturestoberetainedwithintheproposedHistoricParceland



on the western Project site in proposed Parcel 13, as the result of excavation, earthmoving

activities,andpossiblesettlementduetotheremovalofadjacentsoil.

Moreover, Barlow Hospital’s historic setting, including that of the contributing buildings and

landscapefeaturestoberetainedwithintheproposedHistoricalParcelontheeasternProjectsite,

wouldbesubstantiallyalteredby thedensityandscaleof theproposednewdevelopment,which

considerablyintensifiesdevelopmenton‐siteoverexistingconditions.Theexistinghistoricsetting

ischaracterizedbymodestone‐andtwo‐storybuildingsscatteredacrosstheProjectsiteinalow‐

densityconfigurationandsurroundedbyopenspace. Incontrast, theproposednewdevelopment

wouldconsistofhigh‐densitybuildingsuptofourstoriesand75feetinheight,notwithstandingthe

proposeduse of architectural styles and features for these buildings that reflect existinghistoric

architecturalstylesthroughoutEchoParkandareintendedtocomplementhistoricbuildingstobe

retained on the Project site. Proposed development would occupy existing open space areas

betweenexistingbuildings,aswellaslargeportionsoftheopenhillsidesonbothsidesofStadium

Way.The remaininghistoricbuildingswouldbe surroundedon three sidesbya configurationof

higher‐densitybuildingsandwouldnolongerreadasavillage‐likegroupinginanopenvalley.

Therefore, Project developmentwould result in a significant, unavoidable impactwith respect to

theintegrityandsignificanceofhistoricallysignificantresourcesontheProjectsite.

e. Mitigation Measures


The following mitigation measures are required to reduce Project impacts on paleontological

resourcestolessthansignificantlevels.

MM‐PALEO‐1 Retention of Paleontologist. Prior to the initiation of construction‐related

earthmoving activities or excavation at depths of 5 feet below the surface, the

servicesofaqualifiedpaleontologicalconsultingfirmapprovedbytheCityandthe

Natural HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section,

shallberetainedandconsulted.Usingfieldobservations,borelogs,geologicreports,

and construction plans, a paleontologist shall determine when and where any

monitoringofearthmovingactivitieswillberequired.

MM‐PALEO‐2 PreconstructionCoordinationandAwarenessTraining. Ifmonitoringisrequired,a

qualified paleontologist shall coordinatewith appropriate construction contractor



personnel to provide information concerning the recognition and protection of

paleontological resources. Contractor personnel, particularly heavy equipment

operators,shallalsobebriefedonprocedurestobefollowedintheeventthatfossil

remains are encountered during earthmoving activities in the absence of a

paleontologicalmonitor.Newcontractorpersonnelshallbebriefedasnecessary.

MM‐PALEO‐3 PaleontologicalMonitoring andFossil Specimen and SampleRecovery.Asneeded,

monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting debris piles and freshly exposed

strata to allow for the discovery and recovery of larger fossil remains, and

periodicallydrytestscreeningrock,sediment,anddebristoallowforthediscovery

and recovery of smaller fossil remains. As soon as practicable, the monitor shall

recoveranylargervertebratefossilremains,arepresentativesampleofinvertebrate

orplant fossilspecimens,oranyfossiliferousrockorsedimentsamplethatcanbe

recoveredeasily.

If recovery of a large or unusually productive fossil occurrence is warranted,

earthmoving activities shall be diverted temporarily around the fossil site and

resourcesshallbe recoveredasquicklyaspossible. Ifapaleontologicalmonitor is

noton‐sitewhenafossiloccurrenceisuncoveredduringconstruction,construction

activitiesshallbedivertedtemporarilyaroundthefossilsiteandthemonitorcalled

to the site to evaluate any finds. The location and proper geologic context of any

recoveredfossiloccurrenceorrockorsedimentsampleshallbedocumented.

Ifthepaleontologicalmonitordeterminesthatthefossilsiteisnotproductiveorthe

fossil remains not worthy of recovery, earthmoving activities shall be allowed to

proceedthroughthesiteimmediately.

MM‐PALEO‐4 Specimen Treatment and Disposition. All fossil specimens recovered from the

Projectsiteinthecourseofthismitigationshallbetreated(i.e.,prepared,identified,

curated, catalogued) in accordance with designated museum repository

requirements.

MM‐PALEO‐5 Reporting. The paleontological monitor shall maintain daily monitoring logs that

state the particular tasks accomplished, the earthmoving activity monitored, the

location where monitoring was conducted, rock unit(s) encountered, fossil

specimensrecovered,andassociatedspecimendataandcorrespondinggeologicand

geographic site data. A final technical report of results and findings shall be



preparedbythepaleontologistinaccordancewithapplicableCityrequirementsand

archivedatthenaturalHistoryMuseum.


Archaeological Resources

MitigationmeasuresMM‐ARCH‐1andMM‐ARCH‐2arerequiredtoreduceProject impactsunder

significancethresholdsARCH‐1throughARCH‐5tolessthansignificantlevels.

MM‐ARCH‐1 Retention of Archaeologist and Preconstruction Coordination and Awareness

Training. Prior to the initiation of construction‐related earthmoving activities or

excavation at depths of 5 feet below the surface, the services of a qualified

archaeologistconsultingfirmapprovedbytheCityshallberetainedandconsulted.

The archaeologist shall coordinate with appropriate construction contractor

personnel to provide information concerning the recognition and protection of

archaeological resources. Contractor personnel, particularly heavy equipment

operators, shall also be briefed on procedures to be followed in the event that

archaeological resources are encountered during earthmoving activities. New

contractorpersonnelshallbebriefedasnecessary.

MM‐ARCH‐2 ResourceEvaluation andTreatment. If archaeological resources areuncoveredon

the project site during excavation, the developer shall notify the Los Angeles

DepartmentofBuildingandSafety immediatelyandworkshall stopwithina100‐

foot radius until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the find. Construction

activitymaycontinueunimpededonotherportionsoftheprojectsite.Ifthefindis

determinedbythequalifiedarchaeologisttobeauniquearchaeologicalresource,as

definedbySection21083.2ofthePublicResourcesCode,thesiteshallbetreatedin

accordancewiththeprovisionsofSection21083.2ofthePublicResourcesCode.If

thefindisdeterminednottobeauniquearchaeologicalresource,nofurtheraction

isnecessaryandconstructionmaycontinue.

Human Remains

ThefollowingmitigationmeasureisrequiredtoreducepotentialProjectimpactsundersignificance

thresholdARCH‐6toalessthansignificantlevel.



MM‐ARCH‐3 If during excavation of the project site human remains are discovered, the steps

describedintheStateCEQAGuidelinesSection15064.5(e)shallbefollowed.

(1) Thereshallbenofurtherexcavationordisturbanceofthesiteorany

nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human

remainsuntil:

(A) The coroner of the County in which the remains are

discovered must be contacted to determine that no

investigationofthecauseofdeathisrequired,and

(B) IfthecoronerdeterminestheremainstobeNativeAmerican:

1. The coroner shall contact the Native American

HeritageCommissionwithin24hours.

2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall

identify the person or persons it believes to be the

most likely descended from the deceased Native

American.

3. The most likely descendent may make

recommendations to the landowner or the person

responsible for the excavation work, for means of

treatingordisposingof,withappropriatedignity,the

human remains and any associated grave goods as

provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,

or

(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his

authorized representative shall rebury theNativeAmericanhuman

remainsandassociatedgravegoodswithappropriatedignityonthe

propertyinalocationnotsubjecttofurthersubsurfacedisturbance.

(A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to

identify a most likely descendent or the most likely

descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24

hoursafterbeingnotifiedbythecommission.



(B) The descendant identified fails tomake a recommendation;

or

(C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the

recommendationofthedescendant,andthemediationbythe

Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide

measuresacceptabletothelandowner.


The followingmitigationmeasures are proposed to ensure adequate recordation of the Historic

District prior to Project construction, and to enhance the interpretation of, and to protect, those

elementsoftheHistoricDistrictthatwouldremainafternewconstruction.Themitigationmeasures

would reduce Project impacts on theHistoric District to themaximum extent feasible; however,

implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to less than significant

levels.

MM‐HIST‐1 The applicant shall retain a qualified architectural historian to prepare a Historic

Structures Report prior to any alteration, relocation or demolition of any

contributingbuilding,structure,orsite.Thereportshalldocumentthesignificance

and physical condition of all contributing buildings, structures, and sites with

photographs,text,andexistingdrawings.Thisdocumentationshallinclude:

A brief written historic and descriptive report completed in narrative format,

includinganarchitecturaldataformforeachcontributingbuilding.

Asiteplanshowingthe locationofeachbuilding.Thissiteplanshall includea

photokey.

Asketchfloorplanshallaccompanyeacharchitecturaldataform.

Large format (4" x 5" negative or larger) photographs in accordance with

Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS) guidelines. Views shall include

contextual views, all exterior elevations, detailed views of significant exterior

architectural features, and interior views of significant historical architectural

featuresorspaces(ifany).



Fieldphotographs(35mm)basedonHABSguidelines.Viewsshouldcorrespond

tothoseinthelargeformatphotographs.

Availablehistoricphotographsandhistoricorcurrentplans.

MM‐HIST‐2 One original copy of the Historic Structures Report as specified in mitigation

measureMM‐HIST‐1shallbeassembledandofferedtoeachofthefollowing:

OnesetshallbesenttotheSouthernCaliforniaInformationCenteratCalifornia

StateUniversity,Fullerton.

Onesetshallbeofferedtoand,ifaccepted,depositedinthearchivesoftheLos

AngelesConservancy.

One set shall be offered to and, if accepted, deposited in the archives of the

UniversityofSouthernCalifornia.

Onesetshallbeofferedtoand,ifaccepted,depositedinthearchivesoftheCity

ofLosAngelesOfficeofHistoricResources.

Onesetshallbeofferedtoand, ifaccepted,deposited in theCentralLibraryof

theLosAngelesPublicLibrary.

MM‐HIST‐3 AllcontributingresourcestotheHistoricDistricttoberetained,includingbuildings,

structures,andlandscapefeatures,shallbestabilizedaccordingtotheguidelinesset

forth in Preservation Brief #31: Mothballing Historic Buildings provided by the

NationalParkServiceunlesstheresourceiscurrentlyinuseandbeingmaintained.

Thisprocessshall includestructuralstabilizationoftheresource,exterminationor

controlofpests,protectionoftheexteriorfrommoisturepenetration,securingthe

resourcefromvandalism,adequateventilationoftheinterior,securingutilitiesand

mechanicalsystems,anddevelopmentofamaintenanceandmonitoringplan.

PriortotheirreuseaspartoftheplannedProject,allcontributingresourcestothe

Historic District to be retained shall be rehabilitated in accordance with the

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (The Standards). The

standardssetforthbasicprinciplesintendedtopreservetheportionsandfeatures

ofthepropertywhichcontributetoitshistoricsignificancewhileallowingforrepair

oralterationwhichmakespossibleanefficientcontemporaryuse.



MM‐HIST‐4 Prior to issuance of a permit for earthmoving or excavation activities that could

affect contributinghistoric resources (buildings, structures, and site features), the

applicantshallsubmitashoringplanto theDepartmentofBuildingandSafety for

reviewandapprovaltoensureprotectionofcontributinghistoricresourcesduring

constructionfromdamageduetoundergroundexcavationandgeneralconstruction

proceduresandtomitigatethepossibilityofsettlementduringorafterconstruction

duetotheremovalofadjacentsoil.

f. Level of Significance After Mitigation

With implementation of mitigation measures MM‐PALEO‐1 through MM‐PALEO‐5 and MM‐

ARCHAEO‐1 through MM‐ARCHAEO‐3, impacts of the proposed Project on paleontological and

archaeological resources, respectively, would be less than significant. Therefore, no unavoidable

significant impact on paleontological and archaeological resources would result from

implementationoftheproposedProject.

Even with implementation of mitigation measures MM‐HIST‐1 through MM‐HIST‐4, however,

Projectimpactsonhistoricalresourceswouldremainsignificantandunavoidable.

g. Cumulative Impacts


ThelistofrelatedprojectsidentifiedinSectionIII,GeneralDescriptionofEnvironmentalSetting,in

thisDraftEIRincludespast,present,andprobablefutureprojectsintheProjectvicinity.However,

paleontologicalresourcesandtherockunitswithwhichtheyareassociatedmayoccurelsewherein

theregion.Therefore,theappropriatecontextforevaluatingcumulativeimpactsonpaleontological

resourcesextendsbeyondtheProjectvicinitytootheroccurrencesintheregionofthefossiliferous

rockunitontheProjectsite.

Developmentof therelatedprojectsorprojectselsewhere in theregionmayrequiregradingand

excavation that could potentially affect previously unrecorded unique paleontological resources.

The collective implementation of these projects could contribute to the cumulative loss of

paleontological resources, if these resources were not protected upon discovery. However,

paleontological resources are required to be protected upon discovery under CEQA and Public

ResourcesCodeSection21083.2.WithadherencetoStatelaw,impactsonpaleontologicalresources

would likelybereduced toa less thansignificant level foreachrelatedproject,andtherefore the

potentialforcumulativeimpactsonthoseresourcesisconsideredlessthansignificant.Nofurther



analysis of the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulatively significant impacts on

paleontologicalresourcesisnecessary.


ThelistofrelatedprojectsidentifiedinSectionIII,GeneralDescriptionofEnvironmentalSetting,in

thisDraftEIRincludespast,present,andprobablefutureprojectsintheProjectvicinity.However,

archaeological resources similar to those on the Project sitemay occur elsewhere in the region.

Therefore,theappropriatecontextforconsideringcumulativeimpactsonarchaeologicalresources

extends beyond the Project vicinity to other occurrences of similar archaeological resources.

Developmentof therelatedprojectsorprojectselsewhere in theregionmayrequiregradingand

excavation that could potentially affect previously unrecorded archaeological resources. The

collectiveimplementationoftheseprojectscouldcontributetothecumulativelossofarchaeological

resources,iftheseresourceswerenotprotectedupondiscovery.However,archaeologicalresources

are required to be protected upon discovery under CEQA and Public Resources Code Section

21083.2.WithadherencetoStatelaw,impactsonarchaeologicalresourceswouldlikelybereduced

toa less thansignificant level foreachrelatedproject,and therefore thepotential forcumulative

impactsonthoseresourcesisconsideredlessthansignificant.Nofurtheranalysisoftheproposed

Project’scontributiontocumulativelysignificantimpactsonarchaeologicalresourcesisnecessary.


Impactsonhistoricalresourcestendtobesite‐specificandaretypicallyassessedonasite‐by‐site

basis.ThehistoricalresourcesontheProjectsiteareuniqueintheregionandnoneoftherelated

projects contain similar resources. Therefore, no cumulatively significant impact on similar

historical resources would occur. While the proposed Project would result in significant and

unavoidableimpactsonhistoricresourcesontheProjectsitethroughdemolitionofthemajorityof

thecontributingresourcestotheBarlowHospitalHistoricDistrict,theProjectwouldnotresultina

considerablecontributiontocumulativelysignificantimpactsonhistoricalresources.

IV.D Cultural Resources (3rd screencheck) - Los...

Documents

Transcript of IV.D Cultural Resources (3rd screencheck) - Los...