Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
APPENDIX Y
CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
State Clearinghouse Number: 2010011062
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
February 6, 2012
Prepared for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012
State Clearinghouse Number: 2010011062
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
This technical memorandum was prepared by:
ICF International 811 West Seventh Street Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 for:
CDM 523 West Sixth Street Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary ...... 1 2.0 Introduction ...... 6 2.1 No Build Alternative ...... 6 2.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative ...... 8 2.3 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative ...... 9 2.3.1 Operating Hours and Frequency ...... 9 2.3.2 Proposed Stations...... 9 2.3.3 Maintenance Yard ...... 11 2.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative ...... 11 2.4.1 Proposed Stations...... 13 2.4.2 Maintenance Yard ...... 13 3.0 Methodology For Impact Evaluation ...... 15 3.1 Regulatory Framework ...... 15 3.1.1 Federal ...... 15 3.1.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ...... 16 3.1.1.2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ...... 16 3.1.1.3 Antiquities Act ...... 17 3.1.1.4 The Archaeological Resources Protection Act ...... 17 3.1.1.5 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act...... 17 3.1.1.6 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 ...... 18 3.1.1.7 The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act ...... 18 3.1.1.8 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act...... 18 3.1.2 State ...... 18 3.1.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 18 3.1.2.2 California Public Resource Code 5097 ...... 19 3.1.2.3 Paleontological Regulatory Setting ...... 19 3.1.2.4 CEQA ...... 20 3.1.2.5 State CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(a)(3J ...... 20 3.1.3 Local ...... 20 3.1.3.1 City of Whittier ...... 20
Page i
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
3.2 Thresholds of Significance ...... 21 3.2.1 Federal ...... 21 3.2.1.1 National Register of Historic Places ...... 21 3.2.1.2 Federal Impact Criteria ...... 22 3.2.2 State ...... 23 3.2.2.1 CEQA Regulations (Section 15064.5) ...... 23 3.2.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources ...... 23 3.2.2.3 Public Resources Code 21083.2 ...... 24 3.2.2.4 State Impact Criteria ...... 25 3.3 Area of Potential Effects ...... 25 3.4 Methodology ...... 26 3.4.1 Identify Consulting and Interested Parties ...... 26 3.4.1.1 Native American Groups and Individuals ...... 26 3.4.2 Identify Potential Historic Properties ...... 29 3.4.2.1 Federal ...... 30 3.4.2.2 State ...... 32 3.4.2.3 Paleontological Resources ...... 33 4.0 Affected Environment ...... 34 4.1 Consulting and Interested Parties ...... 34 4.2 Identify Potential Historic Properties ...... 35 4.2.1 Records Search ...... 35 4.2.2 Field Survey ...... 38 4.2.2.1 Historic and Architectural Resources ...... 38 4.2.2.2 Archaeological Properties ...... 39 4.2.2.3 Paleontological Review ...... 39 4.3 Historic Context ...... 41 4.3.1 Introduction: Definition of the Project Area ...... 41 4.3.2 Prehistoric Overview of the Project Area ...... 41 4.3.3 Historic Overview of the Project Area ...... 42 4.3.4 Agricultural Land Uses in the Project Area ...... 44 4.3.5 Residential and Industrial Development of the Project Area ...... 44
Page ii
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.3.6 Commercial Development in the Project Area ...... 46 4.3.7 Ethnic Heritage in the Project Area ...... 47 4.3.7.1 Cantwell High School, Montebello ...... 47 4.3.7.2 The Chinese Garden, Montebello...... 47 4.3.8 Communities of the Project Area ...... 48 4.3.8.1 East Los Angeles ...... 48 4.3.8.2 Montebello ...... 48 4.3.8.3 Commerce ...... 49 4.3.8.4 Pico Rivera ...... 49 4.3.8.5 Santa Fe Springs ...... 49 4.3.8.6 Whittier ...... 50 4.3.8.7 Rosemead ...... 51 4.3.8.8 South El Monte ...... 51 4.3.8.9 Los Nietos/West Whittier ...... 51 4.4 Historic Properties Identified ...... 51 4.4.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant, 318 S. Woods Avenue, Los Angeles County (1941) ...... 51 4.4.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant, 856 N. Garfield Avenue, Montebello (1962) ...... 52 4.4.3 Former Rod’s Grill, 525 N. Garfield Avenue, Montebello (1953–1954) ...... 54 4.4.4 Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School, 315 N. Garfield, Montebello (1946–1947) ...... 55 4.4.5 Montebello Park Historic District, Montebello (1925–1950) ...... 56 4.4.6 Pacific Metals Company/Rolled Steel Products, 2187 Garfield Avenue, Commerce (1952) ...... 57 4.4.7 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Warehouse, 6666 E. Washington Boulevard/2353 Garfield Avenue, Commerce (1952) ...... 58 4.4.8 Yale Filing Company Building, 6865 E. Washington Boulevard, Montebello (1961) ...... 59 4.4.9 Greenwood Elementary School, 900 Greenwood Avenue, Montebello (1948) ...... 59 4.4.10 South Montebello Irrigation District Building, 864 W. Washington Boulevard, Montebello (1940) ..... 60 4.4.11 William and Florence Kelly House, 860 W. Washington Boulevard, Montebello (1937)...... 61 4.4.12 Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, Northeast Corner of Bluff Road and Washington Boulevard, Montebello/Pico Rivera Border (1847) ...... 62 4.4.13 Dal Rae Restaurant, 9023 E. Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera (1954) ...... 63 4.4.14 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Depot, 9122 E. Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera (1886–1887) ...... 63
Page iii
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.4.15 Cliff May-designed Ranch House, 6751 Lindsey Avenue, Pico Rivera (1954) ...... 65 4.4.16 Steak Corral Restaurant, 11605 E. Washington Boulevard, Unincorporated Los Angeles County (1965) ...... 65 4.4.17 Rheem Laboratory, 12000 E. Washington Boulevard, Whittier (1952) ...... 67 5.0 Impacts ...... 69 5.1 Impact Criteria ...... 69 5.1.1 Construction Impact Criteria ...... 69 5.1.1.1 Federal ...... 69 5.1.1.2 State ...... 69 5.1.2 Operational Impact Criteria ...... 69 5.1.2.1 Federal ...... 69 5.1.2.2 State ...... 69 5.2 No Build Alternative ...... 69 5.3 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative ...... 70 5.4 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative ...... 70 5.4.1 Construction Impacts ...... 70 5.4.1.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant ...... 70 5.4.1.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant ...... 70 5.4.1.3 Unknown Archaeological Resources ...... 70 5.4.1.4 Unknown Paleontological Resources ...... 71 5.4.2 Operational Impacts ...... 71 5.4.2.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant ...... 71 5.4.2.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant ...... 72 5.4.2.3 Unknown Archaeological and Paleontological Resources ...... 72 5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts...... 72 5.5 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative ...... 72 5.5.1 Construction Impacts ...... 72 5.5.1.1 Chinese Garden Restaurant ...... 73 5.5.1.2 Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, northeast corner of Bluff Road and Washington Boulevard ...... 73 5.5.1.3 Unknown Archaeological Resources ...... 74 5.5.1.4 Unknown Paleontological Resources ...... 74
Page iv
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
5.5.2 Operational Impacts ...... 74 5.5.2.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant ...... 75 5.5.2.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant ...... 76 5.5.2.3 Former Rod’s Grill ...... 76 5.5.2.4 Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School ...... 78 5.5.2.5 Montebello Park Historic District ...... 79 5.5.2.6 Pacific Metals Company ...... 81 5.5.2.7 Goodyear Warehouse ...... 83 5.5.2.8 Yale Filing Company ...... 83 5.5.2.9 Greenwood Elementary School ...... 84 5.5.2.10 South Montebello Irrigation District Building ...... 85 5.5.2.11 Kelly House ...... 86 5.5.2.12 Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel ...... 88 5.5.2.13 Dal Rae Restaurant ...... 88 5.5.2.14 Former AT&SF Depot ...... 90 5.5.2.15 Cliff May-designed Ranch House ...... 90 5.5.2.16 Steak Corral Restaurant...... 91 5.5.2.17 Rheem Laboratory ...... 91 5.5.2.18 Unknown Archaeological and Paleontological Resources ...... 92 5.5.3 Cumulative Impacts...... 92 6.0 Potential Mitigation Measures ...... 93 6.1 Construction Mitigation Measures ...... 93 6.1.1 Relocation of the Chinese Garden Restaurant, Option A ...... 94 6.1.2 Relocation of the Chinese Garden Restaurant, Option B ...... 94 6.1.3 Archival Documentation of the Chinese Garden Restaurant ...... 95 6.1.4 Archaeological Monitoring of the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel ...... 95 6.1.5 Unknown Archaeological Resources ...... 95 6.1.6 Paleontology ...... 96 6.2 Operational Mitigation Measures ...... 96 7.0 Conclusions ...... 98 7.1 No Build Alternative ...... 98
Page v
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
7.1.1 NEPA Finding ...... 98 7.1.2 CEQA Determination...... 98 7.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative ...... 98 7.2.1 NEPA Finding ...... 98 7.2.2 CEQA Determination...... 98 7.3 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative ...... 98 7.3.1 NEPA Finding ...... 98 7.3.2 CEQA Determination...... 98 7.4.1 NEPA Finding ...... 99 7.4.2 CEQA Determination...... 99 7.5 Maintenance Yard Options...... 99 7.5.1 NEPA Finding ...... 99 7.5.2 CEQA Determination...... 100 8.0 References Cited ...... 101
Page vi
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
TABLES Table 1-1. Historic Properties – Summary of Resources within APE and Effects ...... 2 Table 4-1. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within a 0.5-mile and 1-mile Radius ...... 36 Table 4-2. Paleontological Localities Located within a 3-mile Radius of the Project Alignments ...... 41
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. No Build Alternative ...... 7 Figure 2-2. TSM Alternative ...... 8 Figure 2-3. SR 60 LRT Alternative ...... 10 Figure 2-4. Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative ...... 12 Figure 4-1. Helms Bakery Distribution Plant...... 52 Figure 4-2. Chinese Garden Restaurant ...... 53 Figure 4-3. Former Rod’s Grill ...... 54 Figure 4-4. Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School ...... 55 Figure 4-5. Montebello Park Subdivision Plan, March 25, 1925...... 56 Figure 4-6. Early Homes in the Montebello Park Historic District, c. 1928 ...... 57 Figure 4-7. Pacific Metals Company ...... 57 Figure 4-8. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Warehouse ...... 58 Figure 4-9. Yale Filing Company Building ...... 59 Figure 4-10. Greenwood Elementary School ...... 60 Figure 4-11. South Montebello Irrigation District Building ...... 60 Figure 4-12. William and Florence Kelly House ...... 61 Figure 4-13. Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel ...... 62 Figure 4-14. Dal Rae Restaurant ...... 63 Figure 4-15. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Depot ...... 64 Figure 4-16. Cliff May-designed Ranch House ...... 65 Figure 4-17. Steak Corral Restaurant ...... 65 Figure 4-18. Rheem Laboratory ...... 67 Figure 4-19. Location Map of Historic Properties ...... 68
Page vii
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Figure 5-1. Metro Right-of-Way Map (Sheet 1 of 11), May 27, 2010 – Chinese Garden Restaurant ...... 73 Figure 5-2. Metro Right-of-Way Map – Former Rod's Grill ...... 77 Figure 5-3. Former Rod’s Grill...... 77 Figure 5-4. Metro Plan and Profile Map (Sheet 17 of 51), May 6, 2010...... 80 Figure 5-5. Montebello Park Historic District ...... 80 Figure 5-6. Metro Right-of-Way Map (Sheet 4 of 11), May 27, 2010 – Pacific Metals Company ...... 82 Figure 5-7. Metro Right-of-Way Map 23 of 51, May 5, 2010 – Yale Filing Company ...... 84 Figure 5-8. Metro Site Plan for Washington Boulevard – Greenwood Avenue Station, December 31, 2010 - South Montebello Irrigation District Building ...... 85 Figure 5-9. Metro Site Plan for Washington Boulevard – Greenwood Avenue Station, December 31, 2010 - Kelly House ...... 87 Figure 5-10. Dal Rae Restaurant ...... 89
Page viii
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act APE Area of Potential Effects ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act AT&SF Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe BP Before Present CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHL California Historical Landmarks CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CMD Central Manufacturing District CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRMMP Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan dBA Decibel DPR Department of Parks and Recreation EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement FR Federal Register FTA Federal Transit Administration HABS Historic American Buildings Survey HAER Historic American Engineering Record HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HPSR Historic Property Survey Report HRI Historic Resources Inventory HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County LAX Los Angeles International Airport LRT Light Rail Transit LRV Light Rail Vehicle
Page ix
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority MOA Memorandum of Agreement NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission n.d. No Date NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOI Notice of Intent NRHP National Register of Historic Places PHI Points of Historical Interest PRC Public Resources Code ROW Right of Way RTP Regional Transportation Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCE Southern California Edison SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SR 60 State Route 60 TOD Transit Oriented Development TPSS Traction Power Substations TSM Transportation System Management UPRR Union Pacific Railroad U.S.C. United States Code USGS U.S. Geological Survey VdB Vibration Velocity Level in Decibels
Page x
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
1.0 SUMMARY To comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), this technical memorandum identifies all properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) that are:
Listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
Previously determined eligible for the NRHP,
Found eligible for the NRHP by qualified investigators and are being submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for concurrence, or
Determined ineligible for the NRHP. The APE is a buffer that extends out from the alignment approximately 150 to 350 feet, or a depth of from one to three parcels depending on parcel sizes, intervening landscape and buildings, and whether the historic land use is sensitive to the proposed change in setting. The federal significance of an archaeological site or an architectural structure is established when the NRHP criteria for evaluation are met (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 60.4). Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA also allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a Native American tribe to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
The NRHP criteria for evaluation are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. If a particular resource meets one of these criteria, it is considered eligible for listing in the NRHP and it is automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and is a historical resource according to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. For those fourteen properties listed in, previously determined eligible for, or found eligible for the NRHP, hereafter known as “historic properties,” federal and state impact criteria were applied. In addition to meeting federal regulations under Section 106 of the NHPA, this technical memorandum also addresses CEQA regulations for properties that may meet CRHR criteria, even if they do not meet NRHP criteria. Therefore, state impact criteria were also applied to three additional resources that are “historical resources" according to the CEQA Guidelines. No properties are already included in or previously determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR.
Table 1-1 presents the properties found eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and the CRHR along the State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative, with or without the SR 60 North Side
Page 1
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Design Variation, and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. The No Build Alternative and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative have no associated APE.
Table 1-1. Historic Properties - Summary of Resources within APE and Effects
Effect1: NRHP or CRHR Year Effect1: SR 60 LRT Washington Name Address Criteria: Area of Built Alternative Boulevard LRT Significance Alternative
NEPA: No Effect Helms Bakery 318 S. Woods Avenue, NEPA: No Effect 1941 A: Industry CEQA: No Distribution Plant Los Angeles County CEQA: No Impact Significant Impact
1: Ethnic Heritage – Asian NEPA: N/A3 NEPA: N/A3 Chinese Garden 856 N. Garfield 1962 and CEQA: No CEQA: Significant Restaurant Avenue, Montebello 3: Design Significant Impact Impact (CRHR only)
NEPA: No NEPA: No Effect Former Rod’s 525 N. Garfield Adverse Effect 1954 C: Architecture CEQA: No Impact Grill Avenue, Montebello CEQA: No (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
A: Education NEPA: No Cantwell-Sacred NEPA: No Effect 315 N. Garfield and Ethnic Adverse Effect Heart of Mary 1946 CEQA: No Impact Avenue, Montebello Heritage – CEQA: No High School (outside of the APE) Hispanic Significant Impact
Between Whittier NEPA: No Boulevard, Ferguson A: Community NEPA: No Effect Montebello Park Adverse Effect Drive, Gerhart Ave, 1925 Planning and CEQA: No Impact Historic District CEQA: No and Vail Rd, Development (outside of the APE) Significant Impact Montebello
NEPA: No Pacific Metals C and A: NEPA: No Effect 2187 Garfield Avenue, Adverse Effect Company/Rolled 1952 Architecture and CEQA: No Impact Commerce CEQA: No Steel Products Industry (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
Goodyear Tire 6666 E. Washington NEPA: No Effect and Rubber Boulevard/2353 NEPA: No Effect 1952 A: Industry CEQA: No Impact Company Garfield Avenue, CEQA: No Impact (outside of the APE) Warehouse Commerce
NEPA: N/A3 NEPA: N/A3 Yale Filing 6865 E. Washington 3: Architecture 1961 CEQA: No Impact– CEQA: No Company Boulevard, Montebello (CRHR only) (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
NEPA: No Greenwood NEPA: No Effect 900 Greenwood Adverse Effect Elementary 1948 A: Education CEQA: No Impact Avenue, Montebello CEQA: No School (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
Page 2
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Table 1-1. Historic Properties - Summary of Resources within APE and Effects (continued)
Effect1: NRHP or CRHR Year Effect1: SR 60 LRT Washington Name Address Criteria: Area of Built Alternative Boulevard LRT Significance Alternative
South NEPA: No NEPA: No Effect Montebello 864 W. Washington A: Agriculture Adverse Effect 1940 CEQA: No Impact Irrigation District Boulevard, Montebello CEQA: No (outside of the APE) Building Significant Impact
NEPA: No William and NEPA: No Effect 860 W. Washington A: Early Adverse Effect Florence Kelly 1937 CEQA: No Impact Boulevard, Montebello Settlement CEQA: No House (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
Northeast corner of NEPA: Potentially Site of the Battle Bluff Road and NEPA: No Effect A: Military: Adverse Effect of Rio San Washington 1847 CEQA: No Impact Mexican War CEQA: No Gabriel Boulevard, Montebello (outside of the APE) Significant Impact and Pico Rivera
NEPA: No NEPA: No Effect Dal Rae 9023 E. Washington Adverse Effect 1954 A: Social History CEQA: No Impact Restaurant Boulevard, Pico Rivera CEQA: No (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
Atchison, 3 3 1: Transportatio NEPA: N/A NEPA: N/A Topeka & 9122 E. Washington 1886– n CEQA: No Impact– CEQA: No Santa Fe Boulevard, Pico Rivera 1887 (CRHR only) (outside of the APE) Significant Impact (AT&SF) Depot
NEPA: No Cliff May- NEPA: No Effect 6751 Lindsey Avenue, Adverse Effect designed Ranch 1954 C: Architecture CEQA: No Impact Pico Rivera CEQA: No House (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
11605 E. Washington NEPA: No NEPA: No Effect Steak Corral Boulevard, A: Social History Adverse Effect 1965 CEQA: No Impact Restaurant unincorporated CEQA: No C. Architecture (outside of the APE) Los Angeles County Significant Impact
NEPA: No NEPA: No Effect Rheem 12000 E. Washington Adverse Effect 1952 A: Industry CEQA: No Impact Laboratory Boulevard, Whittier CEQA: No (outside of the APE) Significant Impact
Notes: 1Findings of Effect per NEPA and Determinations of Impact per CEQA are both shown to satisfy Federal (NEPA/Section 106) and State (CEQA) requirements. 2 The effects shown in Table 1-1 for the SR 60 LRT Alternative would be the same with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation. 3NEPA: N/A = Property is not eligible for the NRHP but is eligible for the CRHR.
Page 3
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
For purposes of this technical memorandum, an NHPA Section 106 finding of “no effect” or “no adverse effect” is equivalent to a CEQA finding of “no significant impact”; an NHPA Section 106 finding of “adverse effect” is equivalent to a CEQA determination of “significant impact.” Although Section 15358 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the terms “effect” and “impact” are considered synonymous, consistent with general Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) practice, and in an effort to distinguish effects to NRHP properties from those to CRHR resources, CEQA determinations in this document will employ the phrase “significant impact.” Figure 4-19 in Section 4.0 of this technical memorandum shows the locations of historic properties within the project area.
The No Build and TSM Alternatives would have no effect on historic properties because none are located within their respective APEs.
There is only one “historic property” (i.e., properties listed on or deemed eligible under NRHP criteria) within the APE of the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation: Helms Bakery, and one additional “CEQA historical resource” (i.e., properties deemed eligible under CRHR criteria only and ineligible under NRHP criteria): the Chinese Garden Restaurant. There would be no effect on the Helms Bakery, and no adverse effect/impact on the Chinese Garden Restaurant. No mitigation is recommended for either the referenced historic property or the CEQA historical resource under the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation.
Within the APE of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, there are 13 NRHP-eligible historic properties and three additional CEQA historical resources. In the absence of design mitigation, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would have a significant impact on the following CEQA historical resource:
Chinese Garden Restaurant (a historical resource under CEQA only)
In the absence of design mitigation, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would have a potentially adverse effect on the following NRHP historic property:
Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel
The Chinese Garden Restaurant would be demolished for the proposed Garfield Avenue station and recommended mitigation includes relocation to a suitable receiver site and archival documentation of the building. The recommended mitigation would lessen the effect/impact on the historical resource to less than significant after mitigation.
There is the potential for construction to damage archaeological artifacts related to the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, therefore archaeological monitoring during construction in accordance with a recommended project Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) (see Section 6.1.5 below) is recommended as mitigation. If the recommended mitigation for archaeological monitoring during construction does not reveal any archaeological artifacts, then there would be no effect on the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel. If archaeological artifacts are discovered, then they would be removed from their historic location, and the effect would be adverse after mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines 15120(d), archaeological site locations are kept confidential from the general public to
Page 4
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum avoid potential illegal artifact excavations and disturbance and to protect the privacy of sacred lands.
No historic properties were identified in the location of the aerial or at-grade options for crossings of Rosemead Boulevard and the I-605/San Gabriel River; therefore, there would be no effect on historic properties for either of these two options.
If paleontological specimens are recovered during construction, they shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments, to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the California Department of Veterans Affairs, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
Page 5
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
2.0 INTRODUCTION As the second largest metropolitan region in the United States, the Los Angeles area is home to approximately 15 million people and contains diverse cultures, world-renowned entertainment venues, and unique industries. The city was originally established in 1781 beginning in the area now known as central downtown. The area saw a large increase in growth in the 1800s as the transcontinental railway was constructed. By the 1900s, the population continued to grow with development of manufacturing, industrial, and commercial industries. While the Great Depression and World War II resulted in slower population growth, the economic and suburban expansion after the war helped the Los Angeles area to rebound. Areas such as the Eastside, which mostly contained farmland, began to experience rapid suburban-style residential development. Today, with traffic congestion worsening and an ongoing resurgence of the central parts of Los Angeles, existing developed areas such as the Eastside have begun to increase in density, which has yielded land use patterns that are more supportive of increased transit service than in past decades. The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project area encompasses over 50 square miles of communities to the east and southeast of downtown Los Angeles. It includes portions of the cities of Los Angeles, Monterey Park, Rosemead, South El Monte, Commerce, Montebello, Pico Rivera, Commerce, Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, Downey, and El Monte, as well as the unincorporated areas of East Los Angeles and West Whittier/Los Nietos. The area is currently served by a network of transit bus routes and the Metro Gold Line LRT service, which has its eastern terminus at the intersection of Pomona and Atlantic Boulevards in unincorporated East Los Angeles.
The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project would provide extended LRT service from the current Metro Gold Line terminus at Atlantic Station eastward to either South El Monte or Whittier. Trains currently serving Atlantic Station would continue east along the extension, which would become part of the Metro Gold Line. Currently, public transit users in this area must use buses, which can become unreliable when traffic is congested. The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project would create an alternative to buses and peak-hour driving by establishing new transit service along exclusive and semi-exclusive right-of-way (ROW) that avoids most of the delays and congestion that buses and cars cannot.
The project would provide residents and businesses in the Eastside communities with an enhanced transit link to the rest of the Los Angeles region. Depending on the alternative selected, four to six new rail stations would be constructed in the project area.
Though the project is expected to generate many beneficial impacts, it also has the potential to adversely affect the diverse neighborhoods and communities that make up the Eastside. This technical memorandum discusses the potential construction, operational, and cumulative impacts of the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 alternatives on the communities and neighborhoods through which it would pass. This technical memorandum also discusses possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset potential impacts. 2.1 No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative is used for comparison purposes to assess the relative benefits and impacts of constructing a new transit project in the project area versus implementing only currently planned
Page 6
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
and funded projects. The No Build Alternative is also a required alternative for comparison as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/CEQA environmental analysis.
The No Build Alternative includes all of the projects that are identified for construction and implementation in the “Constrained Plan” of Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (through the year 2035). This plan includes the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension currently in operation, but does not include any project resulting from this Phase 2 study effort. It also includes the construction of the Metro Crenshaw Line and the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) People Mover, as well as the extension of the Metro Purple Line to Westwood, and the extensions of the Metro Green Line to LAX and to the South Bay. The plan also includes construction of the Regional Connector that will connect existing lines through downtown Los Angeles. After construction of the Regional Connector, east-west trains will operate between Santa Monica and East Los Angeles without the need for riders to transfer, and north-south trains will operate between Montclair and Long Beach, also without the need for riders to transfer. Bus services will be reorganized and expanded to provide connections with these new rail lines. Figure 2-1 displays the No Build Alternative.
The No Build Alternative also includes all of the projects that are identified for construction and implementation in the financially constrained project list of the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Making the Connections, developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to present the transportation vision for the region through year 2035. The RTP outlines future highway projects, including providing one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction on I-5 from SR 19 (Rosemead Boulevard) to I-710. There are no other major roadway improvements in the project area included in the financially constrained RTP.
Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-1. No Build Alternative
Page 7
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
2.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative The TSM Alternative is intended to address the same mobility needs as the two LRT “build alternatives,” but does not include the construction of a fixed guideway facility. The TSM Alternative includes all of the transit and roadway provisions of the No Build Alternative, plus proposed enhancements to existing bus service. Under the TSM Alternative, the basic approach is to enhance the east-west bus service in the same corridor as the build alternatives to develop the TSM network. In order to leverage the investment in an east-west transit spine, the TSM Alternative also includes enhancements to north-south bus services that would feed and integrate with the improved east-west spine. The TSM Alternative is presented in Figure 2-2.
The key elements of the TSM Alternative are the creation of an east-west “transit spine” along with new north-south feeder service. The transit spine would include new “Pomona Freeway Flyer” express service from the Eastside Extension Phase 1 terminus at Atlantic Station to Crossroads Parkway near SR 60, supported by enhanced bus service provided by Montebello Bus Lines. The enhanced service would include new Rapid bus service on Route 40 on Beverly Boulevard and additional service on Route 10 on Whittier Boulevard and Route 50 on Washington Boulevard.
The north-south feeder service would include new Rapid bus service on Montebello Bus Lines Route 30 on Garfield Avenue, new Limited Stop service on Montebello Bus Lines Route 20 on Montebello Boulevard, and additional service on Metro Route 265 on Paramount Boulevard, Metro Route 266 on Rosemead Boulevard, and Foothill Transit Route 274 on Workman Mill Road. It would also include Route 577 Limited Stop service in addition to existing Metro Route 370 service on Peck Road and Workman Mill Road.
Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-2. TSM Alternative
Page 8
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
2.3 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative The SR 60 LRT Alternative would extend the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, a dedicated, dual track LRT system with overhead catenary wiring, approximately 6.9 miles east to Peck Road. More than 94 percent of this alternative would operate in an aerial configuration, primarily within the southern portion of the SR 60 Freeway ROW. Figure 2-3 illustrates the SR 60 LRT Alternative. The proposed alignment runs at-grade east from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Atlantic Station in the median of Pomona Boulevard, where the alignment transitions to an independent aerial structure within the south side of the SR 60 Freeway ROW to Garfield Avenue. The SR 60 LRT Alternative continues east beyond Garfield Avenue in the freeway ROW, terminating in the vicinity of the SR 60/Peck Road interchange in the city of South El Monte, with tail tracks for storage extending farther east. The proposed LRT alignment is located on the south side of the freeway between the edge of the eastbound traffic lanes and the SR 60 Freeway ROW line. Traction power substations (TPSS), track crossovers, emergency generators, and other ancillary facilities that provide power and help to operate the LRT would also be constructed along the route. The SR 60 LRT Alternative also includes all No Build Alternative transit and roadway improvements and TSM Alternative bus services, with the exception of the Pomona Freeway Flyer.
An “SR 60 North Side Design Variation” is being analyzed to address concerns raised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about potential impacts to the former Operating Industries, Inc. landfill site south of SR 60 in the city of Monterey Park. With this variation, instead of running along the edge of the landfill site on the south side of SR 60, the LRT alignment would transition from the south side to the north side of SR 60 just west of Greenwood Avenue and return to the south side of SR 60 approximately one-quarter mile west of Paramount Boulevard (see Figure 2-3). This design variation would include approximately 3,500 feet of at-grade and aerial alignment on the north side of SR 60, and two new bridges to carry the LRT guideway over SR 60.
2.3.1 Operating Hours and Frequency The operating hours and schedules for the SR 60 LRT Alternative would be comparable to the weekday, Saturday and Sunday, and holiday schedules for the existing Metro Gold Line. Trains would operate every day from 4:00 AM to 1:30 AM. On weekdays, trains would operate every five minutes during peak hours, every 10 minutes mid-day and until 8:00 PM, and every 15 minutes in the early morning and after 8:00 PM. On weekends, trains would operate every 10 minutes from 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM, every 15 minutes from 6:30 – 7:30 PM and from 7:00 - 9:00 AM, and every 20 minutes in the early morning and after 7:30 PM.
2.3.2 Proposed Stations The SR 60 LRT Alternative has four aerial, center platform stations designed with bus and parking facilities to intercept vehicular and bus travel operating within the east-west freeway corridor and circulating in a north-south direction crossing the freeway. All of the station areas would require property acquisition to accommodate stations and related facilities, including park and ride structures, and all have the potential for Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The proposed station locations and estimated parking spaces provided at each station would be as follows:
Page 9
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Garfield Avenue – East of Garfield Avenue along Via Campo in the city of Montebello, approximately 344 parking spaces.
Shops at Montebello – On the west side of the Shops at Montebello, approximately 417 parking spaces.
Santa Anita Avenue – East of Santa Anita Avenue in the city of South El Monte, approximately 692 parking spaces.
Peck Road – East of Peck Road in the city of South El Monte, approximately 1,983 parking spaces.
Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-3. SR 60 LRT Alternative
Please see Figure 2-2 for TSM enhancements that are also included as part of the SR 60 LRT Alternative (with the exception of the Pomona Freeway Flyer)
Page 10
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
2.3.3 Maintenance Yard Under the SR 60 LRT Alternative, one potential site (referred to as the Mission Junction Yard Option to distinguish it from the additional options identified for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative) has been preliminarily identified for the location of a new maintenance yard. The site is approximately 11 acres in size and is adjacent to the existing Mission Junction rail facility, generally bounded by I-5 to the east, I-10 to the south, the Los Angeles River to the west, and the Union Pacific rail line to the north. This industrial area is zoned for railroads and maintenance yard facilities. The proposed maintenance yard, located on the north side of Mission Road, would be operated in conjunction with the existing Division 10 bus maintenance yard located on the south side of Mission Road, adjacent to the proposed maintenance yard site. The proposed maintenance yard would accommodate daily maintenance, inspection and repairs, and storage of the light rail vehicles (LRVs). In addition to the proposed maintenance yard and the existing Division 10 bus maintenance yard, Metro may also consider modifying existing facilities to accommodate the additional capacity required to maintain the project’s vehicles or using a proposed maintenance yard in Monrovia that is currently being studied as part of the extension of the Metro Gold Line to Montclair.
2.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would extend the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, a dedicated, dual track LRT system with overhead catenary wiring, approximately 9.5 miles east to the city of Whittier at Lambert Road. This alternative is proposed to operate in an aerial configuration with columns located in the roadway median or sidewalks, as well as in an at-grade configuration where the street widths are sufficient to accommodate the alignment and potential stations. Figure 2-4 displays the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. The proposed alignment runs at-grade east from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Atlantic Station in the median of Pomona Boulevard where it then transitions to aerial operations running in the south side of the SR 60 Freeway ROW until Garfield Avenue. This segment is the same as that described for the SR 60 LRT Alternative. At Garfield Avenue, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative turns south in an aerial configuration to operate above Garfield Avenue. The aerial structure continues south on Garfield Avenue and then turns southeast along Washington Boulevard. The aerial structure is supported at various locations either by columns straddling both sides of the street or by single columns. At Montebello Boulevard along Washington Boulevard, the alignment transitions to a street running configuration within the center of Washington Boulevard to a terminus station located south of Washington Boulevard just west of Lambert Road, with tail tracks for storage extending south and adjacent to Lambert Road. The street running segment is a dedicated trackway located in the center of Washington Boulevard with only signalized intersections allowing for cross traffic. Partial signal priority would be provided to the LRT at signalized intersections. In addition, TPSS, track crossovers, emergency generators, and other ancillary facilities would be located along the alignment.
Page 11
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative also includes all No Build Alternative transit and roadway improvements and TSM Alternative bus services, with the following exceptions:
The Pomona Freeway Flyer would operate from the Garfield Avenue station (instead of the Atlantic Station) to Crossroads Parkway near SR 60.
Metro Rapid Route 720 would be extended to the Garfield Avenue station, to provide connectivity.
Montebello Bus Lines Route 50 Rapid service would operate between downtown Los Angeles and the Greenwood Avenue station only, as it would duplicate LRT service on Washington Boulevard east of Greenwood Avenue.
Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-4. Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative
Please see Figure 2-2 for TSM enhancements that are also included as part of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (see text for exceptions)
Page 12
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Two design variations are being considered for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. The first design variation, the Rosemead Boulevard aerial crossing, would include a grade separation at Rosemead Boulevard. In this variation, the LRT would operate in an aerial configuration in the vicinity of Rosemead Boulevard. The second design variation, the San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossing, would include an aerial crossing of the San Gabriel River and I-605 and a grade separation at Pioneer Boulevard. In this variation, the LRT would operate on an aerial structure just south of Washington Boulevard across the San Gabriel River and then return to the median of Washington Boulevard, still in an aerial configuration, over I-605 and Pioneer Boulevard.
The operating hours and service frequency for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would be the same as described for the SR 60 LRT Alternative.
2.4.1 Proposed Stations The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative has six stations located to serve the communities through which this alternative runs. Property acquisition at all stations is necessary to accommodate stations, access, and related facilities, including park and ride structures. All of the proposed stations, with the exception of the Whittier Boulevard station, include a park and ride facility. The proposed station locations and estimated parking spaces provided at each would be as follows:
Garfield Avenue – Aerial, center platform station located on the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Via Campo in the city of Montebello, approximately 523 parking spaces.
Whittier Boulevard – Aerial, side platform station located in the median of Garfield Avenue just north of Whittier Boulevard in unincorporated East Los Angeles, no parking facility.
Greenwood Avenue – Aerial, side platform station located in the median of Washington Boulevard east of Greenwood Avenue in the city of Montebello, approximately 151 parking spaces.
Rosemead Boulevard – With the Rosemead Boulevard at-grade crossing, this would be an at- grade, center platform station located in the center of Washington Boulevard west of Rosemead Boulevard in the city of Pico Rivera, approximately 353 parking spaces. If the Rosemead Boulevard aerial crossing design variation is selected, this station would be an aerial, center platform station.
Norwalk Boulevard – At-grade, center platform station located in the median of Washington Boulevard east of Norwalk Boulevard in the city of Santa Fe Springs, approximately 667 parking spaces.
Lambert Road – At-grade, center platform station located south of Washington Boulevard west of Lambert Road in the city of Whittier, approximately 1,008 parking spaces.
2.4.2 Maintenance Yard Under the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, three potential sites have been preliminarily identified for the location of a new maintenance yard:
Page 13
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Mission Junction Yard Option - The first site is adjacent to the existing Mission Junction rail facility, as described above under the SR 60 LRT Alternative.
Commerce Yard Option - The second potential site, approximately 12 acres in size, is proposed to be within the city of Commerce, located west of Garfield Avenue in Southern California Edison’s (SCE's) transmission line corridor. The parcel is designated for electrical power facility use and is situated within the San Antonio Rancho known as the Walter L. Vail’s 2,000 Acre Tract. Since the LRT tracks would be in an aerial configuration above Garfield Avenue, the lead tracks to the maintenance yard would transition from aerial to at-grade within the southern portion of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ROW, approximately 1,600 feet away from the mainline on Garfield Avenue. The main entrance to the facility would be off Corvette Street at the southern portion of the site, just west of Saybrook Avenue.
Santa Fe Springs Yard Option - The third potential site, approximately nine acres in size, is located within the city of Santa Fe Springs immediately south of Washington Boulevard and east of Allport Avenue. It is currently occupied by automobile repair and light industrial uses. The lead tracks to the yard would cross the eastbound lanes of Washington Boulevard at-grade.
Page 14
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT EVALUATION
3.1 Regulatory Framework This section describes the regulatory setting associated with cultural resources, the affected environment for cultural resources, the impacts on cultural resources that would result from the proposed project, and the mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts.
Per CEQA, the term ”cultural resources” customarily includes both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, ethnographic resources, and those of the historical built environment (architectural resources). Although not specifically a cultural resource, paleontological resources (fossils predating human occupation) are considered here because they are discussed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form), in the context of Section V, Cultural Resources.
Cultural resources that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are called “historic properties,” consistent with Section 106 statutory language, and are subject to both federal and state historic preservation law. Cultural resources that meet the criteria provided in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines are called “historical resources,” consistent with CEQA and CRHR statutory language, and are subject to state historic preservation law.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15120(d) prohibits an environmental impact report (EIR) from including information about the location of archaeological sites or sacred lands: “No document prepared pursuant to this article that is available for public examination shall include… information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands.” Therefore, although a tally of the total number of archaeological sites has been provided in the main body of this document, along with both the primary and trinomial numbers, the specific locations of archaeological sites have been omitted from this document and the cultural resources technical reports are a confidential appendix to this technical memorandum, consistent with CEQA. However, for the purposes of site management during construction, project managers, archaeologists, field inspectors, and others who have a valid “need to know” to implement avoidance or mitigation strategies can be made aware of the locations of such sites. As with other historical resources/properties, confidential sites are managed as per the project environmental document.
The federal, state, and local regulatory frameworks related to cultural resources are outlined below.
3.1.1 Federal The most relevant federal laws for the evaluation of effects to cultural resources are NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.) and Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended (hereafter, Section 106) (16 U.S.C. 470f) and its regulations for implementation (36 CFR Part 800). Other relevant legislation that applies to cultural resources includes the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.); the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 (Public Law 95-341); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303); the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (“Moss-Bennett” Act, 16 U.S.C. 469); and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013).
Page 15
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
3.1.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act NEPA establishes the federal policy of protecting important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage during federal project planning. NEPA also obligates federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences and costs of their projects and programs as part of the planning process. All federal or federally-assisted projects requiring action pursuant to Section 102 of NEPA must take into account the effects on cultural resources.
According to NEPA regulations, in considering whether an action may "significantly affect the quality of the human environment," an agency must consider, among other things, unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)) and the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)). NEPA regulations also require that to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements (EIS) concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by the NHPA (40 CFR 1502.25(a)). Agencies should consider their Section 106 of the NHPA responsibilities as early as possible in the NEPA process, and plan their public participation, analysis, and review in such a way that they can meet the purposes and requirements of both statutes in a timely and efficient manner. The determination of whether an action is a "major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," and therefore requires preparation of an EIS under NEPA, should include consideration of the undertaking's likely effects on historic properties.
3.1.1.2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 applies when a project has been determined to be an undertaking, which includes a project, activity, or program funded in whole or part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on the behalf of a federal agency, those carried out with federal financial assistance, those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval, and those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency (36 CFR 800.16(y)). If the undertaking would have an adverse effect on historic properties, the agency must continue to consult to resolve the adverse effects. Federal agencies follow the Section 106 process in reviewing project activities and prescribing appropriate actions to meet the requirements for compliance.
Section 106 requires that impacts on significant cultural resources, hereafter called historic properties, be taken into consideration in any federal undertaking. “Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that meet the [NRHP] criteria” [36 CFR §800.16(l)].
Section 106 affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and SHPO a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the NRHP. Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a Native American tribe to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Page 16
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Cultural resources studies for the proposed project are subject to the review and procedures of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in consultation with SHPO. These studies are shaped by ACHP regulations (36 CFR Part 800) for implementing Section 106. Section 106 studies provide the information necessary to satisfy legal requirements for environmental documents under NEPA. SHPO acts as a coordinator in the Section 106 process, but the final responsibility to carry out this regulation belongs to the FTA, the lead federal agency.
3.1.1.3 Antiquities Act The Antiquities Act of 1906 was enacted with the primary goal of protecting cultural resources in the United States. As such, it prohibits appropriation, excavation, injury, or destruction of "any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity" located on lands owned or controlled by the federal government, without permission of the secretary of the federal department with jurisdiction. It also establishes criminal penalties, including fines or imprisonment, for these acts, and sets forth a permit requirement for collection of antiquities on federally-owned lands.
3.1.1.4 The Archaeological Resources Protection Act The ARPA was enacted in 1979 and amended in 1988. ARPA states that archaeological resources on public or Indian lands are an accessible and irreplaceable part of the nation's heritage and provides for the following:
Establishes protection for archaeological resources to prevent loss and destruction due to uncontrolled excavations and pillaging;
Encourages increased cooperation and an exchange of information between government authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources prior to the enactment of this act; and
Establishes permit procedures to permit excavation or removal of archaeological resources (and associated activities) located on public or Indian land. ARPA defines excavation, removal, damage, or other alteration or defacing of archaeological resources as a "prohibited act" and provides for criminal and monetary rewards to be paid to individuals furnishing information leading to the finding of a civil violation or conviction of a criminal violator.
Section 4 of ARPA and Sections 5-12 of the uniform regulations establish a permitting system through which federal agencies can authorize professional scientific excavation and removal of archaeological resources from their lands. Permits for these activities may still be issued under the Antiquities Act of 1906, but ARPA is now the standard basis on which federal archaeological permitting authority is derived. Important provisions of these sections of the law and the regulations deal with applications for permits, the requirements to be met for permit issuance, consultation with Indian tribes regarding permits, and suspension and revocation of permits.
3.1.1.5 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act The AIRFA proclaims that the United States government will respect and protect the rights of Indian tribes to the free exercise of their traditional religions; the courts have interpreted this as requiring agencies to consider the effects of their actions on traditional religious practices.
Page 17
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
3.1.1.6 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4(f) protects important historic resources as well as publicly-owned recreation areas, parks, and wildlife refuges. This law prevents projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation from involving use of resources eligible for Section 4(f) protection, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative or the project includes all possible measures to minimize the impacts of using the resources. The separate Section 4(f) technical memorandum methodology presents the detailed regulatory framework for Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.
3.1.1.7 The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act provides for the preservation of historical and archaeological data (including relics and specimens) which might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed as the result of alteration of the terrain caused as a result of any federal construction project or federally-licensed activity or program.
3.1.1.8 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The NAGPRA would also apply to this project if human remains of Native American origin are discovered on federal land during implementation of the project. NAGPRA requires federal agencies and federally-assisted museums to return "Native American cultural items" to the federally-recognized Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian groups with which they are associated. Regulations (43 CFR 10) stipulate the following procedures be followed.
If Native American human remains are discovered, the following provisions would be followed to comply with regulations: Notify, in writing, the responsible federal agency; Cease activity in the area of discovery and protect the human remains; Certify receipt of the notification; Take steps to secure and protect the remains; Notify the Native American tribes likely to be culturally affiliated with the discovered human remains within one working day; and Initiate consultation with the Native American tribe or tribes in accordance with regulations described in 43 CFR, Part 10 Subpart B, Section 10.5. 3.1.2 State 3.1.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.1), historical resources include any resource listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. Properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, such as those identified in the Section 106 process, are automatically listed in the CRHR. Therefore, all "historic properties" under federal preservation law are automatically "historical resources" under state preservation law.
Historical resources are also presumed to be significant if they are included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a qualified historical resources survey. Section
Page 18
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining significant historical resources and the potential effects of a project on such resources.
3.1.2.2 California Public Resource Code 5097 If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction not on federal land, it will be necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
The county coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
If the remains are of Native American origin: The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC 5097.98, or The NAHC was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC.
According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100) and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped near discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.
3.1.2.3 Paleontological Regulatory Setting CEQA also categorizes paleontological resources as cultural resources and requires an impact evaluation to such resources. Impacts to paleontological resources are considered under CEQA only and are not considered historic properties to be evaluated under NEPA or the Section 106 process.
Significant paleontological resources are defined as fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or important to define a particular time frame or geologic strata, or that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas, in local formations or regionally. Paleontological remains are accepted as nonrenewable resources significant to our culture and, as such, are protected under provisions of the Antiquities Act of 1906 and subsequent related legislation, policies, and enacting responsibilities.
In the state of California, fossil remains are considered to be limited, nonrenewable, and sensitive scientific resources. These resources are afforded protection under the state of California legislation discussed below in Sections 3.1.2.4 and 3.1.2.5.
Page 19
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
3.1.2.4 CEQA
13 PRC, 21000 et seq. requires public agencies and private interests to identify the potential adverse impacts and/or environmental consequences of their proposed project(s) to any object or site important to the scientific annals of California (Division 1, Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1[b]).
Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (as amended 1 January 1999).
3.1.2.5 State CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(a)(3J This section of CEQA provides protection for historical (or paleontological) resources by requiring that they be identified and mitigated as historical resources under CEQA. The state CEQA Guidelines define historical resources broadly to include any object, site, area, or place that a lead agency determines to be historically significant.
3.1.3 Local A resource included in a local register of historical resources shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant according to Section 15064.5(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Only one of the communities in the project area, the city of Whittier, has a historic preservation element or ordinance.
3.1.3.1 City of Whittier City of Whittier Municipal Code, Division IV, Chapter 18.84, Historic Resources, Article II. Designation of Historic Landmarks and Districts.
18.84.050 Designation Criteria for Historic Landmarks A historic resource shall be designated a historic landmark if the council finds that it meets the criteria for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR; or meets one or more of the following criteria:
A. It is particularly representative of a distinct historical period, type, style, region, or way of life; B. It is connected with someone renowned, important, or a local personality; C. It is connected with a use that was once common, but is now rare; D. It represents the work of a master builder, engineer, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age; E. It is the site of an important historic event or is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state, or city; F. It exemplifies a particular architectural style; G. It exemplifies the best remaining architectural type of a neighborhood; H. It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural or engineering design, detail, material, or craftsmanship; or I. It has a unique location, singular characteristic or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city.
(Ord. 2785 Exh. A (part), 2001: Ord. 2598 § 1(C), 1993; Ord. 2389 § 1 (part), 1986)
Page 20
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
18.84.060 Designation Criteria for Historic Districts A neighborhood consisting primarily of historic resources, or the thematic grouping of same, shall be designated a historic district if the council finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
A. It meets the criteria for a historic landmark; B. It contributes to the architectural, historic or cultural significance of an area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic resources or a thematically related grouping of structures which contribute to each other and are unified by plan, style, or physical development; or C. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes or distinctive examples of a park landscape, site design or community planning.
(Ord. 2785 Exh. A (part), 2001)
3.2 Thresholds of Significance 3.2.1 Federal 3.2.1.1 National Register of Historic Places The federal significance of an archaeological site or an architectural structure is established when the NRHP criteria for evaluation are met (36 CFR §60.4). Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA also allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a Native American tribe to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
The NRHP criteria for evaluation are:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
If a particular resource meets one of these criteria, it is considered as an eligible historic property for listing in the NRHP.
For archaeological resources, the proposed APE includes the proposed at-grade ROW and any areas of direct ground disturbance during project construction, including areas for staging and temporary construction activities. For historic and architectural resources, the APE includes all proposed ROW,
Page 21
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
land acquisition, and construction areas, and all parcels adjacent to permanent site improvements and facilities, including: at-grade and grade-separated alignments; stations and power substations; park and ride facilities, and maintenance yards and buildings. For elevated alignments, the APE includes any additional parcels where the elevated structure may alter the character, use or setting of a potential historic property. The boundary of the APE encompasses all of the above.
3.2.1.2 Federal Impact Criteria According to NEPA regulations, in considering whether an action may "significantly affect the quality of the human environment," an agency must consider, among other things the unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)), and the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP(40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)).
To comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, any effects of the proposed undertaking on properties listed in or determined eligible for inclusion in NRHP must be analyzed by applying the Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR Part 800.5(a)), as described below.
An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.
Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:
(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; (ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines; (iii) Removal of the property from its historic location; (iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features; (vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and (vii)Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long term preservation of the property’s historic significance.
Page 22
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
3.2.2 State 3.2.2.1 CEQA Regulations (Section 15064.5) Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Chapter 3) sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining significant historical resources and the potential significant impacts of a project on such resources. The CEQA impacts criteria are included in Section 5.0, Impacts, of this technical memorandum.
The CEQA statute and guidelines provide five basic definitions as to what may qualify as a historical resource. Specifically, Section 21048.1 of the CEQA statute provides a description for the first three of these definitions, simplified as follows:
1. Listed in the CRHR; 2. Determined eligible for the CRHR by the State Historical Resources Commission; or 3. Included in a local register of historical resources.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines supplements the statute by providing two additional definitions of historical resources, which may be simplified in the following manner. A historical resource is a resource that is:
1. Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC §5024.1(g) [see footnote 4]; or 2. Determined by a lead agency to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Generally, this category includes resources that meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
3.2.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources Generally, a resource is considered by the lead state agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Title 14, Chapter 11.5, CCR §4852), as follows:
(b) Criteria for evaluating the significance of historical resources. A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: (1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
Page 23
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
(4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. (c) Integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance described in section 4852 (b) of this chapter and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.
Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.
It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP, but they may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
(d) Special considerations: (1) Moved buildings, structures, or objects. The Commission encourages the retention of historical resources on site and discourages the non-historic grouping of historic buildings into parks or districts. However, it is recognized that moving a historic building, structure, or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction. Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the CRHR if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource. A historical resource should retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment. (2) Historical resources achieving significance within the last fifty (50) years. In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty (50) years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. (3) Reconstructed buildings. Reconstructed buildings are those buildings not listed in the CRHR under the criteria in Section 4853(b)(1), (2), or (3) of this chapter. A reconstructed building less than fifty (50) years old may be eligible if it embodies traditional building methods and techniques that play an important role in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices; e.g., a Native American roundhouse.
3.2.2.3 Public Resources Code 21083.2 In addition, if an archaeological resource does not fall within the definition of a historical resource, but does meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC 21083.2), then the site must be
Page 24
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
treated in accordance with the special provisions for such resources. An archaeological resource is unique if it:
1. Is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American history or recognized scientific importance in prehistory; 2. Can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; or 3. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind.
3.2.2.4 State Impact Criteria Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code provides that "[a] project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant impact on the environment.” Substantial adverse change is defined as the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(b)(1) and (2) identify the threshold for a significant impact on a historical resource as the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. That means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired. The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project results in the following:
A. Demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner of those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR; B. Demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner of those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k) or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C. Demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner of those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. 3.3 Area of Potential Effects As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), an APE is “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.”
For archaeological resources, the proposed APE includes the proposed at-grade ROW and any areas of direct ground disturbance during project construction, including areas for staging and temporary construction activities. For historic and architectural resources, the APE includes all proposed ROW,
Page 25
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum land acquisition and construction areas, and all parcels adjacent to permanent site improvements and facilities, including: at-grade and grade-separated alignments; stations and power substations; park and ride facilities, and maintenance yards and buildings. For elevated alignments, the APE includes any additional parcels where the elevated structure may alter the character, use, or setting of a potential historic property. Thus, the APE boundaries vary along the alignment. However, typically, they extend out from the alignment approximately 150 to 350 feet, or a depth of from one to three parcels, depending on parcel sizes, intervening landscape and buildings, and whether the historic land use is sensitive to the proposed change in setting. Paleontological resources are not reviewed for compliance with Section 106. Their APE would be any area where construction activities would excavate to a depth sufficient to encounter paleontological resources. 3.4 Methodology Section 106 regulations prescribe the following steps for identifying and assessing effects on historic properties, which are described in this section and subsequent sections:
Determine and document the APE;
Identify consulting and interested parties;
Identify potential historic properties;
Evaluate significance of potential historic properties by applying NRHP eligibility criteria in consultation with SHPO or Indian tribes, as appropriate;
Assess effects on historic properties by applying Section 106 criteria of adverse effect;
Develop avoidance and mitigation measures if necessary; and
Document the process.
3.4.1 Identify Consulting and Interested Parties In accordance with Section 106 regulation 800.4(a)(3), the FTA and Metro sought information, as appropriate, from consulting parties and other individuals and organizations likely to have knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the area to identify issues related to the proposed project’s potential impacts on historic properties. Letters were sent to the parties listed in the following sections. See Section 4.1 for additional information.
3.4.1.1 Native American Groups and Individuals There are no federally-recognized tribes in the project area.
The Native American groups and individuals listed below were contacted.
Page 26
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Native American Groups and Individuals
Ms. Bernie Acuna Mr. Sam Dunlap Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe Chairperson, Gabrieleño-Tongva Nation 501 Santa Monica Boulevard P.O. Box 86908 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Los Angeles, CA 90086
Mr. Anthony Morales Ms. Cindi Alvitre Chairperson, Gabrieleño-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Ti’at Society Mission Indians 6515 E. Seaside Walk, #C P.O. Box 693 Long Beach, CA 90803 San Gabriel, CA 91778
Mr. Ron Andrade Mr. Tommy John Rosas Director, Los Angeles City/County Native American Tribal Administrator Indian Commission th Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation 3175 West 6 Street (contact via e-mail only) Los Angeles, CA 90020
Mr. Andy Salas Ms. Linda Candelaria Chairperson, Shoshonean Gabrieleño Band of Mission Chairwoman, Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe Indians 501 Santa Monica Boulevard P.O. Box 393 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Covina, CA 91723
Mr. Robert F. Dorame Tribal Chair/Cultural, Gabrieleño-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, CA 90707
Interested Parties—Government Agencies
Louis E. Skelton, Chairman Community Development Department Planning Division Historic Landmarks and Records Commission City of Pico Rivera Los Angeles County 6615 Passons Boulevard 500 West Temple Street Pico Rivera, CA 90660-1016 Los Angeles, CA 90012
James E. Hartl Director of Planning, Los Angeles County Department Planning Division of Regional Planning City of Rosemead 320 West Temple Street, 13th Floor 8838 East Valley Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90012 Rosemead, CA 91770 [email protected]
Robert Zarrilli, Director Wayne Morrell Community Planning Department Principal Planner, Planning and Development Department City of Commerce City of Santa Fe Springs 2535 Commerce Way 11710 Telegraph Road Commerce, CA 90040 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Page 27
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Pranee Sudchevid Planning Department Planning Division, City of Montebello City of South El Monte 1600 W. Beverly Boulevard 1415 N. Santa Anita Avenue Montebello, CA 90640 South El Monte, CA 91733 [email protected]
Jim Basham Planning Manager, Planning Division Planning Services Development Services Department City of Whittier City of Monterey Park 13230 Penn Street 320 West Newmark Avenue Whittier, CA 90602 Monterey Park, CA 91754
Historical Societies, Museums, and Libraries
Historical Society of Southern California Pico Rivera History and Heritage Society P.O. Box 93487 P.O. Box 313 Los Angeles, CA 91109 Pico Rivera, CA 90666 [email protected]
Clarke Estate City of Santa Fe Springs California State Railroad Museum Parks and Recreation 111 “I” Street 10211 Pioneer Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95814-2265 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 [email protected]
Evelyn Fullmore, Director of Library Services Heritage Park Commerce Central Library 12100 Mora Drive 5655 Jillson Street Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Commerce, CA 90040
Hathaway Ranch Museum Juan Matias 11901 Florence Avenue Sanchez Adobe/Montebello Historical Society Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 946 N. Adobe Avenue (562) 777-3444 Montebello, CA 90640 [email protected]
Monterey Park Historical Society Santa Fe Springs City Library 781 S. Orange Avenue 11700 Telegraph Road Monterey Park, CA 91754 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Myra Hilliard Pico Rivera Historical Museum Executive Director 9122 Washington Boulevard Whittier Historical Society Pico Rivera, CA 90660 6755 Newlin Avenue Whittier, CA 90601
Page 28
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Preservation Organizations
Sian Winship, President Michael Buhler, Director of Advocacy Society of Architectural Historians Los Angeles Conservancy th Southern California Chapter 523 West 6 Street, Suite 826 P.O. Box 56478 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413 [email protected] [email protected]
Lewis MacAdams, President Southern Pacific Historical and Technology Society Friends of the Los Angeles River Attn.: John Signor 570 West Avenue 26, #250 1523 Howard Access Road, Suite A Los Angeles, CA 90065 Upland, CA 91786-2582 [email protected]
Cindy Heitzman, Executive Director California Preservation Foundation Pacific Railroad Society 1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 820 P.O. Box 80726 Oakland, CA 94612 San Marino, CA 91118 [email protected]
3.4.2 Identify Potential Historic Properties Implementation of the proposed project could result in both construction and/or operational impacts affecting historic properties. If the properties being affected are listed in or eligible for listing in NRHP or per CRHR criteria, the impacts, if not appropriately mitigated or avoided could seriously impair the progress of the proposed project. Issues dealt with under this topic included appropriately identifying and classifying historic properties, identifying the nature and extent of potential impacts, and identifying appropriate mitigation for such impacts.
A comprehensive program of archival research was undertaken for all properties within the APE. This study phase consisted of the review of existing materials which relate to historic and prehistoric resources within or near the APE. Reports, records, maps, and documents at various institutions, libraries, federal, state, and local agencies, and archives were examined. Also, archaeologists, historians, and architectural historians who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61; 48 FR 44716) and are familiar with project area resources and research considerations performed the research.
Research for historic properties emphasized the review of existing historic properties inventories, including the NRHP, state and local listings, SHPO files, and documents at the South Central Coastal Information Center located at California State University, Fullerton. This research also covered any designated landmarks which have city, county, state, or federal recognition. Previous surveys, which evaluated resources according to NRHP and CRHR criteria, were consulted.
A background research survey was undertaken to identify previously documented historic and architectural resources within and near the APE and to help establish a context for resource significance. National, state, and local inventories of architectural/historic resources were examined in order to identify significant local historical events and personages, development patterns, and unique interpretations of architectural styles. The following inventories and sources were consulted:
Page 29
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
The NRHP Information System
CRHR
California Office of Historic Preservation Historical Resources Inventory System
California Historical Landmarks
California Points of Historical Interest
City of Whittier Historic Landmarks and Districts
3.4.2.1 Federal The next phase of the cultural resource inventory consisted of field studies to identify potential historic properties. In order to verify recorded information and document previously unrecorded cultural resources within the APE, field studies were planned and implemented.
For the proposed project, surveys were undertaken and documentation prepared in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification of Historic Properties (48 Federal Register [FRJ 44716), using personnel who meet the Secretary of Interior's Professional Standards (48 FR 22716) in the fields of ethnography, prehistoric archaeology, historic archaeology, architectural history, and history. For the purposes of this technical memorandum, the broad pool of cultural resources within the APE that require evaluation for NRHP eligibility may be categorized into two major types, as follows:
Historic and Architectural Resources, which include man-made features that comprise the recognizable built environment. This category typically includes extant, aboveground buildings and structures that date from the earliest territorial settlements until the present day.
Archaeological Resources, which include resources that represent important evidence of past human behavior, including portable artifacts such as arrowheads or tin cans; non- portable "features" such as cooking hearths, foundations, and privies; or residues such as food remains and charcoal. Archaeological remains can be virtually any age, from recent historic period materials to prehistoric deposits thousands of years old.
Historic and Architectural Resources Field studies for historic and architectural resources began with an automobile survey of the APE, with follow-up, on-foot review of specific properties with the potential to meet NRHP or CRHR criteria. A drive-by inspection was conducted along each project alternative to note areas which may be disturbed by any activity with the potential to affect existing structures or archaeological deposits below them. For each structure that was built before 1970 in the APE, which was the construction age threshold agreed upon during SHPO consultation, a photograph, brief description, and field notes were prepared. Limited historical research was conducted to confirm age, architect, builder, and associations with important persons and events that may be needed for the evaluation. These efforts, together with archival research, resulted in an inventory of known and potential historic properties within or near the APE. Finally, the data gathering included mapping of any areas within the APE that have already been surveyed or inventoried for potential historic properties. A field survey of all properties within the APE was undertaken according to standard Section 106 regulations and related procedures. Field investigations by qualified architectural historians, a
Page 30
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum qualified archaeologist, and historic researchers were conducted on multiple occasions in 2010. During the field investigations, the boundaries of the APE were confirmed, and an assessment was made of all extant buildings and structures within the APE to determine if their age and integrity warrant application of NRHP criteria.
The field survey of historic and architectural resources included the following steps:
A field survey consisting of a visual on-site examination of every parcel within the APE, including an assessment of integrity.
Identification of the age of all major buildings, structures, objects, and potentially coherent districts located within the APE.
Photography of each potential district feature, major structure, building, or object within the APE.
Review in the field of previous survey data, comments from interested parties, and lists of significant historic properties.
Following the field survey, site-specific research was conducted to establish the construction history of buildings and structures and potential associations with historic persons and events.
The properties were recorded and evaluated on California Historic Resource Inventory forms (series Department of Parks and Recreation [DPR] 523) and are being submitted to the California SHPO for review and concurrence.
Archaeological Properties Construction activities required in order to implement the proposed project could result in disturbance or potential destruction of known or unknown archaeological resources. Such disturbance or potential destruction, if not adequately identified and appropriately mitigated, could pose serious implementation difficulties for the proposed project.
A Phase I archaeological reconnaissance survey of the APE was conducted to provide data concerning the presence or absence of archaeological resources. This report contains sections on the environmental setting, cultural history, previous archaeological studies, results of archival research and records search, survey results, and recommendations for monitoring or archaeological evaluation (Phase II effort), if warranted.
Archival research was conducted to determine the nature and substance of existing documentation or archaeological resources within the APE. The research was conducted at the California State University, Fullerton Archaeological Information Center, for existing site records and files, and the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor’s Office, for early land ownership records. In addition, local archives, museums, libraries, and knowledgeable local historians were consulted as appropriate. Potential disturbance or damage to identified archaeological resources was determined by comparison with the project description and construction methods. Avoidance options were offered where appropriate. Where avoidance is not possible, subsequent mitigation activities were identified, potentially including more detailed documentation and, in some instances, recovery activities.
Page 31
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Properties Listed in or Eligible for the NRHP The historic and architectural resources survey and archaeological survey resulted in preparation of a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), in accordance with the Section 106 process and compliance with CEQA. Research was conducted for only those properties within the APE. The goal was directed at identifying any areas providing basic documentation about potentially significant buildings and structures. An evaluation of the eligibility of resources for listing in the NRHP and that are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA was completed as applicable.
During the process of accomplishing archival research and conducting field studies for potential historic properties, Metro’s professional qualified consultants maintained communication with SHPO and other jurisdictional agencies. The consultant archaeologists also conferred with the NAHC in Sacramento, local California Native American organizations, or cultural organizations. The consultant historians or architectural historians contacted interested parties who may have knowledge or concerns of historic properties in the APE, including historical societies, museums, and preservation organizations.
Criteria of Adverse Effect For any properties within the APE which are listed in or appear eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, the Section 106 Criteria of Adverse Effect were applied in accordance with 36 CFR §800.5. If planning and design considerations cannot reduce a finding of adverse effect to a finding of no effect, the ACHP, a federal agency that was responsible for developing the Section 106 regulations in 36 CFR Part 800, will be given an opportunity to comment and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be prepared in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6(c). The MOA will stipulate the mitigation measures necessary to eliminate or reduce the effect on the historic property that are agreed upon as a result of SHPO consultation. 3.4.2.2 State The federal methodology steps are adequate to comply with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines, because the Section 106 guidelines have more rigorous review requirements than the state regulations. For example, CEQA does not require careful delineation of a project study area such as the Section 106 APE, and does not require consultation with SHPO. For any properties found to be historical resources under CEQA, the impact criteria in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines was applied. Generally, an adverse effect under Section 106 is also considered a significant impact under CEQA as a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, there is no difference between the compliance methodology for "historic properties" under federal law and "historical resources" under state law. For the purposes of this environmental document, the term "historic properties" is hereafter used to represent both the federal term "historic properties" and state term "historical resources," unless otherwise noted. One notable difference between federal and state regulations is mitigation when the impact is demolition or substantial alteration of a historical resource that is a building, structure, or object. The federal regulations do not provide a prescriptive approach for how to document a historic property as a mitigation measure in order to resolve adverse effects; however, in such cases, documentation to federal standards such as the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) is often stipulated in a Section 106 MOA as a way to resolve the adverse
Page 32
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum effect. Section 15126.4.b.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines is more specific regarding mitigation measures related to historical resources, as follows: “In some circumstances, documentation of a historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant impact on the environment would occur.” 3.4.2.3 Paleontological Resources A paleontological resources assessment was obtained for this project from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). Pertinent geological information was reviewed for the project extent, including a review of known paleontological localities; no paleontological field survey was performed. Paleontological sensitivity of the project area was addressed, and potential paleontological mitigation measures offered, as appropriate, in the document.
Page 33
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Section 106 regulations prescribe the following steps for identifying and assessing effects on historic properties, which are described in this section and subsequent sections:
Determine and document the APE;
Identify consulting and interested parties;
Identify potential historic properties;
Evaluate significance of potential historic properties by applying NRHP eligibility criteria in consultation with SHPO or Indian tribes, as appropriate;
Assess effects on historic properties by applying Section 106 criteria of adverse effect;
Develop avoidance and mitigation measures, if necessary; and
Document the process.
4.1 Consulting and Interested Parties FTA sent a letter to the California SHPO on June 10, 2010, initiating Section 106 consultation and delegating to Metro the authority to consult directly with SHPO. A draft APE map was submitted to SHPO with the letter.
Notice of Intent (NOI) letters were sent to the listed Native American groups and individuals on January 25, 2010. Metro’s consultants sent letters to the parties listed in Section 3.4.1 of this technical memorandum on June 29, 2010. As of October 4, 2011, no comments have been received.
In response to the NOI, the NAHC sent a letter on January 27, 2010, stating that a search of its Sacred Lands Database did not yield any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties in the project area. The NAHC also provided a list of nine potentially interested Native American representatives for the project area. The names and affiliations of these groups and individuals are as follows:
Bernie Acuna, Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe;
Cindi Alvitre, Ti’at Society;
Ron Andrade, Director, Los Angeles City/County Native American Commission;
Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman, Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe;
Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural, Gabrieleño-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council;
Sam Dunlap, Chairperson, Gabrieleño-Tongva Nation;
Anthony Morales, Chairperson, Gabrieleño-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians;
Tommy John Rosas, Tribal Administrator, Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation; and
Andy Salas, Chairperson, Shoshonean Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians.
Page 34
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
In coordination with Metro and CDM, letters describing the project area and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps of the alternatives were sent to these individuals on June 15, 2010. A response was received from Mr. Andy Salas, representing the Shoshonean Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians. Mr. Salas requested Native American monitoring of project construction for either alternative.
Follow-up telephone calls were made to six individuals in July and August of 2010. Conversations took place with Mr. Robert F. Dorame, Gabrieleño-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Mr. Sam Dunlap, Gabrieleño-Tongva Nation, and Mr. Anthony Morales, Gabrieleño-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. Messages were left for Ms. Bernie Acuna, Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe; Ms. Cindi Alvitre, Ti’at Society; and Mr. Ron Andrade, Los Angeles City/County Native American Commission. Telephone calls were not made to Mr. Salas because he had already responded, or to Mr. Tommy John Rosas because he does not want to be contacted by telephone. Ms. Linda Candelaria was not contacted by telephone because her contact number is the same as that of Ms. Acuna, for whom messages were already left.
Mr. Dorame requested Native American monitoring for either alternative. Furthermore, in the event that significant cultural resources are found, he requested that the Gabrieleño-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council be notified. Mr. Dunlap requested Native American monitoring for either alternative of ground-disturbing activities and work within known Native American sites, if any. He stated that he had limited concerns regarding this project because of the developed nature of the sites for the alternatives, with work being largely confined to existing highways or roads. Mr. Morales stated that the project alternatives cross several rivers. He believes that SR 60 follows an old Native American trail, thereby making the area more sensitive for prehistoric cultural resources. Mr. Morales stated that, as with all trenching and excavation, it would be necessary to be vigilant. He requested Native American monitoring in areas with deep excavations along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment.
4.2 Identify Potential Historic Properties 4.2.1 Records Search A comprehensive program of archival research was undertaken for all properties within the APE. This study phase consisted of a review of existing materials that relate to historic and prehistoric resources within the project area. Reports, records, maps, and documents at various institutions, libraries, and federal, state, and local agencies and archives were examined. Archaeologists, historians, and architectural historians who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61; 48 FR 44716) and are familiar with project area resources and research considerations performed the research.
The cultural resources studies began with records searches conducted at the appropriate California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) information center, which, in this case, was the South Central Coastal Information Center located at California State University, Fullerton. The records searches looked at topographic maps, with the locations of recorded cultural resources within the project area plotted on the maps; site records; and the list of previously conducted studies within the project area. The CHRIS records search was conducted on April 28 and May 27, 2010. The search included a review of all recorded prehistoric archaeological sites within a 1-mile radius of the project
Page 35
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
site and all recorded historic archaeological sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the CRHR, the NRHP, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) were reviewed. Historic USGS quadrangle maps were inspected as well.
The record search revealed that 139 cultural resource surveys have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the project APE. Of these surveys, 30 are located within the project APE. One prehistoric cultural resource site has been identified within a 1-mile radius of the project APE, 16 historic sites have been identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the project APE, and one multi-component site has been identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the project APE (see Table 4-1). Currently, there is one listing for the CHL, No. 947, the Fred C. Nelles School for Juvenile Offenders, within a 0.5-mile radius of the project APE. One previously recorded cultural resource, the Whittier Narrows Dam Recreation Area, is located adjacent to the APE, but it is not listed on any federal, state, or local inventory. No other cultural resources are recorded within the APE.
The majority of the 30 cultural resource studies conducted within the APE are between ten and 34 years old, and the area of coverage is spotty at best. One study, LA9676, was conducted in 2007. However, it was limited because the scope of the project was to monitor construction activities at the San Gabriel Valley Water Recycling Plant.
In accordance with Section 106 regulation 800.4(a)(2), FTA and Metro have identified historic properties and historical resources listed as part of the following federal, state, and local inventories:
NRHP,
CHL,
CRHR,
PHI, and
City of Whittier Historic Landmarks and Districts.
Table 4-1. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within a 0.5-mile and 1-mile Radius
Primary Number Trinomial Description Author and Year Status
Sparse historic refuse Outside of Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Jones et al., 1976 scatter the APE
Sayles, 1947; Rosen, 1979 Outside of Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Prehistoric lithic scatter and Demcak, 1979 the APE
Prehistoric lithic scatter Outside of Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Brock et al., 1986 and historic refuse scatter the APE
Outside of Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Montebello Oil Field Fulton et al., 2008 the APE
Page 36
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Table 4-1. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within a 0.5-mile and 1-mile Radius (continued)
Primary Number Trinomial Description Author and Year Status
Sparse historic refuse Outside of Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Long et al., 2008 scatter APE
Fred C. Nelles School, Outside of Not Disclosed NA Gray, 1977 CHL No. 947 the APE
Outside of Not Disclosed NA Whittier Palm Dentistry Scheid, 1992 the APE
Outside of Not Disclosed NA French café Scheid, 1992 the APE
Outside of Not Disclosed NA UPRR Ashkar, 1999 the APE
Whittier Narrows Dam Adjacent to Not Disclosed NA Messick, 2003 Recreation Area the APE
Nike Site LA-14, PAR Environmental Outside of Not Disclosed NA Facility ID No. CA 010 Services, Inc., 2006 the APE
Whittier Narrows Nature Outside of Not Disclosed NA Tomes et al., 2006 Center park police office the APE
Whittier Narrows Nature Outside of Not Disclosed NA Tomes et al., 2006 Center Museum the APE
Whittier Narrows Nature Outside of Not Disclosed NA Tomes et al., 2006 Center restroom building the APE
Whittier Narrows Nature Center police Outside of Not Disclosed NA Tomes et al., 2006 maintenance garage and the APE shed
Whittier Narrows Nature Outside of Not Disclosed NA Tomes et al., 2006 Center picnic shelter the APE
5120 E. Beverly Outside of Not Disclosed NA Boulevard, Los Angeles; Taniguchi, 2005 the APE industrial-use building
3510 W. Beverly Outside of Not Disclosed NA Boulevard, Los Angeles; Crawford, 2009 the APE commercial-use building
Source: ICF International 2011 Note: Actual site locations have not been disclosed in this document.
Page 37
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.2.2 Field Survey For the proposed project, surveys were undertaken and documentation prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification of Historic Properties (48 FR 44716), using personnel who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Standards (48 FR 22716) in the fields of ethnography, prehistoric archaeology, historic archaeology, architectural history, and history. For the purposes of this document, the broad pool of cultural resources within the APE that require evaluation for NRHP eligibility may be categorized as two major types:
Historic and architectural resources, which include the man-made features that make up the recognizable built environment. This category typically includes extant aboveground buildings and structures that date from the earliest territorial settlements until the present day.
Archaeological resources, which include resources that represent important evidence of past human behavior, including portable artifacts such as arrowheads and tin cans; non-portable “features” such as cooking hearths, foundations, and privies; and residues such as food remains and charcoal. Archaeological remains can be virtually any age, from recent historic- period materials to prehistoric deposits that are thousands of years old.
4.2.2.1 Historic and Architectural Resources Field studies for historic and architectural resources began with an automobile survey of the APE, with a follow-up on-foot review of specific properties with the potential to meet NRHP or CRHR criteria. A drive-by inspection was conducted along each project alternative APE. For each structure in the APE that was built before 1970, which was the construction age threshold agreed upon during SHPO consultation, a photograph, brief description, and field notes were prepared. Limited historical research was conducted to confirm age, architect, builder, and associations with important persons and events, which may be needed for the evaluation. These efforts, together with archival research, resulted in an inventory of known and potential historic properties within the project area. Finally, the data-gathering process included mapping any areas within the APE that have already been surveyed or potential historic properties that were previously identified.
A field survey of all properties within the APE was undertaken according to standard Section 106 regulations and related procedures. Field investigations by qualified architectural historians, a qualified archaeologist, and historic researchers were conducted on multiple occasions in 2010. During the field investigations, the boundaries of the APE were confirmed, and an assessment was made of all extant buildings and structures within the APE to determine if their age and integrity warrant application of NRHP criteria.
The field survey of historic and architectural resources included the following steps:
On-site visual examination of every parcel within the APE, including an assessment of integrity;
Confirmation of the age of all major buildings, structures, objects, and potential districts located within the APE;
Page 38
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Photographing each major structure, building, object, or potential district feature within the APE; and
Field review of previous survey data, comments from interested parties, and lists of significant historic properties.
4.2.2.2 Archaeological Properties A field survey was conducted on July 2, 2010, by Catharine M. Wood, an ICF staff archaeologist. Particular attention was paid to local geomorphological conditions that may suggest the possibility of buried cultural remains. The SR 60 LRT Alternative parallels commercial and residential development, a landfill, and an existing multi-lane freeway, which precluded pedestrian field survey. Open areas along the route included the Whittier Narrows Dam Recreation Area; however, this park has dense vegetative ground cover, which also precluded a cultural resources pedestrian survey. No new archaeological resources were observed during the field inspection.
One cultural resources site was recorded along SR 60, the Whittier Narrows Dam Recreation Area, Primary Number 19-186889. This expansive park is still in use; no archaeological artifacts were observed in this area during this survey. Six historic-era structures in the recreation area have been recorded in the Whittier Narrows Nature Center, all of them located south of the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation.
The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, beyond the SR 60 portion of the alignment, also encompasses dense commercial and residential development as well as portions of the existing highway, which precludes a pedestrian field survey. Such a field survey on both alignments is precluded because the ground surfaces are already densely developed with buildings, man-made landscape features, and have been paved over, and/or disturbed by prior earth-moving actions. Open areas along this alternative include the Rio Hondo Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds in Montebello and the San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds in Whittier. However, both areas have limited access and vegetative ground cover, which also precluded a cultural resources pedestrian survey. No new archaeological resources were observed during the field inspection.
One cultural resources site was recorded along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment and was examined as part of this survey. This is the site of the 1847 Battle of Rio San Gabriel, designated by a marker located at the corner of Washington Boulevard and Bluff Road. At the time of survey, the marker was inaccessible because of construction for a new apartment complex. The marker site overlooks the Rio Hondo Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds. According to a web search, the site is listed as CHL No. 385, and it was confirmed on the California Office of Historic Preservation website http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21427. No archaeological artifacts were observed at this location.
4.2.2.3 Paleontological Review A paleontological review for the proposed project was conducted by Dr. Samuel McLeod, a vertebrate paleontologist at the LACM, on August 8, 2010. According to geologic mapping and museum collections records, the proposed project alignment and alternative routes are immediately underlain by deposits of Quaternary alluvium of Holocene age (less than 10,000 years before present [BP]) and Pleistocene age (1.8 million years ago to 10,000 BP) as well as Pliocene age Fernando Formation sandstone (5.3 million
Page 39
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
years ago to 1.8 million years ago). These geologic units, as well as their paleontological resource potential, are discussed in more detail below.
Quaternary Alluvium Recent deposits of gravels and sands underlie the immediate channels of the Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel River. These recent deposits will not contain vertebrate fossils. Younger Quaternary alluvium underlies the project alternatives, except in the far western portion of the project area where there may be some exposures of older Quaternary deposits.
Surficial deposits of younger Quaternary alluvium consist of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited in stream channels and fluvial slope wash. These young sediments may overlie “older alluvium” of Pleistocene age at varying depths. Older alluvial sediments may be slightly-to-moderately consolidated but are generally only distinguishable through relative dating and stratigraphic position. Fossil localities in older Quaternary alluvium deposits throughout Southern California have yielded terrestrial vertebrates such as mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, short-faced bears, saber-toothed cats, horses, camels, and bison. Fossilized invertebrates and plant remains have also been collected from this unit. Younger alluvium is determined to have a low potential for paleontological resources but is often underlain by older alluvium, which is determined to have a high potential for paleontological resources.
Pliocene Fernando Formation Areas of the Pliocene Fernando Formation sandstone are exposed along the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation west of the intersection of Garfield Avenue and SR 60 and to the east through the Montebello Hills. Geologic map information indicates that this may be an exposure of non-marine facies of the otherwise marine Fernando Formation. The Fernando Formation has yielded numerous marine fossils throughout Southern California; this rock unit has a high potential for paleontological resources.
Project Area According to geologic mapping, the proposed project alignment is underlain by older and younger Quaternary alluvium as well as Pliocene age Fernando Formation sandstone. Museum collection records maintained by the LACM were searched, and 13 previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities were discovered within a three-mile radius of the project alignments (Table 4-2). Recovery of vertebrate fossils in two locations, LACM 7701 and LACM 7702, yielded fossil materials in older Quaternary alluvium at 11 to 34 feet below grade. Given the results of the paleontological research, the entire project area is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity, with the exception of channels of the Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel River. The river channels are considered to have low paleontological sensitivity.
Page 40
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Table 4-2. Paleontological Localities Located within a 3-mile Radius of the Project Alignments
LACM Locality Numbers and Geologic Age Taxa Approximate Formation Location
Great white shark (carcharodon carcharius), whale LACM 6350 Fernando (cetecea), swordfish (coelorhynchus scaphopsis), through LACM Formation, Pliocene lanternfish (diaphus), herring (ganolytes), lanternfish 6361; Puente Hills marine (lampanyctus), hake (merluccius), flounder (pleuronectidae), Landfill facies mackerel (scombridae)
LACM 7701 and Salamander (batrachospes), snake (colubridae), threespine LACM 7702; Quaternary Late stickleback (gasterostes aculeatus), lizard (lacertilia), pocket Atlantic Avenue deposits Pleistocene mouse (microtus), harvest mouse (reithrodontomys), rabbit and Interstate 710 (sylvilagus), pocket gopher (thomomys)
Source: LACM
4.3 Historic Context Information gathered from local groups; federal, state, and local inventories; and the field survey by architectural historians was used to develop the following historic contexts, thereby creating a framework from which to evaluate the significance of cultural resources. 4.3.1 Introduction: Definition of the Project Area The project area consists of portions of eight jurisdictions, including the cities of Commerce, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte, and Whittier, and portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County, which include East Los Angeles and West Whittier-Los Nietos. Natural features of the project area include Whittier Narrows as well as Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel River. Key influences on the project area were the industries and suburbs that developed east of the Los Angeles River in the early 20th century, which expanded rapidly after World War II. Historic instruments of change, including transportation improvements, real estate development, the discovery of oil, industrialization, and population growth, shaped the built environment. 4.3.2 Prehistoric Overview of the Project Area The prehistoric occupation of Southern California is divided chronologically into four temporal phases or horizons (Moratto 1984). Horizon I, or the Early Man Horizon, began at the first appearance of people in the region (approximately 12,000 years ago) and continued until about 5000 B.C. Although little is known about these people, it is assumed that they were semi-nomadic and subsisted primarily on game.
Horizon II, also known as the Millingstone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition, began around 5000 B.C. and continued until about 1500 B.C. The Millingstone Horizon is characterized by widespread use of milling stones (manos and metates), core tools, and few projectile points or bone and shell artifacts.
Page 41
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
This horizon appears to represent a diversification of subsistence activities and a more sedentary settlement pattern. Archaeological evidence suggests that hunting became less important and that reliance on collecting shellfish and vegetal resources increased (Moratto 1984).
Horizon III, the Intermediate Horizon or Campbell Tradition, began around 1500 B.C. and continued until about A.D. 600–800. Horizon III is defined by a shift from the use of milling stones to increased use of mortar and pestle, possibly indicating a greater reliance on acorns as a food source. Projectile points become more abundant and, together with faunal remains, indicate increased use of both land and sea mammals (Moratto 1984).
Horizon IV, the Late Horizon, which began around A.D. 600–800 and terminated with the arrival of Europeans, is characterized by dense populations; diversified hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, including intensive fishing and sea mammal hunting; extensive trade networks; use of the bow and arrow; and a general cultural elaboration (Moratto 1984). 4.3.3 Historic Overview of the Project Area The original occupants of the project area were the Gabrieleño Native American people. Within the large territory they occupied, which included the entire Los Angeles Basin, were more than 50 residential communities, with populations ranging from 50 to 150 individuals. The Gabrieleño had access to a broad and diverse resource base. This wealth of resources, coupled with an effective subsistence technology, well-developed trade network, and elaborate ritual system, resulted in a society that was among one of the most materially wealthy and sophisticated cultural groups in California at the time of contact (Bean and Smith 1978).
European occupation of the project area began with the Spanish arrival in California in 1769. The Spanish governor of California, Gaspar de Portola, launched an expedition from San Diego in a search for suitable sites for missions. Two years later, Franciscan missionaries founded Mission San Gabriel Archangel. Felipe de Neve established the pueblo of Los Angeles north of Mission San Gabriel in the late 18th century. The site had been recommended by a mission father, Juan Crespi, who had accompanied the pioneer expedition of Gaspar de Portola. On September 4, 1781, the original settlers of the pueblo arrived at the chosen site along the Los Angeles River near present-day Olvera Street (Weaver 1973).
A year after the founding of the pueblo, Governor of the Californias Pedro Fages granted tracts of land to veterans of his military command, initiating the Rancho Period of California history. Manuel Nieto originally received a grant of 300,000 acres; however, his parcel was eventually cut in half so that his ownership would not conflict with the property of Mission San Gabriel. The rancho extended from the San Gabriel River on the west to the Santa Ana River on the east. The road from San Gabriel to San Diego formed the northern boundary, roughly along the alignment of present-day Whittier Boulevard; the ocean was the boundary on the south. Originally, the grant was called la Zanja; it was later renamed Rancho Los Nietos (Robinson 1948).
Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, a change that had a profound effect on the lives of Los Angeles residents. California was now a remote northern province of the nation of Mexico; no longer subjects of the Spanish king but, rather, citizens of the pueblo, the residents played an important part in the life and governance of the city.
Page 42
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Secularization of the California missions by the Mexican Congress in 1833 made many acres of land available. During this period, more than 800 land grants were given to soldados del cuero, the faithful leather-jacketed soldiers of the presidios, government officials, and ranchers. Huge cattle ranchos were the dominant institution of this era.
At this time, American traders and settlers began to arrive in increasing numbers. Governor Pio Pico made a prophetic statement: “We find ourselves threatened by hordes of Yankee immigrants who have already begun to flock into our country and whose progress we cannot arrest” (Monroy 1990).
The relative harmony between the distant northern province of Alta California and the mother country came to an end with the Mexican-American War in 1846, provoked by the Lone Star Rebellion in Texas. The project area contains an important Mexican-American War battle site, the Rio San Gabriel Battlefield, one of eight battlefields in the state of California. This conflict occurred on January 8, 1847, near the site of the present-day intersection of Washington Boulevard and Bluff Road in Montebello, when United States forces encountered Mexican troops while crossing the San Gabriel River from the east. Advance scouting had forewarned the Americans of Mexican troop positions along the river. Nevertheless, the area’s topography made the crossing particularly perilous for the Americans. Mexican forces held positions on the west side of the river along a series of high bluffs that gave them a strategic edge. The river bottom, moreover, consisted of quick sand, making the Americans’ progress across the river extremely slow. Despite these advantages, Mexican forces were unable to effectively deploy their weaponry. After a battle of approximately 90 minutes, the Mexican troops withdrew, allowing the Americans to advance upon Los Angeles where the Mexicans surrendered. Historians consider this battle a decisive point in the war (Bauer 1974). After the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo at the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, all Mexican land in California transferred to the United States, and all Mexican land claims were subject to United States land ownership laws. Gold was discovered that same year in the Sierra Nevada, along the American River, by James W. Marshall, triggering a gold rush (Robinson 1948). In 1850, California officially became a state and was subsequently divided into 27 counties. The official boundaries of Los Angeles County included the land grant ranchos, the pueblo, and 4,340 square miles of unincorporated land, extending from Santa Barbara to San Diego (Los Angeles County no date [n.d.]). As Mexican rule transitioned to American rule, prominent Californio landholders faced threats to their land ownership, and many were forced to defend their titles. Don Abel Stearns, the largest landowner and cattle rancher in Southern California, and his wife, Arcadia Bandini, had long hosted political and social leaders at both their Main Street adobe, El Palacio de Don Abel, and their rancho, La Laguna, located east of the pueblo (Clary 1966). Although Don Abel Stearns lost most of his fortune when a drought decimated the cattle industry in the 1860s, his wife was able to preserve her separate property, Rancho La Laguna, in accordance with Mexican law (Clary 1966). In 1900, after her second husband died, Arcadia Bandini Stearns de Baker, requiring an income to live on, reluctantly sold a small tract of La Laguna land to rancher and cattleman Walter L. Vail. Vail used the property as an airfield until after World War II when the site was developed as the Vail Industrial District, which is located near the project area (Clary 1966). Upon Arcadia Bandini’s death in 1912, a legal battle over her estate delayed the development of Rancho La Laguna, which had been long coveted by real estate and industrial interests that were intent upon the eastward expansion of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Times 1921a). It was not until 1921 that an important swath of land in the project area (formerly Belvedere Gardens, now unincorporated East Los Angeles) became available for development, ending the rancho era in East Los Angeles (Clary 1966).
Page 43
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.3.4 Agricultural Land Uses in the Project Area During the first four decades of the 20th century, the project area supported extensive agricultural uses alongside its nascent industry. Topographically, the Eastside region is dominated by its rivers, with the Los Angeles River forming its western boundary. Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel River, running virtually parallel, traverse the region, flowing due south from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Pacific. Given the semi-arid nature of the climate, this abundance of waterways made the region a natural location for crop cultivation of all kinds. In the Whittier area, for example, barley, beans, cabbage, corn, oats, peanuts, tomatoes, and citrus were common food crops. Rosemead, on the other hand, supported both chicken and rabbit ranches as well as the cultivation of the grain and feed products. Montebello farmers gained fame for their flowers in addition to the production of nuts and berries. As early as 1913, the town hosted an annual flower show to showcase its blooms. Farms ranged from simple one-farmer truck operations to larger, more sophisticated enterprises. Residential and ancillary uses, such as schools, were also present in the area during the years that pre-dated World War II and the post-war explosion of area industry and tract housing. Two properties in the project area are tied to this context: the 1940 South Montebello Irrigation District building and the 1938 Kelly residence (City of Whittier n.d.; City of Rosemead n.d.; Los Angeles Times 1903 and 1913).
4.3.5 Residential and Industrial Development of the Project Area East of the Los Angeles River, the subdivision of former rancho lands accelerated after the Janss Investment Company, a prominent Los Angeles-based real estate developer, purchased a portion of the former Repetto Ranch, which, around 1906, became the subdivision of Ramona Acres (now Monterey Park)(Fong 1994). In 1917, oil was discovered in Montebello Hills, south of Monterey Park, rapidly transforming the agricultural economy into an industrial one. The city of Montebello was incorporated in 1920, just a few years after the initial discovery (Takahashi 1979).
After the issues surrounding the Arcadia Bandini estate were finally settled, the Janss Investment Company began the subdivision of what would be known as Belvedere Gardens (today unincorporated East Los Angeles) (Los Angeles Times 1921b). In Belvedere, Janss’ real estate strategies targeted laborers of Mexican origin who, until that time, had resided in and around the pueblo or in Boyle Heights. Janss offered various home ownership opportunities, either through the purchase of inexpensive, company-built dwellings or through the purchase of an empty lot, upon which the owner could live and then build a home over time. According to historian Becky Nicolaides, “In Belvedere, the home ownership rate was 44.8 percent among the Mexican-origin population, significantly higher than the Los Angeles average of 18.6 percent for the same population group” (Nicolaides 1999). Another factor facilitating home ownership for those of Mexican origin was the Pacific Electric Railway line, with stops at Janss subdivisions that opened up the east side to Mexican workers, many of whom had actually built the streetcar lines that they used (Romo 1983).
Industrial and real estate interests worked in concert to provide housing for industrial workers. Industrial development in Los Angeles began in the late 19th century when the flat lands adjacent to the Los Angeles River near downtown became the initial location of a vast East Los Angeles industrial district that would eventually extend southward through Vernon and then continue eastward through what would become Commerce. Making this industrial development possible was the extensive network of Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) main lines and spur tracks that served the region, allowing for convenient delivery of raw materials and transportation
Page 44
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
of finished goods. In 1908, city officials enacted a major zoning ordinance, creating seven industrial districts along the railroad lines as well as east and south of the Los Angeles River (Nicolaides 2001). Motivated by those factors, as well as the availability of enormous tracts of unimproved land adjacent to the Los Angeles River, a group of Chicago-based investors announced the formation of the Union Stock Yards of Los Angeles and an adjacent Central Manufacturing District (CMD) in 1922 (Los Angeles Times 1960). That same year, the Janss Investment Company sold 200 acres adjacent to its Belvedere Gardens subdivision to the UPRR, intending to create “an industrial city to take care of the requirements of the tens of thousands that this project will undoubtedly add to the population of Los Angeles” (Los Angeles Times 1922). Development of the Union Pacific Industrial District contributed to a pattern of “industrial decentralization in Los Angeles” that planning historian Greg Hise sees as the “roots of the post–World War II urban region.” After the war, “industrial expansion spurred regional employment,” combined with a pattern of homebuilding that came to define Los Angeles as the home of suburban sprawl (Hise 1993).
Architecturally, the new industrial tracts of East Los Angeles contained a wide variety of industrial building types, including warehouses, manufacturing facilities, and combination office/factories with designs ranging from the utilitarian (concrete, brick, or corrugated metal) to the popular architectural styles of the day (Spanish Colonial Revival, Streamline Moderne, Moderne, vernacular Modern, and Modern). A post–World War II industrial district is located in the project area, the Vail Field Industrial Addition, which was created in 1951 when the 400-acre Vail Airfield was developed and added to the CMD (Los Angeles Times 1960).
Located within the district, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company warehouse is representative of suburban development throughout the region. The facility met Southern California consumers’ exploding demand for automotive products during the district’s heyday (1952 to 1960) until being replaced by suburban manufacturing locations in Orange and Riverside counties in the early 1960s (Los Angeles Times 1960). The Pacific Metals Building, also within the district, appears significant for its association with the increasing demand for specialty metals.
Providing a tangible link between the industrial vision embraced by city planners, industrialists, and real estate interests in Los Angeles before World War II and the large-scale planned communities of the 1950s is the Montebello Park development, which intersects the project area. This project is one of the largest and most intricately designed and planned industrial community efforts from the period. Envisioned in 1925 and promoted by the J. B. Ransom Company, construction stalled because of economic instability during the Great Depression; the subdivision was not fully built out until after 1950 (Los Angeles Times 1925).
Conforming to national trends toward suburban expansion, residential construction in the project area resumed at a rapid pace following World War II. Subdivisions were constructed until the mid-1950s when the area was all but completely built out. Minimal Traditional-style tract houses characterized these subdivisions.
The area’s development history prior to World War II indicates that not one specific developer was responsible for residential subdivision. Instead, numerous owners and builders purchased individual lots then improved them either for their own use or as speculative investments. After World War II, new practices from large and well-financed developers, known as community builders, led to permanent shifts in the real estate landscape. By adapting mass production techniques for home building,
Page 45
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum community builders oversaw all aspects of a new residential project, from subdividing and street improvements (including utilities) to constructing the houses, complete with lawns, garages, and driveways. The developers also handled marketing, arranged financing, and sold the houses, often from furnished on-site models (Hise 1997).
After World War II, population growth, the robust post-war industrial economy, and suburban expansion brought about significant changes to the built environment in the project area.
4.3.6 Commercial Development in the Project Area Following World War II, millions of Americans began to take to the road in their new automobiles, move to the suburbs, eat out at their favorite coffee shops, and watch movies at drive-ins. Manufacturers, however, had spent the preceding four years on the war effort and had not been able to redesign their commercial products in any noticeable way, leaving the commercial landscape open to innovation. Historian Chester Liebs notes that everything from automobiles to roadside buildings was dominated by pre-war motifs (Liebs 1995). Therefore, architects and business owners used various techniques to attract the attention of passing motorists and distinguish themselves from their predecessors. The first was the Modern trend of exaggerating the building’s functional components, such as Eduardo Catalano’s “hyperbolic parabola” roof in 1955, V-shaped columns, large expanses of floating glass, and undulating canopies of concrete (Liebs 1995). In Los Angeles, these design features are best exemplified by architectural designs for coffee shops, bowling alleys, supermarkets, and other commercial buildings, such as Ship’s Westwood (1958, demolished 1984) and the Bob’s Big Boy chain of restaurants, which used large fiberglass statues of Big Boy out front in addition to magnificent neon signs to attract customers to its modern buildings (Hess 1985). The term “Googie” is used by architectural historians to denote this commercial roadside architectural design style, which is marked by upswept rooflines; a rich use of color and texture; and dramatic nighttime signage displays that are fully integrated with the architectural design.
The second trend was nostalgic architecture that recalled the pre-war years with quaint storybook cottages, wigwams, teepees, and the like, along with newer “themed styles” representing the Orient, the South Seas, the Old World, and South of the Border. Some formal examples are termed “Polynesian Pop” or “Tiki” (Phoenix 2001). Trader Vic’s, established in 1936, is an early example. Fantasy and technology-related motifs were also used, reflecting the public’s fascination with 1950s and 1960s advances in technology and space exploration. One such space-age example is the Theme Building (1961) located at LAX that offers views of the runways.
The Western style was another popular example of the themed building, evoking nostalgia for the “good old days” before the world wars and the era of technological innovation. Pop culture historian Charles Phoenix writes that western theme parks, wigwam-shaped motel rooms, log cabin restaurants, and chuck wagon buffets offered an alternative to the space-age look of the day. The western-themed motels, cafes, barbeque joints, and restaurants took the suburban ranch style to the extreme. Many had wood-paneled interiors and “authentic” décor, including old wagon wheels, hurricane lamps, and stuffed wild animals (Phoenix 2001). An early example of the constructed western environment is Knott’s Berry Farm’s School House Road and Ghost Town located in Buena Park. Constructed during the 1940s and 1950s, the town had a schoolhouse, blacksmith shop, Chinese laundry, and costume- wearing staff. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, this brand of nostalgia was combined with out-and- out disenchantment with new technologies and urban renewal. The “rustic” vocabulary of brick walls
Page 46
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
or unpainted board-and-batten siding, smaller signs with less neon and more acrylic or wood, and low- maintenance landscaping was applied to many commercial establishments to telegraph an image of environmental awareness (Liebs 1995).
The Steak Corral, located at 11605 E. Washington Boulevard in Pico Rivera, which is within the project area, is the last of a small chain of western-themed restaurants. The chain capitalized on the popularity of western motifs, with decorations both inside and out. The Steak Corral exhibits many of the requisite features found in a western-themed restaurant, including unpainted board-and-batten siding, decorative shutters, and other paraphernalia, including wagon wheels and horseshoes and a full-size fiberglass cowboy near the main entrance.
4.3.7 Ethnic Heritage in the Project Area Two properties, both located in Montebello, represent important themes associated with the context of ethnic heritage in the project area. The first property, Cantwell High School, is significant within the theme of ethnic community education, and the Chinese Garden Restaurant is significant within the theme of ethnic businesses.
4.3.7.1 Cantwell High School, Montebello Cantwell High School (now Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School), located at 315 Garfield Avenue, Montebello, was constructed on its current site in 1947. The high school’s student body originally consisted of 600 male students. Cantwell High School was trumpeted as the “largest addition to the archdiocesan school system,” the direct result of efforts by Los Angeles Archbishop John J. Cantwell (who served from1917–1947) to further his goal of providing Catholic education in Southern California. Through the efforts of Archbishop Cantwell, the immigrant Mexican community in Los Angeles, long overlooked by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States in favor of European-origin parishioners, gained respect (Sanchez 1993). In 1934, Cantwell performed a benediction on Boyle Avenue in Boyle Heights to honor the Virgin of Guadalupe, a treasured symbol of Mexican Catholics. According to historian George Sanchez, “By the end of the day it was clear that Mexicans in Los Angeles had just participated in an event created by a new sense of ethnic and religious identity” (Sanchez 1993). Cantwell’s program of educational outreach to the Mexican- American community culminated in Cantwell High School, named for the archbishop. As of 1962, the high school has served 30 parishes in the East Los Angeles area, offering college prep, general, and terminal programs to the primarily Hispanic student population. Cantwell High School merged with neighboring Sacred Heart of Mary High School (founded by the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary in 1942), which closed in 1990, and successfully transitioned to a co-educational model (Weber 2006).
4.3.7.2 The Chinese Garden, Montebello The Chinese Garden Restaurant, located at 856 N. Garfield Avenue, Montebello, was opened in 1962 by owner/operator Sam Mar and has served the area ever since that time. Across the nation, the Chinese restaurant had become a popular cultural type by the 1920s (Coe 1990). In Los Angeles, diners historically patronized Cantonese restaurants in the city’s Chinatown, near downtown. After World War II, Chinese restaurants began to appear in the suburbs as a reflection of historic patterns of population migration during the post-war era. In addition, Chinese restaurants in the suburbs offered business opportunities for ethnic minority groups and functioned as important social venues for residents of those suburbs (Pierson 2005). The Chinese Garden is an excellent example of an owner-
Page 47
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
built Chinese restaurant in a suburban community, with its significant interior features, such as lunch counter, booths, and decorative room dividers, intact.
4.3.8 Communities of the Project Area 4.3.8.1 East Los Angeles East Los Angeles is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County, approximately four miles east of downtown Los Angeles. It is bounded by Los Angeles to the north and west, Monterey Park and Montebello to the east, and Commerce to the south (Brandman 1988). East Los Angeles lies within the historic boundaries of Rancho La Laguna, part of the vast land holdings belonging to prominent Californios Don Abel Stearns and his wife, Dona Arcadia Bandini. Stearns acquired the first parcels of land in 1857, and until his death in 1871, Stearns and his wife hosted social and political functions at the rancho, which was several miles east of the city center (Los Angeles Times 1921a). Following Arcadia Bandini’s death in 1912, both subdivision of the rancho and the eastward development of Los Angeles were delayed because of a lengthy legal proceeding over her estate and land claims by various descendants (Clary 1966). By 1921, however, the last remaining cattle on the rancho had been removed to make way for “one of the city’s newest suburbs,” as it was promoted by the Janss Investment Company, which had subdivided nearby Belvedere Heights (now Boyle Heights) and Ramona Acres (now Monterey Park). With Janss offering lots for as little as $625, “low-end housing prices were significantly cheaper in Los Angeles than in most industrial cities,” according to historian Mike Davis (Davis 2001). As was consistent with subdivision practices of the era, Janss made substantial site improvements, even establishing the Belvedere Water Company. In 1937, Belvedere Gardens community leaders officially changed the district’s name to East Los Angeles (Los Angeles Times 1937; City-Data.com 2010a). Historically the cultural center of the Mexican-American community in Los Angeles, East Los Angeles had a population of 127,717 as of 2007, with a median income of $34,063.
4.3.8.2 Montebello The city of Montebello, seven miles east of downtown Los Angeles, lies within the historic boundaries of Rancho San Antonio, La Merced, and Paso de Bartolo. In 1887, pioneer Jewish merchants Harris Newmark and Kaspar Kohn purchased 5,000 acres and platted the town of Newmark. However, after the three Simons brothers purchased a 100-acre tract adjacent to the AT&SF tracks in 1905 and constructed a brick factory, importing Mexican laborers who lived in company barracks next to the pit, Montebello became the location of the largest brick factory in the west. Oil was discovered in 1917, rapidly transforming the agricultural economy into an industrial one; the city of Montebello was incorporated in 1920. In the 1950s and 1960s, 800 acres of land formerly owned by Chevron USA was subdivided and developed for tract homes. During that same period, Montebello transitioned from a predominantly Anglo community to a multi-ethnic “U.N. of the Southeast,” as described by the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper reported that the multi-cultural middle-class population of Montebello included Armenians, who, in 1968, constructed a monument near the Montebello Hills Golf Course commemorating the Armenian genocide; Chinese; Croats; Filipinos; Iranians; Japanese; Jews; Koreans; Mexicans; Thais; and Vietnamese (Takahashi 1979). In 2007, Montebello, which is eight square miles in size, had a multi-ethnic population of approximately 65,000 (Gebhard and Winter 2004; Pitt and Pitt 2000; Deverell 2004). According to the city’s website, Montebello has become a manufacturing center for the trucking and specialty vehicle industry (City of Montebello n.d.).
Page 48
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.3.8.3 Commerce Although Commerce was not incorporated until 1960, industrial development has been present in the area since the early 1900s. The Simons Brick Company opened the first major industrial plant in the area in 1905. At its peak in the 1920s, the plant employed more than 3,000 people (including women and children). The plant’s bricks were used to build numerous landmark buildings in Los Angeles, including city hall and UCLA’s Royce Hall. The Samson Tire and Rubber Company came to the area in 1929 with a striking 240,000-square-foot Assyrian-style plant that employed 2,500 men. Automaker Chrysler opened a plant in the area in 1932, and Ford built a parts depot facility in 1951 (English and GuneWardena 1997).
In the late 1950s, Warren Bedell, an employee of the nearby Firestone plant, conceived of the idea to incorporate the neighborhoods of Rosewood Park and Bandini into what is now Commerce. With corporate sponsorship and homeowner support, Commerce was officially incorporated on January 28, 1960. During the 1960s, the city added civic amenities such as a library, an “aquatorium,” and a new city hall. Commerce had more than 100 of the nation’s 500 largest corporations operating within its city limits by May of 1976. Although some of the older industries began to leave in the 1970s, the city added a number of distribution centers and warehousing facilities (English and GuneWardena 1997). Commerce underwent major redevelopment in the decades following the 1970s. These projects included new residential developments and a business park. When the Commerce Casino opened in 1990, it quickly became the city’s second-largest employer. That same year, the landmark Samson plant reopened as a specialty retail center, with office space and a 200-room hotel. The city continues to retain its manufacturing identity, with nearly 64 percent of the city zoned for industrial use (English and GuneWardena 1997).
4.3.8.4 Pico Rivera The communities of Pico and Rivera were established in the 1870s as the AT&SF and Union Pacific completed their rail lines through the area. Located on fertile land between Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel River, the area became known for its citrus, avocado, and walnut groves. Pico and Rivera remained small agricultural towns until after World War II when the demand for housing attracted developers to the peaceful, undeveloped area. In the 1950s, large parcels of land were developed with tract homes, and schools, churches, and commercial enterprises were established to meet the needs of the new residents. The growing subdivisions drew the older communities of Pico and Rivera closer together. By the mid-1950s, leaders from both communities began to voice strong support for incorporation, which voters approved in 1958. The name Pico Rivera was chosen for the newly incorporated community. For many years, Ford Motor Company operated an auto assembly plant in Pico Rivera. The plant was later used by Northrop Corporation for its aircraft group (New York Times 1982). Today, the city’s population is 65,650 (City of Pico Rivera n.d.). As of the 2000 census, Latinos and Hispanics constitute more than 88 percent of the population.
4.3.8.5 Santa Fe Springs An early settler to the area now known as Santa Fe Springs was J. E. Fulton, who purchased several parcels of land from the recently formed Santa Gertrudes Land Company. “Dr.” Fulton discovered sulphur waters on his land in 1874 while digging a well. By 1878, he had constructed a two-story hotel so that tourists could experience the mineral waters. The resort, which treated 400 patients annually, was reached via the California Central Railroad (which later became the AT&SF) and the
Page 49
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Los Angeles and Anaheim Railroad (which later became the Southern Pacific Railroad). To promote the hotel, Fulton sold a portion of his land to a Mr. Hawkins, who built a high-end residence with citrus groves, a pattern later repeated by other settlers (Santa Fe Springs Historical Committee 1979). In 1886, AT&SF purchased land from Fulton and promoted the town of Santa Fe Springs. The railroad renovated the hotel and cottages and, until the late 1800s, encouraged settlers to make it their home. However, it was not until the oil boom that the town began to grow appreciably. Alphonso Bell drilled the first big well in 1921, which produced 2,600 barrels per day. The oil discovery caused people to flock to town seeking work. By 1923, the local field was producing 323,000 barrels a day, and by 1929, new oil discoveries made the town the largest producer of oil in the state. During the boom, vineyards and orchards were bulldozed for oil production. After oil extraction ceased, the land returned to agricultural use (Santa Fe Springs Historical Committee 1979).
The town experienced a post-war population explosion in 1949 when land was developed for low-cost tract subdivisions. By 1952, a homeowners association, coordinating council, and junior chamber of commerce were formed. Problems with traffic, school facilities, and zoning led to incorporation on May 15, 1957, with Santa Fe Springs becoming the 53rd city within Los Angeles County. Growth within the city increased with construction of I-5 and I-605, making Santa Fe Springs an ideal location for industrial uses such as manufacturing and warehousing as well as trucking and shipping operations (Santa Fe Springs Historical Committee 1979).
4.3.8.6 Whittier Whittier, located about 12 miles southeast of the city of Los Angeles, traces its history to Manuel Nieto. As a retired captain who had served in the Portola Expedition, Nieto was granted 300,000 plus acres of land by the King of Spain in 1874. Nieto’s land grant encompassed the land between the Santa Ana and San Gabriel rivers and extended from the hills above Whittier all the way to the ocean. Early Euro-American settlers that came to what would become the city of Whittier included Jacob Gerkens, who purchased 160 acres from the United States government under the Homestead Act in 1868. In 1887, when the entire Los Angeles region was experiencing an unprecedented real estate boom, a group of Quaker pioneers formed the Pickering Land and Water Development Company. The Pickering Company amassed 1,259 acres, which it made available for sale as individual parcels. The development attracted fellow friends as well as non-Quakers from across the country. The company also set aside a 20-acre parcel of land for the development of Whittier College, which began awarding bachelor’s degrees in 1907.
The community flourished after the Southern Pacific Railroad built its first line to Whittier in 1887. The city’s first commercial enterprise, a fruit cannery, was followed by a lumber mill, then a grist mill. In 1901, the Whittier Citrus Association was formed, and Quaker-brand citrus was shipped around the world. Walnut orchards also flourished; Whittier was renowned as a walnut growing region. The city was further connected to Los Angeles and the wider metropolitan area when the Pacific Electric Railway opened an interurban electric line in 1903. However, by 1938, competition from the automobile moved Pacific Electric to drop service to Whittier. After World War II, Whittier grew rapidly. Orange groves were plowed under for new subdivisions, a trend that was driven by housing shortages in Southern California. In 1955, a new civic center complex was completed; city council met in its new chambers for the first time on March 8 of that year. The city continued to grow as it annexed portions of Whittier Boulevard and East Whittier; the 1961 annexation added more than 28,000 residents to the population, bringing the total to about 67,000 (City of Whittier n.d.).
Page 50
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.3.8.7 Rosemead Sited along Rio Hondo, Rosemead is located 11 miles from downtown Los Angeles. Settled by both Southern and Yankee American farmers in the mid-19th century, the town took its name from area pioneers Leonard J. and Amanda Rose (Pitt and Pitt 2000). This quiet San Gabriel Valley agricultural community was composed primarily of small truck farms and ranches until its incorporation in 1959. More recently, it has transitioned from an agricultural community into a more urbanized environment (City of Rosemead n.d.). Similar to other San Gabriel Valley communities, Rosemead experienced tremendous growth from its immigrant Chinese population between 1980 and 1990 (Fong 1994). One aspect of Rosemead’s “community personality,” as described on the city’s website, is its commitment to diversity and a small town, yet urban setting (City of Rosemead n.d.). Rosemead’s population amounted to approximately 57,756 in January 2010 (California Department of Finance n.d.). 4.3.8.8 South El Monte Incorporated in 1958, South El Monte is located ten miles east of downtown Los Angeles in the San Gabriel Valley (Pitt and Pitt 2000). The development of South El Monte is historically linked to neighboring El Monte, a township settled in the 1860s by a family of gold rush-era pioneers, the Thompson Family. Similar to many area communities, South El Monte was largely agricultural in the early 20th century. However, it transitioned to more intensive residential and industrial uses by mid- century. Now a predominantly Hispanic community (86 percent) with a population of 21,397 (as of 2008), South El Monte’s economy is based primarily on light manufacturing (City of South El Monte n.d.; City-Data.com 2010b). 4.3.8.9 Los Nietos/West Whittier Los Nietos and West Whittier are two areas of unincorporated southeast Los Angeles County adjacent to Santa Fe Springs. Los Nietos draws its name from Rancho Los Nietos, which was granted to Manuel Nieto in 1784 (Pitt and Pitt 2000). 4.4 Historic Properties Identified The historic and architectural resources survey and the archaeological survey resulted in the identification of properties that are eligible for listing in the NRHP and considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. They are evaluated through an understanding of the historic context and application of the federal and state criteria. The federal and state significance criteria are discussed in Sections 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.2.1, respectively. Through an application of the federal and state criteria, in consideration of the historic context and other research, the historic properties (NRHP listed or eligible) and historical resources outlined in the discussion that follows (per State CEQA Guidelines) were identified within the APE. 4.4.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant, 318 S. Woods Avenue, Los Angeles County (1941) The Helms Bakery Distribution Plant (currently an auto body shop) is a one-story reinforced brick structure. It is surmounted by a bow truss and a parapeted roof with composition roofing material. Distinguished by an unusual C-shape plan to facilitate truck movement, the building is a very restrained, economical example of the Art Deco style. Its key character-defining architectural elements include brick pilasters and cast concrete roundels (found on the pilasters that flank the drive-through
Page 51
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
entrances) bearing the “Helms Olympic Bread” insignia. Although the building has seen a moderate degree of alteration, the alterations, including replacement roll-down metal bay doors, seismic reinforcement rods, painted brick surfaces, and security grilles on the windows, appear to be reversible.
The Helms Bakery Distribution Plant appears eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criterion A because of its association with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of industrial history in the Southern California region. Between 1931 and 1969, Helms Bakery was an iconic home delivery company that served baked goods to the entire Southern California region from a series of set routes, using a fleet of uniquely designed small yellow vehicles. The company was the official supplier of bread for the 1932 Los Angeles Olympic Games and, hence, associated with an event of major significance in the entertainment/recreation history of Los Figure 4-1. Helms Bakery Distribution Plant Angeles. It used this association with the Games in its advertising and undoubtedly gained some marketing cache from that association through the 1930s and early 1940s, the period in which the 318 S. Woods Avenue facility in East Los Angeles was built. The subject building is one of a small number of suburban distribution facilities where Helms delivery vehicles were stocked. It was constructed during a dynamic period in the history of the company and allowed Helms to expand its distribution network across the region. The period of significance is 1941 to 1957, which encompasses the initial construction of the subject building as well as the year in which the bakery’s founder, Paul Hoy Helms (1889–1957), died. The end year of the period of significance includes the time of the company’s decline because of a dramatic rise in competition during the late 1950s and early 1960s from suburban chain supermarkets that offered their own store-produced baked goods. The property is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the history of industry in the Southern California region.
4.4.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant, 856 N. Garfield Avenue, Montebello (1962) On June 21, 1962, a permit was issued for the construction of a one-story, 3,000-square-foot restaurant building with a valuation of $25,000. On September 25, 1962, a permit was issued for a pole sign with a valuation of $590. A storeroom addition was constructed to the rear of the building sometime in the mid-1960s, according to the owner. The building’s architects were Perry M. Neuschatz, AIA, and Gerald Kaushansky, AIA.
The restaurant building is rectangular in plan, with a flat roof and parapet. A projecting roof canopy extends over the front elevation toward the sidewalk. The primary elevation features a single aluminum-framed glazed entry door with a fixed sidelight panel below a transom with horizontal glass louvers. Floor-to-ceiling clear windows with aluminum frames punctuate the façade. A garden with
Page 52
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum mature original plantings, including rubber trees, banana trees, and other subtropical plants, buffers the restaurant from the sidewalk and street, shades the interior, and largely obscures the façade. A freestanding two-sided rear-lit plastic pole sign stands in the garden at the entry.
The Chinese Garden Restaurant appears to be eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 and Criterion 3 at the local level of significance for its association with Chinese-American chop suey restaurants that operated during the post–World War II era. Today, the Chinese Garden Restaurant is one of the few surviving Figure 4-2. Chinese Garden Restaurant examples of the once-common but now rare chop suey restaurant in suburban Los Angeles County. In addition, conveyed in part through its largely intact design character, the property exemplifies the growth of the Chinese-American community in Montebello and the surrounding communities during the post–World War II era. The period of significance is 1962, the year of the building’s construction.
In 1960, Chinese immigrants, Sam and Jane Mar were living in the Lincoln Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. Sam worked as a waiter at Trader Vic’s in Beverly Hills, and Jane worked at a defense industry manufacturing plant in Alhambra. Looking for an opportunity to work for themselves and start their own business, they saved money to open a Chinese restaurant. Jane’s father, who worked at the Japanese hospital in Boyle Heights, would be the cook, while Sam and Jane would run the business. They searched for a property to purchase in the vicinity of East Los Angeles. After inquiring about a listed property on Atlantic Boulevard, they were told by the owner that his brother had a smaller lot for sale in nearby Montebello that would suit their needs more appropriately. After seeing the lot, the last undeveloped parcel in a modest commercial center at Garfield Avenue and what was then 3rd Street, Jane Mar claims that she made an offer and purchased the land that day. It would be two years before the couple could break ground for their new building, during which time they saved money and arranged financing (Mar pers. comm.).
The Mars received their building permit in June of 1962 for construction of the restaurant. The Chinese Garden Restaurant, under the proprietorship of Sam and Jane Mar, opened in 1962 and has continuously served the community since that time.
Page 53
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.4.3 Former Rod’s Grill, 525 N. Garfield Avenue, Montebello (1953–1954) The former Rod’s Grill is an excellent example of the pre-Googie coffee shop building type. The currently vacant one- story building, with a post-and-beam frame, includes brick veneer and Chatsworth stone planters. A pair of anodized aluminum doors with clear glazing is located at the northeast corner of the 15-sided main dining pavilion, facing the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Via Corona. This entrance bay is one of 15 equal-sized bays, each of which includes nearly floor-to-ceiling fixed-sash two-light and single-light windows. The single-light and two-light ashes alternate with each other around the outside wall of the main dining pavilion. These windows, which sit atop the low-to-the-ground Chatsworth stone planter boxes, afford nearly unobstructed views of the restaurant’s interior. The main dining area is surmounted by a flat roof with composition roofing material. The rear kitchen/private dining room portion of the building is sheathed in brown-red brick veneer and surmounted by a flat parapeted roof that fully screens the rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment from view at street level. A large steel-pylon roof sign, integral to the overall building design, rises approximately 12 feet above Figure 4-3. Former Rod’s Grill the north end of the private dining room/kitchen portion of the building. The placement and orientation of the building is explicitly intended to attract motorists and accommodate the medium-sized wrap-around parking lot behind it (to the west and south). These are both character-defining attributes. The building is largely intact and exhibits a high level of integrity.
The former Rod’s Grill appears eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criterion C because it is an important, rare, and unusually intact example of coffee shop architecture from the early 1950s period, which predates the Googie coffee shop style that emerged during the mid- to late 1950s. The original owner, Rod Willman, operated a small chain of Rod’s Grill coffee shops in the San Gabriel Valley during the 1950s and 1960s, including shops in Alhambra (demolished), El Monte (demolished), Arcadia, and Montebello. The period of significance is 1953 to 1969, encompassing the initial construction year of the subject building as well as the end year for the decade of the 1960s, the
Page 54
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum period during which car culture in Southern California reached its peak of popularity. The property is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 3 for architecture.
Starting around 1955, as showcased in the designs of Los Angeles architects Armet and Davis, whose coffee shop designs included Norm’s, Romeo’s Times Square, Pann’s, and Huddle’s Cloverfield, a more recognizably assertive Googie style came into vogue and rapidly began to supersede the less splashy coffee shop style reflected in Rod’s Grill of Montebello. In contrast to the design of Rod’s Grill in Montebello, the Googie style of Armet and Davis was marked by upswept rooflines; complex spatial geometry; nearly floor-to-ceiling walls of glass; dramatic nighttime signage (often featuring neon displays) integrated into the building; exhibition cooking with specially designed fixtures, appliances, and surfaces; rich use of color and texture; as well as the full integration of the landscape with the architectural design. However, by the early 1970s, growing concerns about the environment, rising gasoline prices, as well as other antithetical cultural trends led to a rapid decline in appreciation of the Googie architectural style, which was closely associated with the car culture.
4.4.4 Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School, 315 N. Garfield, Montebello (1946–1947) Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School is located on a 17-acre parcel in Montebello, bounded by Garfield Avenue, Hay Street, and Repetto Avenue. The gracious campus site contains multiple structures, including 21 classrooms, science laboratories, administrative offices, a cafeteria, typing rooms, a library, a gymnasium/auditorium, a field house, and a track and football stadium with lights for evening games (Weber 2006).
Cantwell High School appears eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as an intact example of a post–World War II Catholic secondary school in Los Angeles County, Figure 4-4. Cantwell-Sacred Heart of deriving its primary significance from its Mary High School association with the education of male students of Mexican origin from 1947 to 1990. Since Cantwell High School is a religious property, it must be evaluated in light of Criterion Consideration A. As stated in NRHP Bulletin 15, “A religious property requires justification on architectural, artistic, or historic grounds to avoid any appearance of judgment by government about the validity of any religion or belief.” However, a religious property can qualify “if its school was significant in the history of education in the community” (Andrus and Shrimpton 1990).
Cantwell High School was constructed on its current site in 1947. The high school’s student body originally consisted of 600 male students. Cantwell High School was trumpeted as the “largest addition to the archdiocesan school system,” the direct result of efforts by Los Angeles Archbishop John J. Cantwell (who served from1917–1947) to further his goal of providing Catholic education in Southern California. Due to the
Page 55
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
efforts of Archbishop Cantwell, the immigrant Mexican community in Los Angeles, long overlooked by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States in favor of parishioners of European origin, was treated more respectfully (Sanchez 1993). In 1934, Cantwell performed a benediction on Boyle Avenue in Boyle Heights to honor the Virgin of Guadalupe, a treasured symbol of Mexican Catholics. According to historian George Sanchez, “By the end of the day it was clear that Mexicans in Los Angeles had just participated in an event created by a new sense of ethnic and religious identity” (Sanchez 1993). Cantwell’s program of educational outreach to the Mexican community culminated in Cantwell High School, which was named for the archbishop. By 1962, the high school served 30 parishes in the East Los Angeles area, offering college prep, general, and terminal programs to the primarily Hispanic student population. Cantwell High School merged with neighboring Sacred Heart of Mary High School, founded by the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary in 1942 (which closed in 1990), and successfully transitioned to a co-educational model (Weber 2006).
4.4.5 Montebello Park Historic District, Montebello (1925–1950) A master-planned residential community dating from the mid-1920s, Montebello Park Historic District represents one of the largest and most defined planned communities in the Los Angeles region from the period. The district boundaries are Whittier Boulevard to the north, Ferguson Drive to the south, Gerhart Avenue to the west, and Vail Avenue to the east. The Montebello Park Historic District is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A at the local level of significance, and the CRHR under Criterion 1 as an important example of community planning in the Los Angeles region during the 1920s. It is also eligible for its association with the development of the east side and east side industrial areas. The period of significance is 1925–1950, which encompasses the years during which the subdivision was improved. It is also significant as an important early example of subdivision, site planning, and landscape design in response to the automobile.
Source: LAPA Rare Figure 4-5. Montebello Park Subdivision Plan, March 25, 1925 Books, Montebello Park Brochure
Page 56
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Source: ICF International 2011 Figure 4-6. Early Homes in the Montebello Park Historic District, c. 1928
4.4.6 Pacific Metals Company/Rolled Steel Products, 2187 Garfield Avenue, Commerce (1952) Dynamic in its architectural expression, the Pacific Metals Company is a one-story, approximately 30-foot-tall reinforced concrete specialty metals warehouse/office building in the International style. The main pavilion, facing Garfield Avenue (east) and Washington Boulevard (south), is defined by a series of matching, vertically aligned concrete sunscreens, set perpendicular to the wall plane. The sunscreens frame a series of steel-sash windows. Each of the 15 windows occurs along the upper portion of the wall, approximately 20 feet above the ground, at the base of the fascia band that defines the top of the building. These windows have Figure 4-7. Pacific Metals Company only horizontally aligned muntins, a characteristic of local Late Moderne and International Style buildings from the period. The rear portion of the building (approximately 75 percent of the total 114,000-square-foot floor area) consists of unadorned blank walls, occasionally punctuated by truck bay openings (north wall). Although minor reversible alterations have occurred (i.e., replacement entrance doors, security lighting of incompatible design), the building retains a high level of design integrity. The Pacific Metals Company building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C at the local level of significance for its distinctive architectural design. The subject building was deemed an excellent example of local International-style industrial architecture from the 1950s period.
Page 57
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
The Pacific Metals Company building is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its association with noteworthy events in the history of industry as well as community planning and development in Southern California during the post–Korean War period. The building came into existence during a time of major expansion in the construction and metal fabrication sector and exploding demand for specialty metal products from Southern California consumers. The large size of the facility speaks to its role as a key warehouse for the entire Los Angeles region. The timing of construction also reflects the lifting of restrictions on specialty metals, which had been in place during the Korean War (1950–1953), and the subsequent dramatic rebound in non-defense-related demand. In addition, the timing of construction directly reflects the opening of the Vail Airfield portion of the CMD in 1951 to warehouse and manufacturing development. Within the CMD, truck access rather than railroad access alone, as well as proximity to the highway system (e.g., the recently completed Santa Ana Freeway in 1953 and the newly opened segment of Washington Boulevard), were the primary development determinants. It is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the history of industry in Southern California and Criterion 3 for its architectural quality.
The period of significance is 1953 to 1960, the period that best represents the time of exploding demand for specialty metal products following the Korean War. The period of significance also encompasses the emergence of the Vail Field Industrial Addition and its subsequent decline by 1960 as a result of the ascendancy of suburban manufacturing locations in Orange and Riverside counties. 4.4.7 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Warehouse, 6666 E. Washington Boulevard/2353 Garfield Avenue, Commerce (1952) The subject building is an approximately 300,000-square-foot, one-story reinforced concrete bow truss-roofed warehouse with an attached one-story flat-roof office ell along the north (Washington Boulevard) elevation. Taking an architectural design approach that combines utilitarian elements with elements drawn from the International style, the east elevation of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company warehouse (approximately 90 percent of the building’s floor area) is defined by 20 identical truck bays with bumper guards and roll-down doors. The ell portion of the building (approximately ten percent of the building floor area) is defined by an approximately 25-foot-tall pylon element (adjoining the entrance) and steel Figure 4-8. Goodyear Tire and Rubber pivoted-sash ribbon windows, which are Company Warehouse screened from above by slatted sunshades that are placed diagonally. Although minor reversible alterations have occurred, the building retains a high level of design integrity.
Eligible for the NRHP at the local level under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company warehouse is associated with significant events in the history of industry in
Page 58
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Southern California as well as community planning and development during the post-war period. The building is a direct result of suburban development throughout the region and exploding demand for automobiles and automotive products from Southern California consumers. The period of significance is 1952 to 1960, the period that best reflects the emergence of the Vail Field Industrial Addition to the CMD and its subsequent decline as a result of the eventual ascendancy of suburban manufacturing locations in Orange and Riverside counties by the early 1960s. The large size of the warehouse and the timing of its construction directly reflect the opening of the Vail Airfield portion of the CMD in 1951 to warehouse and manufacturing development. Within the CMD, truck access rather than railroad access alone, as well as proximity to the highway system (e.g., the recently completed Santa Ana Freeway in 1953 and the newly opened segment of Washington Boulevard), were the primary development determinants. 4.4.8 Yale Filing Company Building, 6865 E. Washington Boulevard, Montebello (1961) The Yale Filing Company building appears to meet the conditions required for designation as a historical resource in the CRHR under Criterion 3 because it embodies the “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction” in demonstrating fundamental Modernist tenets applied to mid-century factories. Since the property represents a rare example of an accomplished Modernism applied to an industrial building in Southern California and in Vail Field, was designed according to Modernist theories applied to “humble” manufacturing plants, retains a high degree of integrity amidst a Figure 4-9. Yale Filing Company Building number of altered industrial facilities with low to moderate integrity, and was designed by Richard Lee Dorman, F.A.I.A., a master mid-century architect, the property appears eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3 for architectural merit. It does not, however, appear eligible for designation for important historic associations or for an association with historic personages under Criteria 1 and 2, respectively. The property does not appear to rise to the level of significance necessary for listing in the NRHP under any criteria. 4.4.9 Greenwood Elementary School, 900 Greenwood Avenue, Montebello (1948) Greenwood Elementary School appears eligible for the NRHP at the local level under Criterion A in the area of education. The Greenwood School design plan made a significant contribution to the patterns of school building in Southern California in the period of significance, 1947–1948. The school’s innovative design reflected a new approach to school planning in the context of the exploding population and economic growth in suburban south Los Angeles immediately after the Second World War. Utilizing a contemporary style, Mid-Century Modern, Flewelling’s school design plan placed the administration building and classroom buildings on a large lot to accommodate the future population expansion as the area boomed with manufacturing, commercial and industrial plants during the school’s period of significance, 1947–
Page 59
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
1948. The property is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for having a significant contribution to the patterns of school building in Southern California during the period of significance, 1947–1948. The choice of Mid-Century Modern, a progressive variant of the International style, for Greenwood Elementary School, was suited to both the growing community and a modern concept of school construction. Organic in form, characterized by simplicity and integration with nature, Mid-Century Modern style best suited an architectural scheme that targeted the educational goals of school administrators and post-war suburban school populations. Flewelling’s plan for the Figure 4-10. Greenwood Elementary School school overturned traditional ideas of school architecture as a set of classrooms in relation to indoor corridors and stairs between floors. At Greenwood Elementary, traditional corridors became outdoor spaces attractively and heavily landscaped with trees and plantings, a landscape scheme emblematic of Southern California outdoor living. Travel between classrooms was out-of-doors; walkway roofs were sufficient for a climate with few rainy months and classroom buildings, like the multitude of new residences in the neighboring suburban area, could be one story placed on ample lots. 4.4.10 South Montebello Irrigation District Building, 864 W. Washington Boulevard, Montebello (1940) The South Montebello Irrigation District building, located at 864 W. Washington Boulevard in Montebello, appears to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A at the local level of significance for its association with the distribution of water to the rapidly growing city of Montebello. Although the South Montebello Irrigation District was established in 1921, the subject property dates to 1941 when Montebello’s agricultural uses were giving way to industrial and residential uses. The irrigation district supplies an approximately 860-acre area with water pumped from an on-site well, in addition to Figure 4-11. South Montebello Irrigation several wells located throughout the district. District Building Although the property consists of several buildings, only the administration building, located at the front (south end) of the parcel, dates to the period of significance. The symmetrically composed administration building is one-story in height and rectangular in plan. The wall cladding is red brick. The roof incorporates simple side gables without
Page 60
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum overhanging eaves. The roof is clad in red clay tile. Multi-light rolled-steel windows sheltered by metal awnings are arranged in a regular pattern. The building is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its historic association with agriculture.
4.4.11 William and Florence Kelly House, 860 W. Washington Boulevard, Montebello (1937) The residence located at 860 W. Washington Boulevard in Montebello appears to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A at the local level of significance, and for the CRHR under Criterion 1, for its association with the residential development of Montebello in the pre– World War II era. During the opening decades of the 20th century, the Montebello area was characterized primarily by agricultural uses and sparse, albeit expanding, residential and industrial development. Figure 4-12. William and Florence Kelly House The residence is located in the El Carmel tract, which was subdivided in 1905. Parcel sizes in the El Carmel tract averaged five acres, suggesting that the tract’s subdividers envisioned primarily agricultural rather than suburban residential uses. Incorporated in 1920, Montebello was famed for its commercial flower gardens. Nuts and fruits were also among its agricultural products. Early industrial activities included oil extraction and brick manufacturing. While these uses created a diverse economic base, the area’s distance from the central city, coupled with its still-developing infrastructure, resulted in modest but steady population growth. World War II and the post-war years transformed Montebello into an industrial powerhouse. Intense demand for housing accompanied this industrial and economic transformation. Constructed in 1937 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, the residence located at 860 W. Washington Boulevard represents a now-rare example of pre–World War II residential development in the El Carmel tract area of Montebello.
Page 61
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.4.12 Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, Northeast Corner of Bluff Road and Washington Boulevard, Montebello/Pico Rivera Border (1847) Located at the northeast corner of Bluff Road and Washington Boulevard, on the border of Montebello and Pico Rivera, is the approximate Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, which occurred on January 8, 1847, during the Mexican-American War. The site was a strategic position for Mexican forces because of its high bluffs, which afforded protection, as well as the quicksand on the river bottom, which made it difficult for American troops to cross the river and reach the bluffs. Although the San Gabriel River changed course in 1867 after Figure 4-13. Site of the Battle of flooding, a branch, Rio Hondo, still Rio San Gabriel flows at the same location. Adjacent to the river on the east is an open field, which is part of the setting. To mark the battle site, a structure was erected in 1944 to shelter a plaque, which is flanked by two commemorative cannons that face the river. The structure sits on a concrete slab foundation at the top of the natural bluffs. Four wood columns with scalloped wood brackets support a medium-pitched side-gable roof. The shelter has eaves with a slight overhang, exposed rafter tails, and clay tile cladding. The side gables display open wood construction. The shelter and cannons face east toward the battle site, overlooking Rio Hondo and adjacent open land.
The battlefield site was dedicated as CHL No. 385 in 1945. The battlefield site retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association. The structure does not appear to have experienced any modifications and exhibits a particularly high level of integrity of design and materials.
On January 8, 1847, American soldiers commanded by Commodore Robert F. Stockton, U.S. Navy Commander in Chief, and Brigadier General Stephen W. Kearney of the U.S. Army, fought and overcame the Californians, lead by General José María Flores, in the Battle of Rio San Gabriel. The Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel retains key character-defining features, such as the approximate location of the battlefield, the bluffs involved in the battle, the branch of the San Gabriel River, and the surrounding open land. In addition, few battlefield sites are located in the state of California, and in the United States, only a limited number represent the Mexican-American War. There are eight known battlefield sites in California, all of which are from the Mexican-American War: Battle of San Pasqual, 1846; Battle of Palo Alto, 1846; Battle of Monterey, 1846; Battle of Chino, 1846; Battle of Dominguez Rancho, 1846; Battle of Santa Clara, 1847; Battle of La Mesa, 1847; and Battle of Rio San Gabriel, 1847. The Battle of Rio San Gabriel is extremely significant because it was one of the last major battles in California and led to the end of the war with the signing of the treaty at Campo de Cahuenga. Therefore, the property appears to rise to the level necessary to meet NRHP Criterion A (i.e., events at the site, which is associated with the Mexican-American War, made a significant contribution to the
Page 62
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum broad patterns of state and national history). Furthermore, the property has the potential to meet NRHP Criterion D if any archaeological artifacts are still extant. Although the structure erected to mark the battlefield site is more than 50 years old, its purpose is only to note the importance of this historic site; it does not have associated historic significance with the 1847 battle. This is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for military history.
4.4.13 Dal Rae Restaurant, 9023 E. Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera (1954) The Dal Rae appears eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A at the local level of significance in the areas of post–World War II suburbanization, dining, and entertainment. It is an important and increasingly rare example of a fine dining restaurant and cocktail lounge from the post–World War II era that retains a high level of integrity. It is associated with trends in the development and operation of fine dining restaurants, steak houses, and cocktail lounges in the years after World War II. The restaurant was opened in May 1958 by brothers Ben and Bill Smith in an Figure 4-14. Dal Rae Restaurant existing one-story, freestanding restaurant building. It subsequently expanded with additions to the north (rear) and east as the business grew. The interior features a main dining room, a bar and lounge area with cocktail seating, and a separate banquet room. In 1998, renovations included a remodeled main entry and the addition of an exterior patio dining area. At the same time, the existing interior spaces were remodeled, with work predominantly limited to replacing carpeting, wall finishes and material coverings, and some lighting fixtures. A tall two-sided neon pole sign that displays the restaurant’s name has been a familiar icon along the Washington Boulevard corridor for more than 50 years. Additional neon signs mark the auto entrance as well as the west- and south- facing façades. These signs are contributing features of the property. The period of significance for the property is 1958–1970, corresponding with the era of greatest popularity for fine dining restaurants of this type in the Los Angeles region. The building is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for social history as an important and increasingly rare example of a fine dining restaurant and cocktail lounge from the post–World War II era.
4.4.14 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Depot, 9122 E. Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera (1886–1887) The former AT&SF depot located at 9122 E. Washington Boulevard in Pico Rivera is a one-story Victorian structure. The building was likely constructed around 1885 or 1886 by AT&SF. In 1973, a building permit was issued to the city of Pico Rivera to “relocate and reconstruct” the then-unused building at 9122 E. Washington Boulevard. No other building permits were found. The building is cross-gabled in plan and includes a side-gable jerkinhead roof. A shallow, steeply pitched cross-gabled section is found at the building’s center. The character-defining features of the style present in the building include the roof, with multiple gables; the decorative trim; and the narrow multi-light sliding-
Page 63
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
sash windows. A raised board demarcates the water table, which, along with the gable peaks, features vertical wood siding. Narrow clapboard siding sheathes the rest of the building. Fenestration throughout the building consists of 16-over-four sliding-sash windows. In addition, there is a squared bay in the front gable. The primary entrance is located on the side of the front gable, sheltered by the overhanging roof, and topped by a divided-light transom. A central entrance at the rear of the building is recessed behind a wrought iron gate.
The AT&SF building is the last surviving example of an early railroad depot in the city of the Pico Rivera. Anecdotal reports indicate that the building was completed in 1907. However, building plans exist from 1886 and 1896, and the building’s architectural character indicates an earlier date of construction, probably before the turn of the 20th century. The depot remained Figure 4-15. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe in active service until the 1960s. Its original location was on Serapis Avenue near Slauson Railway Depot Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard in Pico Rivera. In 1972, it was acquired by the city; in 1973, it was moved to the current site where it housed the offices of the Pico Rivera Chamber of Commerce. In 1998, the building became home to the Pico Rivera Historical Museum.
The AT&SF depot is not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for architecture and does not meet the requirements for Criterion Consideration B (i.e., moved properties). However, it does qualify for listing in the CRHR under Criteria 1 and 2 as well as Special Consideration 1 (i.e., moved buildings, structures, or objects) for its association with early transportation, agriculture, and settlement as well as its architectural integrity.
The building does not possess integrity of location, setting, or association because it was moved from its original site adjacent to a rail line to its new location on Washington Boulevard to save it from demolition. Due to alterations, the AT&SF depot does not meet the higher NRHP eligibility requirements for moved properties. Furthermore, according to the CRHR, a moved building that is otherwise eligible may be listed if it was moved to prevent demolition and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource. Although the association with a rail line has been lost, the building’s current location is somewhat comparable with its historic location in that Washington Boulevard, like the rail line, is a highly trafficked thoroughfare that is used to transport commercial goods. In addition, the building is occupied by a local museum that documents the history of Pico Rivera, including its history of rail operations and agriculture.
Page 64
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.4.15 Cliff May-designed Ranch House, 6751 Lindsey Avenue, Pico Rivera (1954) The property located at 6751 Lindsey Avenue in Pico Rivera is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C, and for the CRHR under Criterion 3, as an excellent example of the Ranch style and as the work of seminal designer and purveyor of the Ranch style, Cliff May. Promulgated through a Sunset Magazine book titled Western Ranch Houses, first published in 1946 and updated and expanded in 1958, May’s Ranch-style houses became so popular by mid-century that his design concepts were almost universally embraced in vernacular residential building. Originally constructed in 1953 with 1,100 square feet, the property, which was based on May’s standard Model No. 3211, exhibits all the major character-defining features of the Ranch style Figure 4-16. Cliff May-designed Ranch House as well as May’s own personal and particular design vision. These include horizontal massing, irregular plan, asymmetrical composition, low-pitched gable roof, full-length windows, board-and-batten cladding, a brick chimney, and a shed-roof carport. An additional 570 square feet of space was added to the house in 1956. This addition falls within the property’s period of significance and does not compromise its integrity, which is excellent.
4.4.16 Steak Corral Restaurant, 11605 E. Washington Boulevard, Unincorporated Los Angeles County (1965) The one-story Steak Corral restaurant is designed in the Ranch style. A building permit was issued on July 15, 1965, for construction of the restaurant, and a second building permit on the same date was issued for its pole sign. The architect of record was H. M. Hansen. On July 8, 1982, a permit was issued for the construction of a new pole sign. The restaurant building is side gabled and has a medium-pitched roof clad with composition shake shingles. Exterior surfaces are finished in board-and-batten siding. A covered entrance walkway spans half the length of the primary (south) façade. It is sheltered by a pent roof that extends beyond the roofline and is supported by thin wood posts. Wood-framed four-light fixed windows on each elevation are flanked by wood shutters with Figure 4-17. Steak Corral Restaurant decorative horseshoes affixed to them. A Palo Verde stone chimney is situated on the west elevation; a metal longhorn sculpture adorns the east
Page 65
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
elevation. At the front of the building, a large rear-lit elevated plastic sign with stylized letters reads “Steak Corral.” Landscaping consists of a variety of mature cactus plants and desert shrubs. The restaurant’s mascot, a full-size molded fiberglass cowboy near the main entrance, is posed as if lassoing a plastic steak that hangs from the eaves. The property exhibits a high level of physical integrity.
Following the end of World War II, millions of Americans began to take to the road in their new automobiles, move to the suburbs, eat out, and watch movies at drive-ins. Manufacturers, however, had spent the preceding four years on the war effort and had not been able to redesign their commercial products in any noticeable way, leaving the commercial landscape open to innovation. Chester Liebs notes that everything from automobiles to roadside buildings was dominated by pre-war motifs. As architects and designers turned once again to consumer product design, several building techniques were employed to attract the attention of passing motorists and distinguish their work from that of their predecessors.
The Western style was one popular example of the themed building trend, evoking nostalgia for the “good old days” before the world wars and era of technological innovation. Pop-culture historian Charles Phoenix writes that western theme parks, wigwam-shaped motel rooms, log cabin restaurants, and chuck wagon buffets offered an alternative to the space-age look of the day and that western-themed motels, cafes, barbeque joints, and restaurants represented the suburban ranch style taken to the extreme. Many had wood-paneled interiors and the “authentic” décor of old wagon wheels, hurricane lamps, and stuffed wild animals (Phoenix 2001).
The Steak Corral, located at 11605 E. Washington Boulevard, is the last of a small chain of western- themed restaurants in the eastern portion of Los Angeles County. According to tax records and matchbooks produced by the restaurant, the chain began in 1955 with its San Gabriel location at 320 W. Las Tunas before expanding to Arcadia in 1963 (625 E. Live Oak) and Whittier in 1965 (11605 E. Washington Boulevard). Soon after came Pasadena (800 N. Lake Avenue), followed by West Covina (501 N. Azusa), Santa Ana (1801 E. 17th Street), and lastly Temple City (4445 Las Tunas Boulevard). By 1984, according to a printed menu, only the West Covina and Whittier branches remained (Nichols pers. comm.). The chain capitalized on the popularity of western motifs with decorations both inside and out. The Steak Corral exhibits many of the requisite features found in a western-themed restaurant, including board-and-batten siding, decorative wood shutters, and other western paraphernalia, including wagon wheels, horseshoes, and a full-size fiberglass cowboy near the main entrance.
The Steak Corral at 11605 E. Washington Boulevard is an intact presentation of a theme restaurant, an important chapter in the pop-culture history of the United States in the two decades following World War II. It was erected in 1965, at the end of the theme restaurant era, and is the last location of the nine-outlet Steak Corral chain still in operation. Its historic importance is enhanced by the loss of the majority of themed establishments in general and western-themed restaurants in particular in greater Los Angeles. Thus, the property meets NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 for its embodiment of the theme restaurant trend in post-war Los Angeles. In addition, the Steak Corral is a rare, intact example of a Western-style themed restaurant, exhibiting the style’s key character-defining features (e.g., board-and- batten siding, wood-framed divided-light windows, and decorative elements such as horseshoes and cow horns). Therefore, the building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 at the local level of significance as an important example of its style and type.
Page 66
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
4.4.17 Rheem Laboratory, 12000 E. Washington Boulevard, Whittier (1952) The subject group of one-story brick buildings is operated by the Salvation Army as a Transitional Living Center. It presents an irregular L-shape plan set around an asphalt courtyard striped for parking. The short end of the ell, which faces Washington Boulevard, exhibits a tall, freestanding brick panel with the legend 12000 East/Washington Boulevard in metal upper- case letters. The flat roof carries concrete panels and screening to conceal maintenance and operating equipment. The building’s prominent character-defining feature is a series of clerestory windows running the length of the building, composed of eight panels of 4/20 individual square Figure 4-18. Rheem Laboratory green lights.
In 1951, a building permit was issued to the Rheem Manufacturing Company with Alan Froberg listed as architect to construct “Offices and Research Laboratories.” Rheem was established in San Francisco in the mid-1920s and became a leading manufacturer and distributor of water heating equipment. During the 1950s and 60s, the company expanded into petroleum refinement technology. They retained the property until 1953 when Fluor Corporation of Los Angeles occupied the building. Fluor was a Los Angeles-based engineering, construction, and manufacturing company that developed processes and products for the petroleum, gas, and chemical processing industries. In 1941 Fluor initiated a modest research program. As the firm expanded, it devoted greater research effort to the improvement and development of processes and products for the petroleum, gas, and chemical processing industries. Fluor retained ownership of the building until 1962 when it was occupied by the Moody Bible Institute.
The buildings at 12000 E. Washington Boulevard appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, and for the CRHR under Criterion 1, for their role in the development of manufacturing and scientific research in the Whittier/Santa Fe Springs area. Both the office building and the Sound Studio have retained substantial integrity. The Sound Studio is a rare example of an intact purpose-built building with structural and spatial design elements that convey its significance in enabling manufacturing and research activities. The buildings are eligible at the local level of significance with a period of significance from 1951 to 1962.
Figure 4-19 is a map indicating the locations of the historic properties identified.
Page 67
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Figure 4-19. Location Map of Historic Properties
Page 68
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
5.0 IMPACTS 5.1 Impact Criteria The federal and state impact criteria are discussed in Sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.2.4, respectively, and are divided below in terms of construction and operational impacts.
5.1.1 Construction Impact Criteria 5.1.1.1 Federal i. Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; ii. Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable guidelines; and iii. Removal of the property from its historic location. 5.1.1.2 State Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired.
5.1.2 Operational Impact Criteria 5.1.2.1 Federal iv. Change in the character of the property’s use or physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance; v. Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features; vi. Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and vii. Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance.
5.1.2.2 State Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired.
5.2 No Build Alternative There is no APE for historic properties or historical resources associated with the No Build Alternative. There would be no construction, operational, or cumulative impacts.
Page 69
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
5.3 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative The TSM Alternative would involve construction of minimal new facilities such as bus stops. As such, no construction, operational, or cumulative impacts on historic properties or historical resources are anticipated.
5.4 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative 5.4.1 Construction Impacts There are only two historic properties or historical resources located within the APE for the SR 60 LRT Alternative and the SR 60 North Side Design Variation: The Helms Bakery Distribution Plant (a federal historic property) and the Chinese Garden Restaurant (a CEQA historical resource).
5.4.1.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant There would be no construction-related effect on this property under either the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation because the proposed Metro ROW for the SR 60 LRT Alternative would be nearly 300 feet from the building. There would be no project-related construction that could destroy, damage, relocate, or alter the building or its setting, therefore the proposed project would result in no effect under federal impact criteria and no significant impact under state impact criteria on the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant building.
5.4.1.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant The SR 60 LRT Alternative would locate the Garfield Avenue station on a different parcel along the north side of the site, away from the Chinese Garden Restaurant which fronts on the east side of Garfield Avenue. There would be no project-related construction under the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation that could destroy, damage, or alter the Chinese Garden Restaurant or its setting along Garfield Avenue. The parking lot in the rear would be changed, but the rear entrance to the restaurant would remain unchanged. The significance of the property would not be diminished, and there would be no significant impact under state impact criteria.
5.4.1.3 Unknown Archaeological Resources Significant buried archaeological resources may exist within the project area, and it is possible these archaeological materials could be unearthed during project excavation activities. The alignment for this alternative is within public street ROW that has been disturbed with utility and street construction, including the SR 60 Freeway and its embankments; therefore, it is highly unlikely there will be archaeological materials in these areas, but there is still a limited potential. However the maintenance yards and park and ride locations, which are less disturbed, have a potential to yield archaeological materials. Therefore, construction of the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation could have the potential to disturb and destroy a significant archaeological resource. If unmitigated, this disturbance of significant archaeological resources would result in an adverse effect under federal impact criteria and a significant impact under CEQA. However, Project mitigation measures would reduce archaeological resources impacts, if any resources are found during construction, to less than significant levels. Refer to Section 6.0 below of this Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for discussion of these mitigation measures.
Page 70
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
5.4.1.4 Unknown Paleontological Resources At depths within the older Quaternary sediments and the Fernando Formation, there is a high potential of encountering significant vertebrate fossils. Paleontological sensitivity is considered high. The alignment for this alternative is within public street ROW that has been disturbed with utility and street construction, including the SR 60 Freeway and its embankments; therefore, it is highly unlikely there will be paleontological materials in these areas, but there is still a limited potential. However, the maintenance yards and park and ride locations, which are less disturbed, have a potential to yield paleontological materials. Surface grading or very shallow excavations into the younger Quaternary alluvial deposits and the Fernando Formation is unlikely to expose significant fossilized vertebrate remains. However, excavations of six feet or more in depth, extending into undisturbed deposits, may expose significant fossilized vertebrate remains. If unmitigated, the destruction of any unique fossil resources would result in a significant impact under CEQA. However, Project mitigation measures would reduce paleontological resources impacts, if any resources are found during construction, to less than significant levels. Refer to Section 6.0 below of this Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for discussion of these mitigation measures.
5.4.2 Operational Impacts 5.4.2.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant There would be no effect on this property because the proposed Metro ROW for the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation would be nearly 300 feet from the building, the line would run at-grade, and the proposed project would not change the character of the setting. The property is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the history of industry in the Southern California region.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: Historically, the building housed an industrial use. Currently, it is used for automobile repair and service. The proposed project would not change the building’s historic or current use; therefore, the proposed project would result in no effect on the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant building.
Federal Impact Criterion V: Since the alignment would be at-grade, it would not introduce a visual element that would diminish integrity, including integrity of association. There would be no noise effects because of the 300-foot distance from the alignment to the building and the presence of intervening buildings, which would block noise from the at-grade tracks. In addition, this former industrial building is not sensitive to noise effects. Therefore, no visual or audible elements would be introduced, and there would be no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion VI: The proposed project would not result in neglect of the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant; therefore, this example of adverse effect does not apply.
Federal Impact Criterion VII: The Helms Bakery Distribution Plant is not owned by the federal government; therefore, this example of adverse effect does not apply.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. Due to the distance from the Metro ROW to the building, the immediate surroundings would not be altered. The proposed project would result in no significant impact.
Page 71
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
5.4.2.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant Under both the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation, the project would locate the Garfield Avenue station on a different parcel along the north side of the site, away from the Chinese Garden Restaurant which fronts on Garfield Avenue. There would be no project-related construction that could destroy, damage, or alter the Chinese Garden Restaurant or its setting along Garfield Avenue. The parking lot in the rear would be changed, but the rear entrance to the restaurant would remain unchanged. The significance of the property would not be diminished, and there would be no significant impact under state impact criteria.
5.4.2.3 Unknown Archaeological and Paleontological Resources There would be no impacts to archaeological sites or paleontological resources during operations; therefore, there would be no effect on archaeological resources under federal impact criteria and no effect/impact to archaeological or paleontological resources under state impact criteria.
5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts There would be no adverse effect or significant impact on the only two historic properties or historical resources located within the APE for the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation: The Helms Bakery Distribution Plant and the Chinese Garden Restaurant. Therefore, the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation would not contribute to any cumulative impacts.
However, because significant buried cultural or paleontological resources may exist within the project area, and it is possible these materials could be unearthed during project excavation activities, construction of the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation could have the potential to disturb and destroy a significant archaeological resource or paleontological resource. If unmitigated, this disturbance of significant archaeological resources in combination with other regional development projects would result in an adverse effect under federal impact criteria and a significant impact under CEQA. If unmitigated, this disturbance of significant paleontological resources in combination with other regional development projects would result in a significant impact under CEQA. However, Project mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to archaeological and paleontological cultural resources impacts, if any such resources are found during construction, to less than significant levels. Refer to Section 6.0 below of this Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for discussion of these mitigation measures.
5.5 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative No historic properties were identified in the location of the aerial or at-grade options for crossings of Rosemead Boulevard and the I-605/San Gabriel River, therefore, there would be no effect on historic properties for either of these two options.
5.5.1 Construction Impacts There is only one historical resource and one historic property located within the APE for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative that would be affected by construction impacts: The Chinese Garden Restaurant and the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel. For both, the applicable state construction impact criterion is: "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource…such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired.” For the
Page 72
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel only, the applicable federal construction impact criterion is: i. physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property. No other historical resources or historic properties would be damaged, destroyed, altered, or relocated as a result of construction for this alternative.
5.5.1.1 Chinese Garden Restaurant The Chinese Garden Restaurant is the only CRHR-eligible building in the APE where the proposed project would result in physical demolition or destruction of the historical resource. The Chinese Garden Restaurant is located directly within the proposed Metro ROW for the Garfield Avenue station under the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative.
Figure 5-1 shows that the proposed Metro ROW for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would require acquisition of the Chinese Garden Restaurant, which would result in demolition of the building. The property is not eligible for the NRHP but is eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 and Criterion 3 because it is associated with the history of Asian migration patterns in the region. Demolition of the building for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource and a significant impact on the environment.
Figure 5-1. Metro Right-of-Way Map (Sheet 1 of 11), May 27, 2010 – Chinese Garden Restaurant
5.5.1.2 Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, northeast corner of Bluff Road and Washington Boulevard Located at the northeast corner of Bluff Road and Washington Boulevard, on the border of Montebello and Pico Rivera, is the approximate Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, which occurred on January 8, 1847, during the Mexican-American War. This property has the potential to meet NRHP Criterion D if any archaeological artifacts are still extant, although this is considered unlikely. Physical destruction of
Page 73
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
significant artifacts, if found during project construction, would be a potentially adverse effect under federal impact criteria and a potentially significant impact under state impact criteria, but it unlikely because the Metro ROW runs within Washington Boulevard at this location.
5.5.1.3 Unknown Archaeological Resources Significant buried archaeological resources may exist within the project area, and it is possible these archaeological materials could be unearthed during project excavation activities. Therefore, construction of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative could have the potential to disturb and destroy a significant archaeological resource. The alignment for this alternative is within public street ROW that has been disturbed with utility and street construction, including the SR 60 Freeway and its embankments; therefore it is highly unlikely there will be archaeological materials in these areas, but there is still a limited potential. However the maintenance yards and park and ride locations, which are less disturbed, have a potential to yield archaeological materials. If unmitigated, this disturbance of significant archaeological resources would result in an adverse effect under federal impact criteria and a significant impact under CEQA. However, Project mitigation measures would reduce archaeological resources impacts, if any resources are found during construction, to less than significant levels. Refer to Section 6.0 below of this Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for discussion of these mitigation measures.
5.5.1.4 Unknown Paleontological Resources At depths within the older Quaternary sediments and the Fernando Formation, there is a high potential of encountering significant vertebrate fossils. Paleontological sensitivity is considered high. The alignment for this alternative is within public street ROW that has been disturbed with utility and street construction, including the SR 60 Freeway and its embankments; therefore it is highly unlikely there will be paleontological materials in these areas, but there is still a limited potential. However the maintenance yards and park and ride locations, which are less disturbed, have a potential to yield paleontological materials. Surface grading or very shallow excavations into the younger Quaternary alluvial deposits and the Fernando Formation is unlikely to expose significant fossilized vertebrate remains. However, excavations of six feet or more in depth, extending into undisturbed deposits, may expose significant fossilized vertebrate remains. If unmitigated, this destruction of any unique fossil resources would result in a significant impact under CEQA. However, Project mitigation measures would reduce paleontological resources impacts, if any resources are found during construction, to less than significant levels. Refer to Section 6.0 below of this Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for discussion of these mitigation measures.
5.5.2 Operational Impacts The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would have no impacts to archaeological sites or paleontological resources during operations; therefore, there would be no effect on archaeological resources under federal impact criteria and no effect/impact to archaeological or paleontological resources under state impact criteria. Operational impacts to significant built environment resources are discussed below.
The following federal operational impact criteria do not apply to any of the built environment historic properties within the APE:
Page 74
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
vi. Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
The proposed project would not result in neglect of any of the NRHP-eligible properties. vii. Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance.
None of the NRHP-eligible properties is owned by the federal government; therefore, this example of adverse effect does not apply.
The following discussion of operational impacts for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative is organized:
First, as historic properties or historical resources are encountered geographically, from west to east; and
Second, by the remaining operational impacts criteria.
The remaining federal and state impact criteria related to operational impacts are:
Federal Impact Criterion IV: Change in the character of the property’s use or physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance;
Federal Impact Criterion V: Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features; and
State Impact Criterion: Physical alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired.
The state operational impact criteria apply to all of the federal historic properties and three additional historical resources that meet the criteria in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines: the Chinese Garden Restaurant, the Yale Filing Company, and the former AT&SF Depot. 5.5.2.1 Helms Bakery Distribution Plant The proposed Metro ROW would be nearly 300 feet from the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant building. The line would run at-grade, and intervening buildings would separate the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant from the proposed ROW. The property is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the history of industry in the Southern California region. Federal Impact Criterion IV: Historically, the building housed an industrial use. Currently, it is used for automobile repair and service. The proposed project would not change the building’s historic or current use; therefore, the proposed project would result in no effect on the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant building.
Federal Impact Criterion V: Since the alignment would be at-grade, it would not introduce a visual element that would diminish integrity, including integrity of association. There would be no noise effects because of the 300-foot distance from the alignment to the building and the presence of intervening
Page 75
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
buildings, which would block noise from the at-grade tracks. In addition, this former industrial building is not sensitive to noise effects. Therefore, no visual or audible elements would be introduced, and there would be no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. Due to the distance from the Metro ROW to the building, the immediate surroundings would not be altered. The proposed project would result in no significant impact.
5.5.2.2 Chinese Garden Restaurant For the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, the state operational impact criterion would not be applicable to this property because the restaurant would be acquired and demolished prior to construction of the proposed project. The federal impact criteria do not apply because the Chinese Garden Restaurant does not appear eligible for the NRHP.
5.5.2.3 Former Rod’s Grill The proposed aerial structure would result in the placement of a column on the sidewalk near the southeast corner of the former Rod’s Grill (Figure 5-2). The restaurant has a large expanse of windows, which, historically, have provided street views of Garfield Avenue. The nearly floor-to-ceiling windows make the flat roof appear to be floating above the building because the structure lacks strong vertical elements. The property is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C and the CRHR under Criterion 3 for architecture. Figure 5-3 shows a photo that depicts the former Rod’s Grill as it looks today and a photo that shows the former Rod’s Grill with the proposed elevated Metro structure, with one of its columns near the southeast corner of the building.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The proposed column would be placed near the southwest corner of the building to maintain the most important views of the architecture. However, less important views from the southeast would be compromised. Physical features within the setting of the building at the corner of Garfield and Via Acosta would not be changed. Historic views from the restaurant to the street would not be blocked by any of the columns, thereby retaining the patrons’ traditional view to the street. The historic use of the building would be unchanged, and important views of the architecture and setting would be maintained. There would be no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: The most important views of the architecture from the northeast would be maintained. The column would obscure less important views of the architecture from the southeast and somewhat diminish the integrity of the setting and feeling. The aerial structure would introduce a major visual element above the adjacent street, however, the building’s architectural identity as a roadside coffee shop would continue. According to an analysis of operational impacts on visually sensitive resources, the aerial structure would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the restaurant, no impact with respect to light and glare, and a significant impact with respect to shade and shadow during winter solstice. Despite a seasonal shade and shadow impact by the aerial structure, it would not diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features.
Page 76
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Source: ACT-112 Figure 5-2. Metro Right-of-Way Map – Former Rod's Grill
Figure 5-3. Former Rod’s Grill
Page 77
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
The noise analysis conducted for this project indicates noise levels would not exceed the FTA moderate or severe impact criteria at the former Rod’s Grill. Additionally, the vibration analysis indicated that predicted vibration levels would not exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria. In conclusion, the building’s use is unlikely to be sensitive to train noise when combined with existing traffic noise and the addition of the visual elements would not diminish those aspects of integrity that best convey the significance of the building. The project would result in no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. All aspects of the interior’s integrity would not be materially impaired by the proposed project. Under CRHR Criterion 3, the most important views of the architecture from the northeast would be maintained. The column would obscure less important views of the architecture from the southeast and somewhat diminish the integrity of the setting and feeling. The aerial structure would introduce a major visual element above the adjacent street, however, the building’s architectural identity as a roadside coffee shop would continue. The project would result in no significant impact. 5.5.2.4 Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School The proposed elevated Metro structure would be constructed within Garfield Avenue and directly in front of Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School. The school is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its role in educating a largely Hispanic student body.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The structure would have little impact on the use or setting of the school. The student body interacts within the school’s buildings and the campus setting. The proposed project would be constructed along Garfield Avenue, which would not interfere with student interaction within the school’s buildings or the campus setting. Therefore, the ethnic heritage and historic association of the school would remain unaltered. The proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: According to an analysis of operational impacts on visually sensitive resources, the elevated structure would have a significant impact on the visual character due to direct views of the aerial guideway from school classrooms and loss of tree landscaping. There would be a less than significant impact with respect to light and glare, and a less than significant impact with respect to shade and shadow. Despite the significant impact to visual character, this impact would not diminish the school's significant historic role in educating a largely Hispanic student body. The high school is a noise-sensitive receptor given its classroom use, but results of the noise analysis conducted for this project indicates that noise levels at the school would not exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria of 67 decibels (dBA). Further, the vibration analysis indicates that predicted vibration levels would not exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria of 75 vibration velocity level in decibels (VdB). The result would be no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter school buildings. None of the physical features on the campus, including their interrelationships, would be materially altered by the proposed project. The proposed project would be constructed along Garfield Avenue, which would not interfere with student interaction with the school’s buildings or the campus setting. Therefore, the immediate surroundings and historic associations of the school would remain unaltered. The proposed project would result in no significant impact.
Page 78
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
5.5.2.5 Montebello Park Historic District An elevated Metro structure is proposed within Garfield Avenue, running north/south through the Montebello Park Historic District (Figure 5-4). The Montebello Park Historic District is a large historic district bounded by Whittier Boulevard to the north, Ferguson Boulevard to the south, Gerhart Avenue to the west, and Vail Avenue to the east.
The neighborhood is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 as an important example of community planning in the Los Angeles region during the 1920s. It is also eligible for its association with the development of the east side and east side industrial areas. Montebello Park was developed to provide housing for Eastside Industrial area workers, and the timing of the development, as well as its location, strongly convey the historical association. The character-defining features of the neighborhood include the street layout, parkways, open space, land uses, parcel size, and landscaping.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: While the elevated structure, which was not part of the original neighborhood plan, would be visible from many of the east/west-oriented streets, the character- defining features of the neighborhood would not be compromised because street widths and building placement would not change. The integrity of the community plan, which gives the neighborhood its historic significance, would remain unaltered because the street layout and basic structure of the neighborhood would not change. In addition, the neighborhood has a canopy of mature trees that would provide an effective screen, thereby shielding the structure from view at most locations in the neighborhood. Therefore, the integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship would not be diminished by introduction of the structure, and the historic setting would remain largely intact. There would be no change in the historic use of the neighborhood because the addition of an aerial structure would not change the historic function, plan, or layout of the neighborhood. The photo on the top in Figure 5-5 depicts the Montebello Park Historic District as it looks today, looking east down Olympic Boulevard toward Garfield Avenue. The photo on the bottom shows the same view with the proposed elevated structure along Garfield Avenue.
The integrity of setting, feeling, and association along Garfield Avenue would be affected because of minimal landscaping to shield views of the structure. However, because of the mature trees in the neighborhood, the elevated structure would be only minimally visible from most locations. Given the limited views of the structure from most locations and the screening provided by the large canopy of trees that is found throughout the neighborhood, the structure would have a negligible effect on the integrity of the setting and would result in no adverse effect.
Page 79
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Figure 5-4. Metro Plan and Profile Map (Sheet 17 of 51), May 6, 2010
Figure 5-5. Montebello Park Historic District
Page 80
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Federal Impact Criterion V: When combined with noise from traffic on Garfield Avenue, the effect of noise created by the Metro alignment would be negligible. According to an analysis of operational impacts on visually sensitive resources, the ROW would have a less than significant impact on the neighborhood’s visual character, a less than significant impact with respect to light and glare, and a less than significant impact with respect to shade and shadow. The noise/vibration analysis conducted for this project indicates the predicted noise level of 65 dBA is equal to, but would not exceed, the FTA moderate impact criterion at 20 single-family and 33 multi-family residences in the Montebello Park Historic District, which would result in no adverse effect. Vibration analysis indicates that that the predicted vibration level of 72 VdB would equal the FTA annoyance criterion for frequent events of 72 VdB for Category 2 land uses at two residences; however, this frequent impact would not diminish the integrity of the neighborhood’s significant historic features that represent community planning.
The integrity of setting, feeling, and association along Garfield Avenue would be affected because of minimal landscaping to shield views of the structure. However, because of the mature trees in the neighborhood, the elevated structure would be only minimally visible from most locations. The structure would not introduce a visual element that would diminish the integrity of historic viewsheds enjoyed from most locations in the neighborhood by residents and passersby. Given the limited views of the structure from most locations and the screening provided by the large canopy of trees that is found throughout the neighborhood, the structure would result in no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: While the elevated structure, which was not part of the original neighborhood plan, would be visible from many of the east/west-oriented streets, the character-defining features of the neighborhood would not be compromised because street widths and building placement would not change. The integrity of the community plan, which gives the neighborhood its historic significance, would remain unaltered because the street layout and basic structure of the neighborhood would not change.
The integrity of the setting, feeling, and association along Garfield Avenue would be affected because of minimal landscaping to shield views of the structure. However, because of the mature trees in the neighborhood, the elevated section would be only minimally visible from most locations. Given the limited views of the structure from most locations and the screening provided by the large canopy of trees that is found throughout the neighborhood, the structure would not alter the neighborhood to a degree that would materially impair the immediate surroundings. The proposed project would result in no significant impact.
5.5.2.6 Pacific Metals Company The elevated Metro structure, as it transitions from Garfield Avenue to Washington Boulevard, would curve away from the Pacific Metals Company building, which would be across the street (Figure 5-6). The Pacific Metals Company building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for industry and Criterion C for architecture. It is also eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the history of industry in Southern California and Criterion 3 for its architectural quality.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: Since the alignment would curve away from the building, the proposed project would not obstruct historic views, and the architectural setting would be preserved. The historic use of the building has always been industrial; that use would not be altered by the Metro
Page 81
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
alignment. The elevated Metro ROW would not change the architectural setting by limiting views of the building. The result would be no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: Since the alignment would curve away from the building, the elevated structure would not introduce a visual element that would diminish any of the seven aspects of integrity. The building was and still is used for industrial purposes and is not sensitive to noise effects. According to an analysis of operational impacts on visually sensitive resources, the alignment would have a less than significant impact on the building’s visual character, a less than significant impact with respect to light and glare, and a less than significant impact with respect to shade and shadow. The proposed project would not introduce a visual or audible element that would diminish historic significance. The result would be no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. Since the alignment would curve away from the building, the proposed project would not obstruct historic views, and the architectural setting would be preserved. The elevated Metro structure would not materially impair the building or its immediate surroundings. The proposed project would result in no significant impact.
Figure 5-6. Metro Right-of-Way Map (Sheet 4 of 11), May 27, 2010 – Pacific Metals Company
Page 82
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
5.5.2.7 Goodyear Warehouse The Goodyear warehouse is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard, diagonally opposite to a transitional curve for the proposed alignment. However, the proposed Metro ROW would be more than 500 feet from the Goodyear warehouse; it would not change the historic setting of the building. The property is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for industry.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The historic use of the building would remain industrial. The considerable distance between the building and the proposed project means that there would be a negligible effect on the building’s setting, resulting in no effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: The building maintains its historic industrial use; therefore, it is not sensitive to noise effects. The Metro ROW would be more than 500 feet from the Goodyear warehouse. It would not introduce a visual or audible element that would diminish the integrity of the building’s significant historical features. Given the distance of the elevated structure from the warehouse and the building’s industrial use, the proposed project would result in no effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. The considerable distance between the building and the proposed project means that there would be negligible change to the building’s immediate surroundings. The result would be no significant impact.
5.5.2.8 Yale Filing Company The federal impact criteria do not apply because the Yale Filing Company does not appear eligible for the NRHP. The Yale Filing Company building is eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 3 for architectural merit; therefore, the state impact criteria apply.
For the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, an elevated structure is proposed within Washington Boulevard, running east/west past the Yale Filing Company building. The proposed structure would result in three support columns in the center of Washington Boulevard that face the building’s front façade (Figure 5-7).
State Impact Criteria: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. Although the proposed columns within Washington Boulevard would obscure views of the building from some areas on the south side of the street, the building is not visually sensitive because it currently and historically has had an industrial use, has limited street-facing windows, and inward directed industrial activities. Additionally, the closest column is proposed to be located over 50 feet from the building so views remain unobstructed from most angles. The elevated Metro structure would not materially impair the building or its immediate surroundings. The proposed project would result in no significant impact.
Page 83
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Figure 5-7. Metro Right-of-Way Map 23 of 51, May 5, 2010 - Yale Filing Company
5.5.2.9 Greenwood Elementary School The Greenwood Elementary School is not located on Washington Boulevard, but is located on Greenwood Avenue and is over 350 feet from the proposed elevated Greenwood Avenue station of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative located within Washington Boulevard. The school is buffered from the proposed Metro ROW by a large parking lot and buildings located on the half-block between the school and Washington Boulevard. The property is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for having a significant contribution to the patterns of school building in Southern California during the period of significance, 1947–1948.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The historic setting of the building would not change and the historic use of the building would remain a school. The considerable distance between the building and the proposed project means that there would be a negligible effect on the building’s setting, resulting in no effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: The half-block distance from the school to the proposed ROW and a visual buffer provided by existing buildings along Washington Boulevard would avoid any visual impact. Additionally, the distance from the proposed ROW and existing buildings would provide a buffer for a potential noise effect. The result would be no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. The considerable distance between the building and the proposed project means that
Page 84
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
there would be negligible change to the building’s immediate surroundings. The result would be no significant impact.
5.5.2.10 South Montebello Irrigation District Building The proposed Greenwood Avenue station would be elevated on columns that would straddle the front property line of the South Montebello Irrigation District building (Figure 5-8). The building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its historic association with agriculture and as an excellent and intact example of a modestly scaled infrastructural building.
Figure 5-8. Metro Site Plan for Washington Boulevard – Greenwood Avenue Station, December 31, 2010 – South Montebello Irrigation District Building
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The historic use of the building would remain the same with construction of the station. Although the building’s property and adjacent land were no longer being used for agriculture when the building was constructed in 1940, the building has an historic association with agriculture because it supported the water needs of local truck farms and commercial nurseries in the area. With the construction of buildings on neighboring parcels, the setting around the South Montebello Irrigation District building has changed since 1940. Although the proposed elevated station is within the street in front of the building, support columns have been placed between property lines and away from buildings to minimize blockage of traditional views. In addition, station escalators would be placed at the far ends of the station platform, and the nearest escalator would be more than 80 feet from the building. With the preservation of traditional views, the historic setting would be left largely intact, and the proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: The property supported the water needs of local truck farms and commercial nurseries in the area. Today, those surrounding historic agricultural uses in the area have all been displaced by redevelopment. The exterior of the building is the last remaining physical
Page 85
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
feature that links it to its significant association with the area’s agricultural past. The building, which is still easily recognizable from the street, has a large sign below the roofline that reads “South Montebello Irrigation District.” This sign is a historic feature. The original on-site wells were covered and replaced with a new well and chlorine room in the late 1980s. Therefore, the wells are no longer significant historic features. The introduction of an elevated station directly in front of the building would block traditional views of the building and the sign, which are significant historic resources. Pumping and water treatment activities continue on the property. Therefore, the current use would not be sensitive to noise effects.
Although the construction of a station column and escalator would introduce a new visual element, the proposed support columns would be placed in front of the lot at the property lines and away from buildings to minimize the visual effect. In addition, station escalators would be placed at the far ends of the station platform, and the nearest would be more than 80 feet away from the building to avoid a direct visual effect on the historic property. With largely unobstructed views of the building, the proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. Although the building’s property and adjacent land were no longer being used for agriculture when the building was constructed in 1940, the building has a historic association with agriculture because it supported the water needs of local truck farms and commercial nurseries in the area. With the construction of buildings on neighboring parcels, the setting around the South Montebello Irrigation District building has changed since 1940; however, views from the building to Washington Boulevard remain unobstructed. Although the construction of a station column and escalator would introduce a new visual element, the support columns would be located in front of the lot at the property lines and not directly in front of the building. Station escalators would be placed at the far ends of the station platform and away from the subject property, minimizing the changes to the immediate surroundings. Since most views of the property would be maintained, the immediate surroundings of the historical resource would not be materially impaired, and the proposed project would result in no significant impact.
5.5.2.11 Kelly House The proposed Greenwood Avenue station would be elevated on columns in the sidewalk in front of the Kelly House (Figure 5-9). The building is currently eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the residential development of Montebello in the pre– World War II era. Built in 1937, the house represents a rare example of the area’s pre-war development.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The historic use of the house would remain the same after construction of the station. With the construction of neighboring buildings, the setting around the house has changed since 1937; however, views from the house to Washington Boulevard remain unobstructed.
Although the proposed elevated station platform would be within the street in front of the Kelly House, support columns would be placed in front of the lot at the property lines and away from buildings to minimize blockage of traditional views. Station escalators would be placed at the far ends of the station platform, and the nearest escalator would be more than 100 feet from the building. The proposed placement of columns and the escalators allows for the preservation of traditional views.
Page 86
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
The historic setting would be left largely intact, and the proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: The exterior of the house and the yard are the physical features that convey the significance of the Kelly House. Views of these features from the street are unobstructed. The vibration analysis indicates that the predicted vibration levels for the Kelly House would not exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria of 72 VdB. Additionally, the noise analysis conducted for this project indicates the predicted noise level of 65 dBA is equal to, but would not exceed, the FTA moderate impact criterion at the Kelly House, which would result in no adverse effect or diminish the property’s significant historic features.
Although the construction of a station column and escalator would introduce a new visual element within the street in front of the Kelly House, the proposed support columns would be placed in front of the lot at the property lines and away from buildings to minimize the visual effect. In addition, station escalators would be placed at the far ends of the station platform and more than 100 feet away from the building to avoid a direct visual effect on the historic property. With largely unobstructed views of the building, the proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Figure 5-9. Metro Site Plan for Washington Boulevard – Greenwood Avenue Station, December 31, 2010 - Kelly House.
State Impact Criterion: With the construction of neighboring buildings, the setting around the house has changed since 1937; however, views from the house of Washington Boulevard remain unobstructed. Although the construction of a station column and escalator would introduce a new visual element, the support columns would not be located directly in front of the building. Station escalators would be placed at the far ends of the station platform and away from the subject property,
Page 87
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
minimizing the change to its immediate surroundings. Since most views of the property would be maintained, the immediate surroundings of the historical resource would not be materially impaired, and the proposed project would result in no significant impact.
5.5.2.12 Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel The proposed Metro ROW would run along Washington Boulevard. The at-grade alignment would pass the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, which took place in 1847 during the Mexican-American War. The battlefield is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for military history.
Federal impact criterion iv: The battlefield use is long past, and the setting has already been altered by channelization of the river and the introduction of Washington Boulevard, which didn’t exist at the time of the battle.
Although the battlefield is eligible for military history, the historic setting has already changed significantly. However, the Metro ROW would be used for an at-grade rail alignment over an existing bridge at Washington Boulevard. Therefore, a negligible change to the existing setting would result. The proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Federal impact criterion v: Washington Boulevard came into existence after the battle, and the at-grade rail alignment over the bridge at Washington Boulevard would not introduce a visual element that would diminish integrity. When combined with noise from traffic on Washington Boulevard, the effect of noise created by the Metro alignment would be negligible.
The battlefield is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for military history. Since the integrity of the battlefield site has already been altered significantly, the addition of the Metro ROW would result in no adverse effect.
State impact criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter the battlefield. Although the immediate surroundings of the battlefield have changed significantly, the Metro ROW would be used for an at-grade rail alignment over an existing bridge at Washington Boulevard. Therefore, a negligible change to the existing setting would result. The proposed project would not materially impair the battlefield’s significance or result in a significant impact.
The battlefield has the potential to meet Criterion 4 if any archaeological artifacts are still extant; however, this is considered unlikely. Impacts on archaeological artifacts, if found during project construction, would be mitigated using standard methods. The result would be no significant impact.
5.5.2.13 Dal Rae Restaurant The proposed Metro ROW would run along Washington Boulevard and pass the Dal Rae Restaurant. The alignment would be at-grade in the center of the street, and the nearest station would be more than a block to the west. The proposed project would blend with the existing traffic pattern along Washington Boulevard. The building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for social history as an important and increasingly rare example of a fine dining restaurant and cocktail lounge from the post–World War II era.
Page 88
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Figure 5-10. Dal Rae Restaurant
Federal Impact Criterion IV: Since the proposed at-grade alignment would not obstruct historic views of the building, the historic setting would largely be unchanged. The building would retain its historic use as a restaurant; the proposed project would not change this use. Given that the proposed project would be constructed at-grade on an existing street, the setting would not change significantly. The proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: Given the existing traffic noise, it is unlikely that the addition of train noise would diminish the integrity of the property significantly. With the alignment being at-grade, there would be no visual element to diminish historic integrity. The vibration analysis conducted for this project indicates that predicted vibration levels for this project would not exceed the FTA frequent impacts criteria. In addition, the noise analysis indicates that noise levels would not exceed the FTA moderate or severe impact at the Dal Rae Restaurant. Given that the proposed project would be constructed at-grade on an existing street, the visual or audible elements introduced would result in no adverse effect.
Page 89
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. Given that the proposed project would be constructed at-grade on an existing street, the result would be no significant impact.
The photo on the top in Figure 5-10 depicts the Dal Rae restaurant along Washington Boulevard as it looks today and the photo on the bottom shows the proposed Metro line running at-grade in front of the restaurant.
5.5.2.14 Former AT&SF Depot The federal impact criteria do not apply because the former AT&SF Depot does not appear eligible for the NRHP. The former depot is eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 1 and 2 as well as Special Consideration 1 (i.e., moved buildings, structures, or objects) for its association with early transportation, agriculture, and settlement as well as its architectural integrity; therefore, state impact criteria would apply. The proposed Metro ROW would pass the former AT&SF depot on Washington Boulevard. The alignment would be at-grade in the center of the street; a station would not be located nearby. State Impact Criteria: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. The proposed project would become part of the existing traffic pattern along Washington Boulevard, and the at-grade alignment would not obstruct views of the building. Furthermore, the proposed project would reintroduce rail transportation adjacent to the former railroad depot. The vibration analysis conducted for this project indicates vibration levels caused by light rail trains would exceed the FTA annoyance impact criteria of 75 VdB for frequent events. However, given the nature of the building as a former railroad depot, the additional frequent impact vibration levels would not result in a significant impact. The noise analysis indicates that noise levels at the depot would not exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria of 70 dBA. Given that the proposed project would be constructed at- grade on an existing street, the result would be no significant impact. 5.5.2.15 Cliff May-designed Ranch House The proposed Metro ROW would pass the Cliff May-designed ranch house, running along Washington Boulevard. The alignment would be at-grade in the center of the street; no station is proposed near this location. The house is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C and the CRHR under Criterion 3 for architecture as an excellent example of the Ranch architectural style.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: Since the proposed project would be constructed at-grade, historic views of the property would not change. The historic use of the house has always been a single-family dwelling, and that use would not be altered by the new alignment. The proposed at-grade alignment would not obstruct historic views of the architecture or significantly change the setting. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: There would be visual elements introduced due to overhead catenary support poles in the center of the street but these would not diminish the integrity of the historic property. According to an analysis of operational impacts on visually sensitive resources, the alignment would have a less than significant impact on the house’s visual character, a less than significant impact with respect to light and glare, and no impact with respect to shade and shadow. The vibration analysis conducted for this project indicates that predicted vibration levels would not exceed the FTA frequent
Page 90
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
impact criteria of 72 VdB. In addition, the noise analysis indicates that noise levels at the Cliff May House would not exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria at 64 dBA, resulting in no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this residence. Since the proposed project would be constructed at-grade, historic views of the property would not change. Given that the proposed project would be at-grade on an existing street, the result would be no significant impact.
5.5.2.16 Steak Corral Restaurant The proposed Metro ROW would pass the Steak Corral Restaurant, running along Washington Boulevard. The alignment would be at-grade in the center of the street; no station is proposed near this location. The restaurant is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C and the CRHR under Criteria 1 and 3 for social history and architecture as an intact presentation of a theme restaurant from the decades following World War II.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The proposed project would blend with the existing traffic pattern along Washington Boulevard, and the at-grade alignment would not obstruct historic views of the building, leaving the historic setting largely unchanged. Additionally, the building would retain its historic use as a restaurant. The proposed project would not change this use. With no changes to integrity, the proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Federal Impact Criterion V: The restaurant is not noise sensitive. The vibration analysis conducted for this project indicates that predicted vibration levels for this project would not exceed the FTA frequent impacts criteria. The noise analysis indicates noise levels would not exceed the FTA moderate or severe impact criteria at the restaurant. Furthermore, with the alignment constructed at-grade, there would be no visual effect that would diminish the integrity of significant historic features. The proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. The proposed project would become part of the existing traffic pattern along Washington Boulevard. The at-grade alignment would not obstruct historic views of the building, leaving the historic setting largely unchanged. There would be no material impairment of the historical resource’s significance. The result would be no significant impact.
5.5.2.17 Rheem Laboratory The proposed Metro ROW would pass the former Rheem Laboratory running along Washington Boulevard. The alignment would be at-grade in the center of the street; no station is proposed near this location. The building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its role in the development of manufacturing and scientific research in the Whittier/Santa Fe Springs area in the period of significance 1951-1962.
Federal Impact Criterion IV: The proposed project would blend with the existing traffic pattern along Washington Boulevard, and the at-grade alignment would not obstruct historic views of the building, leaving the historic setting largely unchanged. The proposed project would not change the current use of the building. With no changes to integrity, the proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
Page 91
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Federal Impact Criterion V: The use of the building is not noise sensitive. Furthermore, with the alignment constructed at-grade, there would be no visual effect that would diminish the integrity of significant historic features. The proposed project would result in no adverse effect.
State Impact Criterion: The proposed project would not demolish, destroy, relocate, or alter this building. The proposed project would become part of the existing traffic pattern along Washington Boulevard. The at-grade alignment would not obstruct historic views of the building, leaving the historic setting largely unchanged. There would be no material impairment of the historical resource’s significance. The result would be no significant impact.
5.5.2.18 Unknown Archaeological and Paleontological Resources There would be no impacts to archaeological sites or paleontological resources during operations; therefore, there would be no effect on archaeological resources under federal impact criteria and no effect/impact to archaeological or paleontological resources under state impact criteria.
5.5.3 Cumulative Impacts In the absence of design mitigation, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would result in adverse significant impact on one historical resource: The Chinese Garden Restaurant. It also has the potential to have an adverse effect on the Site of the Battle San Gabriel, although it is unlikely archaeological artifacts may be found there during construction. The effects are specific to the proposed project, and have the potential to contribute to a larger cumulative impact if related projects also would result in adverse effects on historic properties.
Since significant buried cultural or paleontological resources may exist within the project area, and it is possible these materials could be unearthed during project excavation activities, construction of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative could have the potential to disturb and destroy a significant archaeological resource or paleontological resource. If unmitigated, this disturbance of significant archaeological resources in combination with other regional development projects would result in an adverse effect under federal impact criteria and a significant impact under CEQA. If unmitigated, this disturbance of significant paleontological resources in combination with other regional development projects would result in a significant impact under CEQA. However, Project mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to archaeological and paleontological cultural resources impacts, if any such resources are found during construction, to less than significant levels. Refer to Section 6.0 below of this Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for discussion of these mitigation measures.
Page 92
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
6.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES An APE for historic properties or historical resources associated with the No Build or TSM Alternatives is not required. There would be no construction, operational, or cumulative impacts, and therefore, no need for mitigation measures.
The SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation would not result in an adverse effect on any historic property per NHPA Section 106 or a significant impact on any historical resource per CEQA. Only one historic property - the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant and one historical resource per CEQA - the Chinese Garden Restaurant, are located within the APE for the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation. No mitigation measures are recommended for these two resources. No significant archaeological resources were identified in the APE of the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation. However, the potential mitigation measure in Section 6.1.5 for unknown archaeological resources (also identified in the separate Construction Impacts Technical Memorandum) would be used as needed to minimize adverse effects on unknown significant archaeological resources within the APE, if any are discovered during construction of the LRT extension.
The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would not result in an adverse effect on any historic property per NHPA Section 106 unless a significant discovery of an unknown archaeological resource is made at the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel. The potential adverse effect on the battlefield site would be minimized by implementation of the mitigation measure in Section 6.1.4. In addition, for the rest of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, the potential mitigation measure in Section 6.1.5 (also identified in the separate Construction Impacts Technical Memorandum) would be used as needed to minimize adverse effects on unknown significant archaeological resources within the APE, if any are discovered during construction of the LRT extension. In the absence of relocation mitigation, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would result in a significant impact on one historical resource per CEQA, the Chinese Garden Restaurant. Mitigation measures in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3 address the potential significant impact on the Chinese Garden Restaurant per CEQA.
For both the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, no significant paleontological resources were identified in the APE. For both alternatives, the mitigation measure in Section 6.1.6 for unknown paleontological resources (also identified in the separate Construction Impacts Technical Memorandum) would be used as needed to minimize adverse effects on unknown significant paleontological resources within the APE, if any are discovered during construction of either alternative. 6.1 Construction Mitigation Measures The potential mitigation measures discussed below (and identified in the separate Construction Impacts Technical Memorandum) would be used as needed to minimize adverse construction-related impacts on historic properties and CEQA historical resources within the APE.
The Chinese Garden Restaurant is the only historic building in which the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would require physical demolition of the entire structure. Relocation is one type of mitigation to avoid demolition of a historic building.
Page 93
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
The CRHR Special Considerations (14 CCR 4852.d.1.) indicate that a building may still be eligible for the CRHR after it has been relocated, as follows:
Moved Buildings, Structures, or Objects. The State Historical Resources Commission encourages the retention of historical resources on site and discourages the non-historic grouping of historic buildings into parks or districts. However, it is recognized that moving a historic building, structure, or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction. Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource. A historical resource should retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment.
The mitigation measures below address the requirements of the Special Considerations by requiring the new location to be compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource. Two options for relocation would be considered, and each requires the resource to retain its historic features and compatibility with respect to orientation, setting, and the general environment.
6.1.1 Relocation of the Chinese Garden Restaurant, Option A Relocation would require safely moving the building to the rear parking lot of its current location. Relocation of the building shall meet the following requirements:
This site shall provide adequate on-street and off-street parking to maintain current levels of patronage;
Existing landscaping shall be preserved after the relocation;
The freestanding “Chinese Garden Restaurant” sign shall remain in front of the restaurant after the relocation;
The building shall be protected before, during, and after the move; and
There shall be adequate public notification of the move. 6.1.2 Relocation of the Chinese Garden Restaurant, Option B Relocation would require safely moving the building to a similar lot along Garfield Avenue. Relocation of the building shall meet the following requirements:
This site shall provide adequate on-street and off-street parking to maintain current levels of patronage;
The building shall have similar street frontage to maintain access and visibility to patrons, with a best effort to maintain its current streetscape orientation;
Existing landscaping shall be preserved after the relocation;
The freestanding “Chinese Garden Restaurant” sign shall remain in front of the restaurant after the relocation;
The building shall be protected before, during, and after the move; and
There shall be adequate public notification of the move.
Page 94
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
For either option, relocation of the restaurant to a new location would maintain contributing aspects of its historic orientation, immediate setting, and the general environment. Any relocation efforts implemented for the Chinese Garden Restaurant shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the National Park Service, which are outlined in the booklet Moving Historic Buildings by John Obed Curtis (1979). In addition, any maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, stabilization, or preservation work performed in conjunction with relocation of the Chinese Garden Restaurant shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.
If the recommended mitigation for relocation is successfully implemented, such that the project “would not cause a substantial adverse change in its significance,” it would lessen the significant impact on the Chinese Garden Restaurant to a level that is less than significant, per the effect/impact criteria outlined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 6.1.3 Archival Documentation of the Chinese Garden Restaurant Prior to demolition or removal of the Chinese Garden Restaurant, a photographic documentation report shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian, historic architect, or historic preservation professional who satisfies the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History, Architectural History, or Architecture pursuant to 36 CFR 61. This report shall document the significance of the Chinese Garden Restaurant, its physical conditions, and setting along Garfield Avenue, both historic and current, through photographs and text. Photographs noting all elevations and details of the building’s architectural features should be taken using 35 mm black-and-white film. The photographer should be familiar with the recordation of historic resources. Photographs should be prepared in a format consistent with the HABS standard for field photography. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the city of Montebello Planning and Development Department and the Montebello Public Library. If the recommended mitigation for archival documentation is successfully implemented, it, coupled with the mitigation measure above in Section 6.1.1/6.1.2 would lessen the effect/impact on removal of the Chinese Garden Restaurant to another location to less than significant after mitigation. If the mitigation measure above in Section 6.1.1/6.1.2 is not implemented, the subject mitigation measure herein by itself would not lessen the effect/impact of demolition of the historical resource to less than significant, and the effect/impact would still be significant after mitigation. 6.1.4 Archaeological Monitoring of the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel It is recommended that archaeological monitoring during construction be conducted at the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel, in accordance with the project Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) (see Section 6.1.5 below). If monitoring does not reveal any archaeological artifacts, then there would be no effect on the Site of the Battle of Rio San Gabriel. If archaeological artifacts are discovered, then they would be removed from their historic location, and the effect would be adverse and significant after mitigation. 6.1.5 Unknown Archaeological Resources Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, a project–wide CRMMP would be developed and implemented by Metro. This document would address areas where potentially significant prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits are likely to be located within the proposed project area. The CRMMP would also include a detailed prehistoric and historic context that clearly demonstrates the themes under which any identified subsurface deposits would be determined significant. Should significant deposits be identified
Page 95
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum during earth-moving activities, the CRMMP would address methods for data recovery, anticipated artifact types, artifact analysis, report writing, repatriation of human remains and associated grave goods, and curation. The CRMMP would also require that an archaeologist qualified in prehistoric and historical archaeology would be retained prior to ground-disturbing activities. The CRMMP would be a guide for monitoring activities. If buried cultural resources, such as flaked or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or non-human bone, are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. A Native American monitor would be retained if treatment involved work at a prehistoric site. Treatment measures typically include: development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs such as excavation or detailed documentation. If during cultural resources monitoring the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain significant cultural materials, the qualified archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or eliminated. 6.1.6 Paleontology A qualified paleontologic monitor shall monitor excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources. These areas are defined as all areas within the proposed project site where planned excavation will exceed depths of six feet into native undisturbed sediments. The qualified paleontologic monitor shall retain the option to reduce monitoring if, in his or her professional opinion, sediments being monitored are previously disturbed. Monitoring may also be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units, previously described, are not found to be present or, if present, are determined by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Since older Quaternary deposits yield small fossils specimens likely to go unnoticed during typical large-scale paleontological monitoring, matrix samples shall be collected and processed to determine the potential for small fossils to be recovered prior to substantial excavations in those sediments. If this sampling indicates these units do possess small fossils, a matrix sample of up to 6,000 pounds shall be collected at various locations, to be specified by the paleontologist, within the construction area. These matrix samples shall also be processed for small fossils. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments, to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to Metro, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
6.2 Operational Mitigation Measures There would be no impacts to historic buildings, archaeological sites, or paleontological resources during operations; therefore, there would be no effect on historic buildings or archaeological resources
Page 96
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum under federal impact criteria and no effect/impact to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources under state impact criteria. As such, no mitigation measures are required.
Page 97
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 No Build Alternative 7.1.1 NEPA Finding There is no APE for the No Build Alternative, therefore, there would be no effect on historic properties.
7.1.2 CEQA Determination There is no APE for the No Build Alternative, therefore, there would be no significant impact on historical resources or paleontological resources.
7.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative 7.2.1 NEPA Finding There is no APE for the TSM Alternative; therefore, there would be no effect on historic properties.
7.2.2 CEQA Determination There is no APE for the TSM Alternative; therefore, there would be no significant impact on historical resources or paleontological resources.
7.3 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative 7.3.1 NEPA Finding There would be no effect on the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant. For unknown archaeological resources, mitigation in Section 6.1.5 would reduce potential adverse effects to a level of no adverse effects.
The NEPA finding with implementation of the SR 60 North Side Design Variation would be the same as for the SR 60 LRT Alternative.
7.3.2 CEQA Determination There would be no significant impact on the Helms Bakery Distribution Plant or the Chinese Garden Restaurant. For unknown archaeological resources, mitigation in Section 6.1.5 would reduce impacts associated with this alternative to a less than significant level. For unknown paleontological resources, mitigation in Section 6.1.6 would reduce impacts associated with this alternative to a less than significant level.
The CEQA determination with implementation of the SR 60 North Side Design Variation would be the same as for the SR 60 LRT Alternative.
Page 98
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
7.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative 7.4.1 NEPA Finding The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative has the potential to have an adverse effect on the Site of the Battle San Gabriel, although it is unlikely archaeological artifacts may be found there during construction. Mitigation in Section 6.1.4 would reduce the potential adverse effect to a level of no adverse effect.
For unknown archaeological resources, mitigation in Section 6.1.5 would reduce potential adverse effect to a level of no adverse effect.
7.4.2 CEQA Determination The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would result in a significant impact on one historical resource: the Chinese Garden Restaurant. It also has the potential to have a significant impact on the Site of the Battle San Gabriel, although it is unlikely archaeological artifacts may be found there during construction. Mitigation in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4 would reduce impacts associated with this alternative to a less than significant level.
For unknown archaeological resources, mitigation in Section 6.1.5 would reduce impacts associated with this alternative to a less than significant level.
For unknown paleontological resources, mitigation in Section 6.1.6 would reduce impacts associated with this alternative to a less than significant level.
7.5 Maintenance Yard Options 7.5.1 NEPA Finding For the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, a potential Maintenance Yard site on the north side of Mission Road is being studied. No historic properties were identified on or adjacent to the proposed maintenance yard site; therefore, there would be no effect on historic properties.
For the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, two additional potential Maintenance Yard sites are being studied, one on an existing Edison Company power line ROW and another adjacent to the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Allport Avenue. No historic properties were identified on or adjacent to the two proposed maintenance yard sites; therefore, there would be no effect on historic properties.
Page 99
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
7.5.2 CEQA Determination For the SR 60 LRT Alternative with or without the SR 60 North Side Design Variation and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, a potential Maintenance Yard on the north side of Mission Road is being evaluated. No historical resources were identified within the APE of the proposed yard site; therefore, there would be no impact on historical resources. The Macy Street Viaduct, which was previously determined eligible for the NRHP, is located immediately south of the proposed maintenance yard site, but it or its historic setting would not be altered in any demonstrable way by the proposed project.
For the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, two additional potential Maintenance Yard sites are being studied; one on existing Edison Company power line ROW and another adjacent to the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Allport Avenue. No historical resources were identified on or adjacent to the two proposed maintenance yard sites; therefore, there would be no significant impact on historical resources.
Page 100
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
8.0 REFERENCES CITED
Andrus, Patrick W., and Rebecca H. Shrimpton. 1990; rev. 1998. National Register Bulletin, pp. 26–27. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Bauer, K. Jack. 1974. The Mexican War: 1846–1848, pp. 191–192. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. R. F. Heizer (ed.). In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, pp. 538–549. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
California Department of Finance. n.d. Agency website. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/2009-10.
City of Montebello. n.d. City website. Available at: http://www.cityofmontebello.com.
City of Pico Rivera. n.d. History. Available at: http://www.ci.pico-rivera.ca.us.
City of Rosemead. n.d. City website. Available at: http://www.cityofrosemead.org.
City of South El Monte. n.d. City website. Available at: http://www.ci.south-el-monte.ca.us.
City of Whittier. n.d. City website. Available at: http://www.cityofwhittier.org.
City-Data.com. 2010a. East Los Angeles population data. Available at: http://www.city-data.com/city/East-Los-Angeles-California.html.
City-Data.com. 2010b. South El Monte. Available at: http://www.city-data.com/city/ South-El-Monte-California.html.
Clary, William W. 1966. History of the Law Firm of O’Melveny & Myers, 1885–1965, Volume 1, pp. 222–223. Los Angeles: privately printed.
Coe, Andrew. 1990. Chop Suey: A Cultural History of Chinese Food in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curtis, John Obed. 1979. Moving Historic Buildings.
Davis, Mike. 2001. Sunshine and the Open Shop: Ford and Darwin in 1920s Los Angeles. In Metropolis in the Making: Los Angeles in the 1920s, p. 113. Tom Sitton and William Deverell (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Deverell, William. 2004. Whitewashed Adobe: The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of the Mexican Past, p. 135. Berkeley: University of California Press.
English, John, and Ravi GuneWardena. 1997. City of Commerce. In Cruising Industrial Los Angeles, pp. 37–38. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Conservancy.
Page 101
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Fong, Timothy P. 1994. The First Suburban Chinatown: The Remaking of Monterey Park, California, pp. 16 and 33. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. 2003. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles.
Hess, Alan. 1985. Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture, p. 70. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Hise, Greg. 1993. Homebuilding and Industrial Decentralization in Los Angeles: The Roots of the Post– World War II Urban Region. In, Journal of Urban History 19, pp. 95–125.
Hise, Greg. 1997. Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth Century Metropolis, pp. 208–215. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Liebs, Chester H. 1995. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture, pp. 64–67, 194. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Los Angeles County. n.d. History of Los Angeles County. Available at: http://lacounty.gov/wps/portal/lac.
Los Angeles Times. 1903. Montebello display advertisement, April 26, p. D11. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Los Angeles Times. 1913. Flower Garden of Los Angeles, June 1, p. IV12. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Los Angeles Times. 1921a. Rancho Laguna Is Subdivided for Settlement, August 21, p. VI. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Los Angeles Times. 1921b. Ready to Open New Belvedere Gardens Tract, April 10, 1921, p. V3. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Los Angeles Times. 1922. To Open Factory Sites, May 7, p. V11. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Los Angeles Times. 1925. Display ad, no title. April 26, p. F16. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Los Angeles Times. 1937. Belvedere Drops Name. September 11, p. 6. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Los Angeles Times. 1960. Industrial Center Keeps Pace with City’s Growth, October 30, p. L1. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Michael Brandman Associates and Cordoba Corporation. 1988. East Los Angeles Community Plan. Prepared for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Monroy, Douglas. 1990. Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California, p. 163. Berkeley: University of California Press. Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Page 102
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
New York Times. 1982. Northrop to Buy Vacant Ford Plant. February 5.
Nicolaides, Becky M. 1999. Where the Working Man is Welcomed: Working-Class Suburbs in Los Angeles, 1900–1940. In Pacific Historical Review 68, 4:538. November.
Nicolaides, Becky M. 2001. The Quest for Independence: Workers in the Suburbs. In Metropolis in the Making: Los Angeles in the 1920s, p. 80. Tom Sitton and William Deverell (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Phoenix, Charles. 2001. Southern California in the ‘50s: Sun, Fun, and Fantasy, p. 2. Santa Monica, CA: Angel City Press.
Pierson, David. 2005. A Beacon in Chinatown; A Museum-like Store, Run Part Time by Family Since the Death of Patriarch Gim Fong, Evokes the Area’s Heyday. Los Angeles Times, December 11, p. B1. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987).
Pitt, Leonard, and Dale Pitt. 2000. Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County, pp. 319–320, 476. Robinson, W. W. 1948. Land in California, pp. 48–49, 109, 134. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Romo, Richard. 1983. East Los Angeles: History of a Barrio, p. 79. Austin: University of Texas Press. Sanchez, George J. 1993. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900–1945, p. 156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Santa Fe Springs Historical Committee. 1979. The History of Santa Fe Springs, pp. 7–8. Santa Fe Springs: Santa Fe Springs Historical Committee.
Takahashi, Keith. 1979. Montebello: U.N. of the Southeast. Los Angeles Times, September 23, p. SE1. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881–1987). Weaver, John D. 1973. L.A. El Pueblo Grande, pp. 12–17. Pasadena: Ward Ritchie Press.
Weber, Francis J. 2006. A History of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and its Precursor Jurisdictions in Southern California: 1840–2007. Strasbourg, France: Editions du Signe. Available at: Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School website: http://www.cshm.org.
Personal Communication
Mar, Jane. June 24, 2010—interview.
Nichols, Chris. May 24, 2010—email correspondence regarding matchbooks and menus.
Page 103
Revision 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report