Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
MAY 2019
PREPARED FOR Mateo Arts, LLC
PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants
This page intentionally left blank.
Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Prepared for
Mateo Arts, LLC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attn: Daniel A. Abrams and Sammi Shaaya
Prepared by
Chris Millington, M.A., RPA and Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA
SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 West Dayton Street Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 055465.00 SWCA CRRD Report No. 19-224
May 2019
Keywords: CEQA; tribal cultural sensitivity assessment; City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Arts District; 2018 E Bay St, 2016 E Bay St, 2010 E Bay St, 2006 E Bay St, 2006 1/2 E Bay St, 1000 S Mateo St, 1000 1/4 S Mateo St, 1010 S Mateo St, 1012 S Mateo St, 2023 E Sacramento St, 2023 1/2 E Sacramento St, 2019 E Sacramento St, 2019 1/2 E Sacramento St, 2015 E Sacramento St, 2015 1/2 E Sacramento St, 2011 E Sacramento St, 2009 E Sacramento St, 2007 E Sacramento St, 2005 E Sacramento St, 2001 E Sacramento St, 1026 S Mateo St, 1024 S Mateo St, 1020 S Mateo St, 1018 S Mateo St, 1014 S Mateo St; Los Angeles; Hollywood quadrangle; Township 1 South, Range 13 West, Section 9
Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope: Mateo Arts, LLC (the Applicant) retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to conduct a tribal cultural resources sensitivity assessment in support of the proposed 1024 Mateo Street Project located in the city of Los Angeles, California, within the Arts District neighborhood. The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed-income, eight-story mixed-use development containing approximately 106 Live/Work condominiums units and approximately 119,843 square feet of commercial space that includes 13,978 square feet of retail and 13,126 square feet of restaurant space (the Project). The Project site fronts along Mateo, Bay, and Sacramento Streets, and consists of 62,111 square feet (1.43 acres) of lot area. The following study addresses tribal cultural resources for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), but also including relevant portions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5024.1, 15064.5, 21074, 21083.2, 21084.1, and 21084.2. The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (City Planning) is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the Project. CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze whether a tribal cultural resource is present, supported by substantial evidence, and may be adversely affected by a proposed project. This report documents the methods and results of a confidential records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), sacred lands file (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and archival research used to evaluate the presence or likelihood (i.e., sensitivity) of tribal cultural resources within the Project site and to inform the analysis of potential impacts in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Dates of Investigation: On March 18, 2019 SWCA conducted a confidential search of the CHRIS records at the SCCIC on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. On April 25, 2019, SWCA received the results of a SLF search from the NAHC.
Summary of Findings: No tribal cultural resources were identified in a CHRIS records search within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius. The SLF records search did not identify any sacred lands or sites in the project site. The closest known sites with Native American-affiliated materials on file at the CHRIS are mapped in approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site, between the Los Angeles Plaza, Union Station, and MWD Headquarters building. The Gabrielino village known as Yaanga and several other important Historic-period Gabrielino sites (e.g., Pueblito. Rancheria de los Poblanos, and two unnamed rancherias) were located in the same approximate area, more than 1 mile from the Project site. The general proximity of the Project site to areas of known habitation, the river, and broad travel corridors has the effect of an overall increase in the sensitivity for unknown tribal cultural resources, particularly for the physical remains of temporary open camps. Such camps are typically identified by the presence of hearth features, ground stone and other types of artifact assemblages. Archival research indicated that at least by 1849, the Project site or at least portions were likely plowed and planted as a corn field. Subsequent development as a residential block between the 1890s and 1910s, and multiple episodes of redevelopment through the twentieth century would have displaced any former tribal cultural resources affiliated with Native Americans that were once present on the surface or near surface. This significantly reduces the sensitivity for the preservation of any tribal cultural resources within the Project site but does not preclude the potential for tribal cultural resources to be preserved as more deeply buried sites.
Soils within the Project site were assessed on the basis of samples taken for the Project and more generalized soil studies. Sediment profiles in the Project site are typical of deposits within the Los Angeles River floodplain and reflects a mixture of high- and low-energy deposition. Although subtle variations may exist within the alluvial substratum that were not distinguished here, which could have relevance for tribal cultural resource preservation potential, SWCA interprets the disturbances from flood events represented in the soil profiles as having a net reduction in the sensitivity for tribal cultural resources. To the extent that the proposed ground disturbance extends into undisturbed alluvial soils buried beneath previously disturbed
SWCA Environmental Consultants i Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California sediments, there may be some potential for preservation, but it is considered very unlikely for any tribal cultural resource to be present. Based on these considerations, SWCA finds a low potential for encountering tribal cultural resources within the Project site.
Conclusion: Ground disturbances for the project will occur during the proposed demolition, site preparation, and grading phases. Grading is estimated to require up to 25 feet of excavation below the surrounding street elevation that will extend into the underlying alluvial soils. The CHRIS search identified no previously recorded tribal cultural resources within the project site or 0.5-mile radius. An ethnographic literature review and archival research identified several former Native American communities located between 0.5 and 1.5 miles to the east-northeast of the project site, near the Los Angeles Plaza, Union Station, and eastern portions of the downtown area. The NAHC’s search of the SLF did not identify any sacred lands or sites. SWCA assessed the potential for an unidentified tribal cultural resource to be present below the surface that could be encountered during the proposed ground disturbing activities. The potential for unidentified tribal cultural resources within the project site is found to be low. The project is subject to the City’s standard condition of approval for the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources, which requires construction be halted and California Native American tribes be consulted on treatment. Though unlikely, if present, any unidentified tribal cultural resources have the potential to be significant under CEQA. However, based on the condition of approval, any potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, SWCA finds that the project will have less-than-significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Disposition of Data: The final report and any subsequent related reports will be submitted to Mateo Arts, LLC; the Los Angeles Department of City Planning; and the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton. Research materials and the report are also on file at the SWCA Pasadena Office.
SWCA Environmental Consultants ii Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... i
CONTENTS...... iii TABLES ...... iv FIGURES ...... iv APPENDICES ...... v
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1
REGULATORY SETTING ...... 2 STATE REGULATIONS ...... 2 Assembly Bill 52 ...... 2 California Register of Historical Resources...... 2 Treatment of Human Remains ...... 3
METHODS ...... 4 CHRIS RECORDS SEARCH ...... 4 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH...... 4 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ...... 4
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 5
CULTURAL SETTING ...... 6 PREHISTORY ...... 6 Prehistoric Overview ...... 6 ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW ...... 8 Native American Communities in Los Angeles ...... 9 HISTORY ...... 11 Spanish Period (1769–1822) ...... 11 Mexican Period (1822–1848) ...... 12 American Period (1848–Present) ...... 12 Los Angeles: From Pueblo to City ...... 13 Historical Development of the Arts District Neighborhood ...... 14 Historical Development of the Project Site ...... 16
RESULTS ...... 17 CHRIS RECORDS SEARCH ...... 17 Previously Conducted Studies ...... 17 Previously Recorded Resources ...... 21 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH...... 21
NATIVE AMERICAN COORDINATION ...... 22 SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH ...... 22
SWCA Environmental Consultants iii Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ...... 22
CONCLUSION ...... 23
REFERENCES CITED ...... 24
Tables
Table 1. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site ...... 17
Figures
Figure 1. Project site plotted on city map of Los Angeles...... A-1 Figure 2. Project site with associated parcels on a 2013 aerial and street map...... A-2 Figure 3. Former street addresses associated with each lot in the Project Site...... A-3 Figure 4. Project site and 0.5-mile records search radius plotted on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle...... A-4 Figure 5. Surficial geology from Bedrossian and Roffers (2012) and former courses of the Los Angeles River from Gumprecht (2001)...... A-5 Figure 6. Project site plotted on McCawley’s (1996:36) map of Gabrielieno placenames cited in ethongraphic sources...... A-6 Figure 7. Project site plotted on a map of Native American and historical sites in the Los Angeles Basin published by the Southwest Museum (1962) and re-printed in Johnston (1962)...... A-7 Figure 8. Project site plotted on the Kirkman-Harriman map (Kirkman 1938)...... A-8 Figure 9. Historical reference points associated with Gabrielino settlement in the downtown Los Angeles area...... A-9 Figure 10. Project site plotted on an appended draft of Hancock’s 1857 map, which was based on Ord’s original map of the City (Ord 1849). The parcel overlapped by the Project site was identified as a corn field in Ord’s original map. The colored property lines were added after 1857...... A-10 Figure 11. Bird’s eye view of Los Angeles facing southwest illustrated by E.S. Glover in 1877. The Project site is located in the area southwest of 7th and Alameda Streets...... A-11 Figure 12. Illustration of Los Angeles by H.B. Elliott in 1891 facing southwest showing the vicinity of the Project site and an early alignment of Zanja No. 1...... A-11 Figure 13. Project site plotted on the original plat for the City of Los Angeles, surveyed in 1858 by Henry Hancock and published in 1859. The city limits are outlined light red. The historic core—including the Los Angeles Plaza and pueblo site—are located in the center...... A-12 Figure 14. The project site plotted on Stevenson’s 1884 real estate map. The project site is in a parcel owned by Lorenzo Leck, and Zanja No. 1 is located directly within the Project site...... A-13 Figure 15. Project site plotted on an 1887 city map...... A-14 Figure 16. Project site plotted on USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles from 1894 to 2018. Note that Mateo Street was present but not included in the 1894 map...... A-15 Figure 17. Project site plotted on Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1900 to 1953...... A-16 Figure 18. Project site plotted on aerial photographs from 1927, 1930, 1938, and 1956...... A-17 Figure 19. Geophysical survey results (Feldman 2015)...... A-18
SWCA Environmental Consultants iv Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 20. [CONFIDENTIAL] Archaeological resources listed in the CHRIS and sites of historical significance described in ethnographic literature on the Gabrielino. Sources listed for each of the features on the map are cited in the legend...... B-1
Appendices
Appendix A. Report Figures Appendix B. Confidential Report Figures (Not for Public Distribution) Appendix C. Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search Results Letter
SWCA Environmental Consultants v Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
INTRODUCTION Mateo Arts, LLC (the Applicant) retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to conduct a tribal cultural resources sensitivity assessment in support of the proposed 1024 Mateo Street Project located in the city of Los Angeles, California, within the Arts District neighborhood. The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed-income, eight-story mixed-use development containing approximately 106 Live/Work condominiums units and approximately 119,843 square feet of commercial space that includes 13,978 square feet of retail and 13,126 square feet of restaurant space (the Project). The Project site fronts along Mateo, Bay, and Sacramento Streets, and consists of 62,111 square feet (1.43 acres) of lot area.
The following study addresses tribal cultural resources for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), but also including relevant portions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5024.1, 15064.5, 21074, 21083.2, 21084.1, and 21084.2. The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (City Planning) is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the Project. CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze whether a tribal cultural resource is present, supported by substantial evidence, and may be adversely affected by a proposed project. This report documents the methods and results of a confidential records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), sacred lands file (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and archival research used to evaluate the presence or likelihood (i.e., sensitivity) of tribal cultural resources within the Project site and to inform the analysis of potential impacts in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
SWCA Senior Archaeologist Chris Millington, M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), managed the project, co-authored the report, and prepared all figures. SWCA Staff Archaeologist Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA, conducted background research and co-authored the report. SWCA Principal Investigator Heather Gibson, Ph.D., RPA, provided additional review of the report. All non-confidential figures in the report are included in Appendix A; Appendix B contains confidential report figures; Appendix C contains the SLF results letter. Copies of the report are on file with the Applicant, City Planning, and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. All background materials are on file with SWCA’s office in Pasadena, California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is in the city of Los Angeles within the Arts District neighborhood, which is currently characterized with commercial and industrial properties (Figure 1). The Project site consists of 62,111 square feet (1.43 acres) of lot area and fronts along Mateo, Bay, and Sacramento Streets at the following addresses: 2001–2005 Sacramento Street, 1024 Mateo Street, and 2016 Bay Street. The County of Los Angeles Assessor’s Office lists the assessor parcel numbers (APNs) as 5166-011-012 and 5166-011-021, which contain lot numbers 73 and 75–84 (Figure 2). Figure 3 includes the former street addresses listed for each of the lots.1 This location is plotted in Section 9 of Township 1 South, Range 13 West as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hollywood, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 4).
The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed-income, eight-story mixed-use development containing approximately 106 Live/Work condominiums units and approximately 119,843 square feet of commercial space including 13,978 square feet of retail and 13,126 square feet of restaurant space. One level of subterranean parking will serve as a base for the building, which will require no more than 25 feet of excavation below the current grade. The site is currently occupied to the north by a single 17,400-square-
1 Prior to 1950, 2007 and 2011 E. Sacramento Street were listed as 2005 and 2009 E. Sacrament Street. Subsequent changes to the parcel and lots were associated with additional changes in street address that are not fully detailed in this report.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California foot industrial building used by MV Transportation for bus maintenance and offices, and a 4,800-square- foot structure used for storage. The remainder of the lot is paved with asphalt, which is used for parking, vehicle maintenance, and fueling, and includes some temporary structures. The Project proposes to demolish the extant buildings and asphalt, and excavate up to 25 feet below the current grade. REGULATORY SETTING State Regulations Assembly Bill 52 AB 52 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. Section 4 of AB 52 adds Sections 21074(a) and (b) to the PRC, which address tribal cultural resources and cultural landscapes. Section 21074(a) defines tribal cultural resources as one of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Section 1(a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on tribal cultural resources should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]). California Register of Historical Resources Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c), a resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:
▪ Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 2 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
▪ Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. ▪ Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. ▪ Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A site may be considered significant if it displays one or more of the following attributes: chronologically diagnostic, functionally diagnostic, or exotic artifacts; datable materials; definable activity areas; multiple components; faunal or floral remains; archeological or architectural features; notable complexity, size, integrity, time span, or depth; or stratified deposits. Determining the period(s) of occupation at a site provides a context for the types of activities undertaken and may well supply a link with other sites and cultural processes in the region. Further, well-defined temporal parameters can help illuminate processes of culture change and continuity in relation to natural environmental factors and interactions with other cultural groups. Finally, chronological controls might provide a link to regionally important research questions and topics of more general theoretical relevance. As a result, the ability to determine the temporal parameters of a site’s occupation is critical for a finding of eligibility under Criterion 4 (information potential). A site that cannot be dated is unlikely to possess the quality of significance required for CRHR eligibility or be considered a unique archaeological resource. The content of an archeological site provides information regarding its cultural affiliations, temporal periods of use, functionality, and other aspects of its occupation history. The range and variability of artifacts present in the site can allow for reconstruction of changes in ethnic affiliation, diet, social structure, economics, technology, industrial change, and other aspects of culture. Treatment of Human Remains The disposition of burials falls first under the general prohibition on disturbing or removing human remains under California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) Section 7050.5. More specifically, remains suspected to be Native American are treated under CEQA at CCR Section 15064.5; PRC Section 5097.98 illustrates the process to be followed if remains are discovered. If human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following procedure shall be observed:
▪ Stop immediately and contact the County Coroner: 1104 N. Mission Road Los Angeles, CA 90033 323-343-0512 (8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday) or 323-343-0714 (After hours, Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays) ▪ If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). ▪ The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. ▪ The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods. ▪ If the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the MLD may request mediation by the NAHC.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 3 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
METHODS The following section presents an overview of the methodology used to identify the potential for tribal cultural resources within the Project site. CHRIS Records Search On March 18, 2019, SWCA conducted a confidential search of the CHRIS records at the SCCIC on the campus of California State University, Fullerton, to identify previously documented cultural resources within a 0.8-km (0.5-mile) radius of the Project site, as well as any selectively chosen outside the radius to aid in the assessment of tribal cultural resource sensitivity. The SCCIC maintains records of technical studies and previously documented archaeological resources, including those that may be considered tribal cultural resources; it also maintains copies of the OHP’s portion of the Historic Resources Inventory.
Confidential CHRIS results include specific information on the nature and location of sensitive sites, which should not be disclosed to the public or unauthorized persons and are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The information included in a confidential CHRIS records search is needed to assess the sensitivity for undocumented tribal cultural resources and to inform the impact analysis. The search included any previously recorded archaeological resources that could be considered tribal cultural resources (i.e., excludes Historic-period resources not affiliated with Native Americans) within the Project site and surrounding 0.8-km (0.5-mile) area. Archival Research Concurrent with the confidential CHRIS records search, SWCA also reviewed property-specific historical and ethnographic context research to identify information relevant to the Project site. Research focused on a variety of primary and secondary materials relating to the history and development of the Project site, including historical maps, aerial and ground photographs, ethnographic reports, and other environmental data. Historical maps drawn to scale were georeferenced using ESRI ArcMAP v10.5 to show precise relationships to the Project site. Sources consulted included the following publicly accessible data sources: City of Los Angeles OHR (SurveyLA); City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (building permits); David Rumsey Historical Map Collection; Huntington Library Digital Archives; Library of Congress; Los Angeles Public Library Map Collection; Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps (Sanborn maps); USGS historical topographic maps; University of California, Santa Barbara, Digital Library (aerial photographs); and University of Southern California Digital Library.
In addition, SWCA reviewed technical reports prepared for the project, including a Site Characterization Report (Buchanan 2015), a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report (Mahmood 2015), geophysical survey (Feldman 2015), and a Phase II ESA Report (Johannes 2015). Both the Site Characterization Report and Phase II ESA Report included geophysical testing. The Site Characterization report involved four bore holes to a depth of 30.5 feet. The geophysical survey used magnetometers, conductivity meters, metal detectors, and ground-penetrating radar to identify subsurface features (Feldman 2015). Sensitivity Assessment In circumstances where a known tribal cultural resource has not been identified, no previous studies have been conducted, and subsurface testing is not feasible because of existing developments, the potential for an unidentified resource to be present (i.e., sensitivity) in the form of a buried site is assessed indirectly. That determination considers past land uses, broadly, and an assessment of whether the setting is capable of containing buried materials (i.e., preservation potential). Lacking any data evidence for the presence or
SWCA Environmental Consultants 4 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California absence of a tribal cultural resources below the surface, the resulting sensitivity is by nature qualitative, ranging along a spectrum of increasing probability for encountering such material, designated here as low, moderate, and high. In general, areas with a favorable setting for habitation or temporary use, soil conditions capable of preserving buried material, and little to no disturbances are considered to have a high sensitivity. Areas lacking these traits are considered to have low sensitivity. Areas with a combination of these traits are considered to have moderate sensitivity.
In assessing the sensitivity for tribal cultural resources, SWCA considers whether the location was favorable for Native American habitation. Indicators of favorable habitability for Native Americans are proximity to natural features (e.g., perennial water source, plant or mineral resource, animal habitat), other known sites, flat topography, and relatively dry conditions. Sensitivity for Native American-affiliated resources also considers Gabrielino ethnographic studies that describe the location of former Native American settlements, foraging and other indigenous land-use behaviors, as well as regional studies of archaeological site distribution.
Preservation potential for tribal cultural resources considers whether the physical setting is capable of containing buried materials and whether any such materials once present have been destroyed, removed, or otherwise not preserved at the location, either because of natural causes (e.g., erosion, flooding) or historical development. The preservation potential relies on an understanding of existing soil conditions and site history. In urban settings, site-specific soil conditions are obtained through geotechnical studies. More generalized information on existing soil conditions for a given location is also assessed on the basis of soil surveys and geologic studies. For areas in which there was intensive historical use that modified the surface and near-surface (e.g., from grading or large-scale excavation), or for areas where there is evidence that the preservation potential is poor, there is reduced sensitivity. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project site is in the Los Angeles Basin, a broad, level plain defined by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Santa Monica Mountains and Puente Hills to the north, and the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills to the south. This extensive alluvial wash basin is filled with Quaternary alluvial sediments deposited as unconsolidated material eroded from the surrounding hills. Several major watercourses drain the Los Angeles Basin, including the Los Angeles, Rio Hondo, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers. The Project site and vicinity are within a fully urbanized setting on an open aspect plain at an elevation of 74 meters (243 feet) above mean sea level. This site is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province and approximately 6 miles south of the Raymond Fault Zone. The Project site is on a broad alluvial plain with a slightly southern aspect, located south of the Santa Monica Mountains and west of the Los Angeles River.
The south-flowing Los Angeles River is currently located approximately 0.5 km (0.31 mile) east of the Project site; however, historically the channel has shifted courses several times during flood events, with the main channel shifting its location relative to the Project site twice in the last 100 years (Figure 5). The first recorded shift of the river occurred in 1815 when floodwaters overflowed the former channel, shifting the course, previously located to the east of the Project site, at least 0.8 km (0.5 mile) to the southwest, near the present route of North Spring Street, now west of the Project site. That flood destroyed structures built as part of the original Los Angeles Pueblo and is presumed to have also destroyed a Native American village site (Yaanga) also located north of the Project site (Gumprecht 2001:139–141). At that time and before 1825, the river flowed west within the Los Angeles Basin, discharging into the Ballona Wetlands along what is now Ballona Creek, near Santa Monica. Flooding in 1825 then produced the most dramatic shift historically observed in the river’s course as the newly formed channel overflowed its banks and shifted its course again, relocating the channel back east of the Project site, now flowing fully south and emptying into the bay near San Pedro. Subsequent shifts occurred along the braided streams within the broader, south-
SWCA Environmental Consultants 5 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California flowing flood plain. The Los Angeles River flooded multiple times, including a catastrophic flood in 1938. Flood events such as these can produce substantial deposits of alluvial sediments within the respective floodplains. Alluvial terraces formed where flooding water eroded into adjacent hillsides. In the downtown Los Angeles area, the backslopes in the location of Bunker Hill delineate the edge of the historical floodplain.
The earliest soil surveys of the area were conducted before 1920 as county-wide effort focused on agricultural productivity. The report from 1919 define the soils in the Project site as the Hanford loam series (Nelson et al. 1919:55). Hanford loam is described as varying between 12 and 72 inches deep, consisting of a brown, friably, light-textured, micaceous loam. While the soil unit generally lacked gravel inclusions, the study notes that small patches and low strips of gravel occur in the courses of streamways where flooding had occurred, as in an area north of Exposition Park in the former westward course of the Los Angeles River. Contemporary soil reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service still retain approximately the same description for the Hanford series. Other recent works published by the California Geological Survey synthesized previous studies of the surficial geology and designated a more detailed typology (Bedrossian and Roffers 2012; Bedrossian et al. 2012:16). According to the Bedrossian and Roffers (2012) map, the Project site falls within surficial deposits defined as Young Alluvial Valley Deposits (abbreviated Qya), which were created during the late Pleistocene and Holocene—after approximately 11,700 years ago and before approximately 1000 years ago. The Qya unit is further divided into subunits. The Project site is in the Qya2 subunit (Figure 5), defined for sediments deposited in the late Pleistocene. Qya soils generally consist of unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, undissected to slightly dissected clay, silt, sand, and gravel along stream valleys and alluvial flats of large rivers (the Los Angeles River). The spatial extent of the Qya unit generally correlates with the Hanford loam described in 1919.
Preliminary results of the geotechnical report prepared for the Project (in preparation) identified up to 2 feet of artificial fill in the Project site. Limited soil testing in the Project site was conducted in 2015 by Certified Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) as part of a Phase II ESA (Johannes 2015). The Phase II ESA also included a geophysical survey completed by Geovision Geophysical Services (GGS), which used magnetometers, high-frequency metal detectors, and ground-penetrating radar equipment to search for underground storage tanks (Feldman 2015). The GCS survey identified several surficial metallic objects and three sub-surface anomalies, none of which were considered to be consistent with a large underground storage tank (Feldman 2015). Further results of the geophysical survey are discussed below (see Results: Archival Research).
Anderson Environmental conducted additional soil testing in 2015 and summarized the results in a Site Characterization Report (Buchanan 2015). For their study, Anderson Environmental drilled four bores with six-inch samples taken at 5-foot intervals to a depth of 30 feet below grade. Bore logs completed for the sample locations characterized the soil composition at each of the sample depths. The sediment profiles identified multiple alluvial layers of fine-grained sand and silty sand, some with gravel inclusions, extending down to 10 to 30 feet. Below this the soil consisted of poorly graded sand. Three of the bores identified a stratum of decomposing granite mixed with sand between 15 and 25 feet below the surface. CULTURAL SETTING Prehistory Prehistoric Overview In the last several decades, researchers have devised numerous prehistoric chronological sequences to aid in understanding cultural changes in southern California. Building on early studies and focusing on data synthesis, Wallace (1955, 1978) developed a prehistoric chronology for the southern California coastal
SWCA Environmental Consultants 6 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California region that is still widely used today and is applicable to near-coastal and many inland areas. Four horizons are presented in Wallace’s prehistoric sequence: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. Although Wallace’s 1955 synthesis initially lacked chronological precision due to a paucity of absolute dates (Moratto 1984:159), this situation has been alleviated by the availability of thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by southern California researchers in the last three decades (Byrd and Raab 2007:217). As such, several revisions were subsequently made to Wallace’s 1955 synthesis using radiocarbon dates and projectile point assemblages (e.g., Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2002; Mason and Peterson 1994). The summary of prehistoric chronological sequences for southern California coastal and near-coastal areas presented below is a composite of information in Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968), as well as more recent studies, including Koerper and Drover (1983). HORIZON I: EARLY MAN (CA. 10,000–6,000 BC) The earliest accepted dates for archaeological sites on the southern California coast are from two of the northern Channel Islands, located off the coast of Santa Barbara. On San Miguel Island, Daisy Cave clearly establishes the presence of people in this area approximately 10,000 years ago (Erlandson 1991:105). On Santa Rosa Island, human remains have been dated from the Arlington Springs site to approximately 13,000 years ago (Johnson et al. 2002). Present-day Orange and San Diego counties contain several sites dating from 9,000 to 10,000 years ago (Byrd and Raab 2007:219; Macko 1998:41; Mason and Peterson 1994:55– 57; Sawyer and Koerper 2006). Although the dating of these finds remains controversial, several sets of human remains from the Los Angeles Basin (e.g., “Los Angeles Man,” “La Brea Woman,” and the Haverty skeletons) apparently date to the Middle Holocene, if not earlier (Brooks et al. 1990; Erlandson et al. 2007:54).
Recent data from Horizon I sites indicate that the economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering, with a major emphasis on aquatic resources in many coastal areas (e.g., Jones et al. 2002), and a greater emphasis on large-game hunting inland.
HORIZON II: MILLING STONE (6,000–3,000 BC) Set during a drier climatic regime than the previous horizon, the Milling Stone horizon is characterized by subsistence strategies centered on collecting plant foods and small animals. The importance of the seed processing is apparent in the dominance of stone grinding implements in contemporary archaeological assemblages, namely milling stones (metates) and handstones (manos). Recent research indicates that Milling Stone horizon food procurement strategies varied in both time and space, reflecting divergent responses to variable coastal and inland environmental conditions (Byrd and Raab 2007:220).
HORIZON III: INTERMEDIATE (3,000 BC–AD 500) The Intermediate horizon is characterized by a shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy, along with a wider use of plant foods. An increasing variety and abundance of fish, land mammal, and sea mammal remains are found in sites from this horizon along the California coast. Related chipped stone tools suitable for hunting are more abundant and diversified, and shell fishhooks became part of the toolkit during this period. Mortars and pestles became more common during this period, gradually replacing manos and metates as the dominant milling equipment and signaling a shift away from the processing and consuming of hard seed resources to the increasing importance of the acorn (e.g., Glassow et al. 1988; True 1993).
HORIZON IV: LATE PREHISTORIC (AD 500–HISTORIC CONTACT) In the Late Prehistoric horizon, there was an increase in the use of plant food resources in addition to an increase in land and sea mammal hunting. There was a concomitant increase in the diversity and complexity of material culture during the Late Prehistoric horizon, demonstrated by more classes of artifacts. The recovery of a greater number of small, finely chipped projectile points suggests increased use of the bow
SWCA Environmental Consultants 7 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California and arrow rather than the atlatl (spear thrower) and dart for hunting. Steatite cooking vessels and containers are also present in sites from this time, and there is an increased presence of smaller bone and shell circular fishhooks; perforated stones; arrow shaft straighteners made of steatite; a variety of bone tools; and personal ornaments such as beads made from shell, bone, and stone. There was also an increased use of asphalt for waterproofing and as an adhesive. Late Prehistoric burial practices are discussed in the Ethnographic Overview section below.
By AD 1000, fired clay smoking pipes and ceramic vessels were being used at some sites (Drover 1971, 1975; Meighan 1954; Warren and True 1961). The scarcity of pottery in coastal and near-coastal sites implies that ceramic technology was not well developed in that area, or that occupants were trading with neighboring groups to the south and east for ceramics. The lack of widespread pottery manufacture is usually attributed to the high quality of tightly woven and watertight basketry that functioned in the same capacity as ceramic vessels.
During this period, there was an increase in population size accompanied by the advent of larger, more permanent villages (Wallace 1955:223). Large populations and, in places, high population densities are characteristic, with some coastal and near-coastal settlements containing as many as 1,500 people. Many of the larger settlements were permanent villages in which people resided year-round. The populations of these villages may have also increased seasonally.
In Warren’s (1968) cultural ecological scheme, the period between AD 500 and European contact, which occurred as early as 1542, is divided into three regional patterns: Chumash (Santa Barbara and Ventura counties), Takic/Numic (Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside counties), and Yuman (San Diego County). The seemingly abrupt introduction of cremation, pottery, and small triangular arrow points in parts of modern-day Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside counties at the beginning of the Late Prehistoric period is thought to be the result of a Takic migration to the coast from inland desert regions. Modern Gabrielino, Juaneño, and Luiseño people in this region are considered the descendants of the Uto-Aztecan, Takic-speaking populations that settled along the California coast in this period. Ethnographic Overview The Project site is in an area historically occupied by the Gabrielino (Bean and Smith 1978:538; Kroeber 1925: Plate 57). Surrounding native groups included the Chumash and Tatataviam/Alliklik to the north, the Serrano to the east, and the Luiseño/Juaneño to the south. There is well-documented interaction between the Gabrielino and many of their neighbors in the form of intermarriage and trade.
The name “Gabrielino” (sometimes spelled Gabrieleno or Gabrieleño) denotes those people who were administered by the Spanish from Mission San Gabriel. This group is now considered a regional dialect of the Gabrielino language, along with the Santa Catalina Island and San Nicolas Island dialects (Bean and Smith 1978:538). In the post-European contact period, Mission San Gabriel included natives of the greater Los Angeles area, as well as members of surrounding groups such as Kitanemuk, Serrano, and Cahuilla. There is little evidence that the people we call Gabrielino had a broad term for their group (Dakin 1978:222); rather, they identified themselves as an inhabitant of a specific community with locational suffixes (e.g., a resident of Yaanga was called a Yabit, much the same way that a resident of New York is called a New Yorker; Johnston 1962:10).
Native words suggested as labels for the broader group of Native Americans in the Los Angeles region include Tongva (or Tong-v; Merriam 1955:7–86) and Kizh (Kij or Kichereno; Heizer 1968:105), although there is evidence that these terms originally referred to local places or smaller groups of people within the larger group that we now call Gabrielino. Nevertheless, many present-day descendants of these people have taken on Tongva as a preferred group name because it has a native rather than Spanish origin (King
SWCA Environmental Consultants 8 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
1994:12). The term Gabrielino is used in the remainder of this report to designate native people of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants.
The Gabrielino subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the tribe exploited mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Like that of most native Californians, acorns were the staple food (an established industry by the time of the Early Intermediate period). Inhabitants supplemented acorns with the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Freshwater and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, and insects, as well as large and small mammals, were also consumed (Bean and Smith 1978:546; Kroeber 1925:631–632; McCawley 1996:119–123, 128– 131).
The Gabrielino used a variety of tools and implements to gather and collect food resources. These included the bow and arrow, traps, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. Groups residing near the ocean used oceangoing plank canoes and tule balsa canoes for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands (McCawley 1996:7). Gabrielino people processed food with a variety of tools, including hammer stones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Blackburn 1963; Kroeber 1925:629; McCawley 1996:129–138).
At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Gabrielino religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and also taught the people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws (Kroeber 1925:637–638). The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built and may represent a mixture of native and Christian belief and practices (McCawley 1996:143–144).
Deceased Gabrielino were either buried or cremated, with inhumation more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast, and cremation predominating on the remainder of the coast and in the interior (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996:157). Remains were buried in distinct burial areas, either associated with villages or without apparent village association (Altschul et al. 2007). Cremation ashes have been found in archaeological contexts buried within stone bowls and in shell dishes (Ashby and Winterbourne 1966:27), as well as scattered among broken ground stone implements (Cleland et al. 2007). Archaeological data such as these correspond with ethnographic descriptions of an elaborate mourning ceremony that included a variety of offerings, including seeds, stone grinding tools, otter skins, baskets, wood tools, shell beads, bone and shell ornaments, and projectile points and knives. Offerings varied with the sex and status of the deceased (Dakin 1978:234–365; Johnston 1962:52–54; McCawley 1996:155–165). Native American Communities in Los Angeles The Project site is within the traditional territory of the Gabrielino (King 2004; McCawley 1996:36–40). In general, it has proven very difficult or impossible to establish definitively the precise location of Native American villages occupied in the Ethnohistoric period (McCawley 1996:31–32). Native American place names referred to at the time of Spanish contact did not necessarily represent a continually occupied settlement within a discrete location. Instead, in at least some cases, the communities were represented by several smaller camps scattered throughout an approximate geography, shaped by natural features subject to change over generations (see Johnston 1962:122). Many of the villages had long since been abandoned by the time ethnographers, anthropologists, and historians attempted to document any of their locations, at which point the former village sites were affected by urban and agricultural development, and Native
SWCA Environmental Consultants 9 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
American lifeways had been irrevocably changed. Alternative names and spellings for communities, and conflicting reports on their meaning or locational reference, further confound efforts at relocation. McCawley quotes Kroeber (1925:616) in his remarks on the subject, writing that “the opportunity to prepare a true map of village locations ‘passed away 50 years ago’” (McCawley 1996:32). Thus, even with archaeological evidence, it can be difficult to conclusively establish whether any given assemblage represents the remains of the former village site.
Although the precise location of any given village is subject to much speculation, it is clear the greater Los Angeles area once contained many Gabrielino villages, including several concentrated along the banks of major waterways and near the coast (Figure 6). This type of settlement pattern concentrated along waterways is reflected in historical maps published by the Southwest Museum (1962; reprinted in Johnston 1962) and George Kirkman (1938), shown here with the Project site plotted in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. Maps such as these convey a general sense of significant historical areas based on the geographic information available at the time and are considered as a representational depiction of these locations rather than explicit geographic points.
The closest ethnographically documented village to the Project site is Yaanga (alternative spellings and names include Yang-na, Yangna, and Yabit). Though the actual location is disputed, generally Yaanga is believed to have been located near present-day Union Station (McCawley 1996:57), approximately 2.7 km (1.7 miles) north northwest of the Project site (Figure 9)2. Historical records place Yaanga near Los Angeles’s original plaza, located near present-day Union Station. Historians and archaeologists have presented multiple possible village locations in this general area; however, like the pueblo itself, it is likely that the village was relocated from time to time due to major shifts of the Los Angeles River during years of intense flooding. Dillon (1994) presented an exhaustive review of the potential locations, most within several blocks of the pueblo plaza. Johnston (1962:122) concluded that “in all probability Yangna lay scattered in a fairly wide zone along the whole arc [from the base of Fort Moore Hill to Union Station], and its bailiwick included as well seed-gathering grounds and oak groves where seasonal camps were set up.” A second village, known as Geveronga, has also been described in ethnographic accounts as immediately adjoining the Pueblo of Los Angeles, though much like Yaanga, its location can only be inferred from ethnographic information (McCawley 1996:57).
Aside from the ethnographic evidence suggesting the location of these villages, little direct, indisputable archaeological evidence for the location of either village has been produced to date. Archaeological materials reportedly were unearthed during the construction of Union Station in 1939, and “considerably more” in 1970 during the rebuilding of the Bella Union Hotel on the 300 block of North Main Street (Johnston 1962:121; Robinson 1979:12). The preponderance of available evidence indicates that there were one or more early Historic-period Native American communities west of the Los Angeles River near the original pueblo site. This assumption is supported through several lines of ethnographic evidence, including the expedition journal of Fr. Juan Crespi and engineer Miguel Costansó, both of whom were associated with the 1769 Portolá expedition. The notes from these sources indicate the village was located between 2.0 and 2.4 km (1.3 and 1.5 miles) west-southwest from the Los Angeles River on high-level ground. The Pueblo of Los Angeles was documented to have been founded directly adjacent to this village. The location of Yaanga was also referenced by long-time Los Angeles resident Narciso Botello and Gabrielino
2 Historical points of reference relevant to the former Yaanga village site discussed in this section are depicted in Figure 7. The map also includes other ethnographically significant locations that are discussed in the previous section. These include the former courses of the Los Angeles River (as reported by Gumprecht 2001), the Los Angeles Plaza, former locations of the Aliso Tree and Bella Union Hotel, multiple locations of Yaanga described in various documents, and several rancherias occupied by Gabrielino during the Mexican and early Historic periods. The sites are plotted on a topographic prepared by Crandell (2010), which depicts historical contours and former stream courses, as well as elements of the built environment, including zanjas and city blocks that formed the “Lower District” (now downtown Los Angeles).
SWCA Environmental Consultants 10 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California consultant José María Zalvidea, who indicated that Yaanga was originally located adjacent to the original site of the Los Angeles plaza (Morris et al. 2016:112).
After the settlement of Los Angeles in 1781, Yaanga faced many new challenges because of its proximity to the new city. The history of the indigenous inhabitants after the incorporation of the City of Los Angeles is one of forced relocation and adaptation. The Native Americans who left the newly secularized mission lands and came to Los Angeles attempted to resettle near the original location of Yaanga, choosing a location near First and Los Angeles Streets called Rancheria de Los Poblanos. This rancheria existed for approximately 10 years, between 1826 and 1836, after which the indigenous population was again forced to relocate, to a plot of land near Commercial and Alameda Streets (Morris et al. 2016).
This rancheria existed for approximately another 10 years, between 1836 and 1845, during which nearby land owners attempted to forcibly relocate them to obtain more land for agricultural use. When they were finally successful, the Native American community was once again forced to relocate even further east, across the Los Angeles River to a site called Pueblito, which itself was razed in 1847, at which time legislation was passed to require the indigenous population to live in dispersed settlements or with their employers throughout the city. Other indigenous villages and community sites were present throughout the city concurrently with Rancheria de los Poblanos, including numerous smaller settlements along Commercial Street, and another Rancheria, Rancheria de los Pipimares, within downtown Los Angeles along 7th Street. History Post-contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish period (1769–1822), Mexican period (1822–1848), and American period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican–American War, signals the beginning of the American period, when California became a territory of the United States. Spanish Period (1769–1822) Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of southern California between the mid-1500s and mid-1700s. In search of the legendary Northwest Passage, Juan Rodríquez Cabríllo stopped in 1542 at present-day San Diego Bay. With his crew, Cabríllo explored the shorelines of present Catalina Island as well as San Pedro and Santa Monica bays. Much of the present California and Oregon coastline was mapped and recorded in the next half-century by Spanish naval officer Sebastián Vizcaíno. Vizcaíno’s crew also landed on Santa Catalina Island and at San Pedro and Santa Monica bays, giving each location its long- standing name. The Spanish crown laid claim to California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1886:96–99; Gumprecht 2001:35).
More than 200 years passed before Spain began the colonization and inland exploration of Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspar de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s Historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. With a band of 64 soldiers, missionaries, Baja (lower) California Native Americans, and Mexican civilians, Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego, a fortified military outpost, as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California. In July 1769, while Portolá was exploring Southern California, Franciscan Fr. Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá at
SWCA Environmental Consultants 11 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Presidio Hill, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823.
The Portolá expedition first reached the present-day boundaries of Los Angeles in August 1769, thereby becoming the first Europeans to visit the area. Father Juan Crespí, a member of the expedition, named the campsite by the river Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de la Porciúncula or “Our Lady the Queen of the Angeles of the Porciúncula.” Two years later, Fr. Junípero Serra returned to the valley to establish a Catholic mission, the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, on September 8, 1771 (Engelhardt 1927). In 1781, a group of 11 Mexican families traveled from Mission San Gabriel Arcángel to establish a new pueblo called El Pueblo de la Reyna de Los Angeles (“the Pueblo of the Queen of the Angels”). This settlement consisted of a small group of adobe-brick houses and streets and would eventually be known as the Ciudad de Los Angeles (“City of Angels”).
A major emphasis during the Spanish period in California was the construction of missions and associated presidios to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns, but just three pueblos were established during the Spanish period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles). Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. Mexican Period (1822–1848) After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants.
Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos.
During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities. American Period (1848–Present) War in 1846 between Mexico and the United States began at the Battle of Chino, a clash between resident Californios and Americans in the San Bernardino area. This battle was a defeat for the Americans and bolstered the Californios’ resolve against American rule, emboldening them to continue the offensive in later battles at Dominguez Field and in San Gabriel (Beattie 1942). However, this early skirmish was not a sign of things to come and the Americans were ultimately the victors of this two-year war. The Mexican– American War officially ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California and much of the present-day southwest, ushering California into its American period.
California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as U.S. territories. Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle
SWCA Environmental Consultants 12 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the southern California economy through 1850s. The Gold Rush began in 1848; with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides, but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom. Cattle were at first driven along major trails or roads such as the Gila Trail or Southern Overland Trail, then were transported by trains when available. The cattle boom ended for southern California as neighbor states and territories drove herds to northern California at reduced prices. Operation of the huge ranchos became increasingly difficult, and droughts severely reduced their productivity (Cleland 1941).
On April 4, 1850, only two years after the Mexican–American War and five months prior to California’s achieving statehood, Los Angeles was officially incorporated as an American city. Settlement of the Los Angeles region continued steadily throughout the Early American period. Los Angeles County was established on February 18, 1850, one of 27 counties established in the months prior to California’s acquiring official statehood in the United States. At that time, the city was bordered on the north by the Los Felis and the San Rafael Land Grants and on the south by the San Antonio Luge Land Grant. Many of the ranchos in the area now known as Los Angeles County remained intact after the United States took possession of California; however, a severe drought in the 1860s resulted in many of the ranchos being sold or otherwise acquired by Americans. Most of these ranchos were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns (Dumke 1944).
Ranching retained its importance through the mid-nineteenth century, and by the late 1860s, Los Angeles was one of the top dairy production centers in the country (Rolle 2003). By 1876, the county had a population of 30,000 (Dumke 1944:7). Los Angeles maintained its role as a regional business center, and the development of citriculture in the late 1800s and early 1900s further strengthened this status (Caughey and Caughey 1977). These factors, combined with the expansion of port facilities and railroads throughout the region, contributed to the impact of the real estate boom of the 1880s on Los Angeles (Caughey and Caughey 1977; Dumke 1944). By the late 1800s, government leaders recognized the need for water to sustain the growing population in the Los Angeles area. Irish immigrant William Mulholland personified the City’s efforts for a stable water supply (Dumke 1944; Nadeau 1997). By 1913, the City of Los Angeles had purchased large tracts of land in the Owens Valley, and Mulholland planned and completed the construction of the 240-mile aqueduct that brought the valley’s water to the city (Nadeau 1997).
Los Angeles continued to grow in the twentieth century, in part due to the discovery of oil in the area and its strategic location as a wartime port. The county’s mild climate and successful economy continued to draw new residents in the late 1900s, with much of the county transformed from ranches and farms into residential subdivisions surrounding commercial and industrial centers. Hollywood’s development into the entertainment capital of the world and southern California’s booming aerospace industry were key factors in the county’s growth in the twentieth century. Los Angeles: From Pueblo to City On September 4, 1781, 44 settlers from Sonora, Mexico, accompanied by the governor, soldiers, mission priests, and several Native Americans, arrived at a site along the Rio de Porciúncula (later renamed the Los Angeles River), which was officially declared El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora de los Angeles de Porciúncula, or the Town of Our Lady of the Angels of Porciúncula (Robinson 1979:238; Ríos-Bustamante 1992; Weber 1980). The site chosen for the new pueblo was elevated on a broad terrace 0.8 km (0.5 mile) west of the river (Gumprecht 2001). By 1786, the area’s abundant resources allowed the pueblo to attain self- sufficiency, and funding by the Spanish government ceased.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 13 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Efforts to develop ecclesiastical property in the pueblo began as early as 1784 with the construction of a small chapel northwest of the plaza. Though little is known about this building, it was located at the pueblo’s original central square near the corner of present-day Cesar Chavez Avenue and North Broadway (Newcomb 1980:67–68; Owen 1960:7). Following continued flooding, however, the pueblo was relocated to its current location on higher ground, and the new town plaza soon emerged.
Alta California became a state in 1821, and the town slowly grew as the removal of economic restrictions attracted settlers to Los Angeles. The population continued to expand throughout the Mexican period and on April 4, 1850, only 2 years after the Mexican–American War and 5 months prior to California earning statehood, the City of Los Angeles was formally incorporated. Los Angeles maintained its role as a regional business center in the early American period and the transition of many former rancho lands to agriculture, as well as the development of citriculture in the late 1800s, further strengthened this status (Caughey and Caughey 1977). These factors, combined with the expansion of port facilities and railroads throughout the region, contributed to the real estate boom of the 1880s in Los Angeles (Caughey and Caughey 1977; Dumke 1944).
Newcomers poured into the city, nearly doubling the population between 1870 and 1880, resulting in an increased demand for public transportation options. At the end of the nineteenth century numerous privately owned passenger rail lines were in place. Though early lines were horse and mule drawn, they were soon replaced by cable cars in the early 1880s and by electric cars in the late 1880s and early 1890s. Many of these early lines were subsequently consolidated into Henry E. Huntington’s Los Angeles Railway Company (LARy) in 1898, which reconstructed and expanded the system into the twentieth century and became the main streetcar system for central Los Angeles, identified by their iconic “yellow cars.” During this period, Huntington also developed the much larger Pacific Electric system (also known as the “red cars”) to serve the greater Los Angeles area. Just as the horse-and-buggy street cars were replaced by electric cars along the same routes, gas-powered buses (coaches) eventually served former yellow car routes. Both the red cars and LARy served Los Angeles until they were eventually discontinued in the early 1960s.
Los Angeles continued to grow outward from the city core in the twentieth century in part due to the discovery of oil and its strategic location as a wartime port. The military presence led to the growth in the aviation and eventually aerospace industries in the city and region. Hollywood became the entertainment capital of the world through the presence of the film and television industries and continues to tenuously maintain that position. With nearly 4 million residents, Los Angeles is the second largest city in the United States (by population), and it remains a city with worldwide influence that continues to struggle with its population’s growth and needs. Historical Development of the Arts District Neighborhood Maps and illustrations depicting pre-1880s Los Angeles capture an important, pre-industrial phase of the city’s history, before small farms gave way to residential, commercial, and industrial developments. These documents depict the Project site within what was, for most of the nineteenth century, one of several abutting agricultural properties—mostly vineyards, but also fruit and nut trees—located immediately south of the city’s historic core and west of the Los Angeles River (Figure 10–Figure 12). Farms in this area varied in size and shape—ranging up to approximately 50 acres with boundaries defined within a non-linear street grid—and were irrigated by water from Zanja Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. The 1880s population boom resulted quickly in the subdivision of these small farms into lots, which were sold for primarily residential and commercial properties.
Through the late 1890s and first decade of the twentieth century, the area showed signs of residential development within what is now known as the Arts District neighborhood. By 1906, the Project site was
SWCA Environmental Consultants 14 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California mostly developed—only two lots of the block remained undeveloped. The Wood and Iron Preserving Company and the Los Angeles Cooperage Company are among some of the industrial facilities nearby. However, larger scale industrial and commercial developments quickly came to define the area. The rapid industrialization of the neighborhood was heavily influence by its proximity to several railways and freight depots. Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railway, built in 1887, ran just east of the Project site along the Los Angeles River, while Southern Pacific Railway tracks ran along Alameda Street to the west. By 1906 a rail line extended west from the main AT&SF railroad through Sacramento Street, and another along the southern edge of Violet Street, splitting into eight different spurs by the time it reached Wilson Avenue. The City Council’s decision to create an industrial district between Main Street and the river, and subsequent zoning changes in the 1910s quickened the conversion of the area into a fully industrial sector, with few remaining residences and an increasing number of manufacturers establishing warehouses and other facilities (Bray and Strauss 2015). Smaller gauge railroad spurs were constructed along many of the smaller streets to connect each block to the primary rail lines. By the 1930s very few dwellings or residential buildings remained in the neighborhood otherwise characterized by commercial properties such as restaurants, drug stores, and general stores situated between industrial facilities. As is the case with several of the former dwellings once located in the Project site, many of the houses were relocated from the Arts District area to other locations in the city.
With the growth in automobile sales and the demise of Los Angeles’s public transportation system, many of the freight railroads and light-rail passenger trains gave way to the trucking industry, bus lines, and personal automobiles. The 2016 SurveyLA report on the Central City North Community Plan Area by the Historic Resource Group (HRG) describes the post-1950s development of the Arts District neighborhood as follows (footnotes in the original are converted here to in-text citations):
By the 1960s, however, the character of the area was evolving away from that of an industrial center. Industry on the whole struggled to adapt to the postwar challenges of containerization and other new technologies (Los Angeles Conservancy 2016). Railroads had given way to the trucking industry, and businesses in the area were constrained by the physical demands such methods placed on their operations. Furthermore, outlying fledgling industrial centers such as Vernon and the City of Commerce were comparatively undeveloped and offered plentiful land at lower prices, presenting many companies with an opportunity to relocate and construct newer and more efficient facilities (Miller 2014:28). As a result, by the 1970s many buildings in the industrial district were vacant.
However, the area found new life as artists and other creative types began to congregate amidst the vacant buildings and empty lots. Priced out of established artists’ colonies in neighborhoods such as Venice and Hollywood, Los Angeles’ industrial district provided many with an opportunity to live and work inexpensively in vast warehouse buildings (Los Angeles Conservancy 2016). Soon, the area was home to a number of avant-garde art galleries, giving rise to the group of early artists now called the “Young Turks” (Miller 2014). Many of the area’s most prominent industrial buildings found new life as gallery space and underground hangouts for a burgeoning art and music scene. In 1981, the City of Los Angeles implemented the Artist-in-Residence Program, which legalized the residential use of formerly industrial buildings for artists, legitimizing their efforts (Los Angeles Conservancy 2016). In the mid-1990s, the area was officially designated as the Arts District by the City. A subsequent wave of development began in 1999 with the passage of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance which relaxed zoning codes and allowed for the conversion of pre-1974 commercial and industrial buildings into residences for artists and non-artists alike (Los Angeles Conservancy 2016). (HRG 2016:14–15)
SWCA Environmental Consultants 15 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Historical Development of the Project Site The Project site is located within the original limits of the City of Los Angeles patent boundary and on the southern periphery the city’s historic core, centered around the pueblo site and plaza (Figure 10 and Figure 13). The first survey maps of the city were made first by Lieutenant E. O. C. Ord in 1849 and then updated and expanded by Henry Hancock and George Hanson in 1853 and 1857. According to these maps, the Project site is situated on what was the southern periphery of agricultural lands established in the Los Angeles River floodplain, outside the historic core (Figure 10). Although there is some margin of error when plotting these early survey maps on a contemporary street map, the Project site appears to have been located partially within or near a former agricultural plot identified on Ord’s map as a corn field, outside of which was undeveloped land within the floodplain. As discussed above, the agricultural fields were irrigated through a series of ditches known as zanjas, which were formally managed as part of a water conveyance system established by the Spanish.
With the transition from agricultural to urban setting, streets and property lines in this part of the city were partly established according to the boundaries of the former agricultural plots. For example, the northern edge of the agricultural field mapped near the Project site became 7th Street, and its western edge became a smaller arterial street known Lemon Street (now Wilson Street). By the mid-1800s the agricultural field in which the Project site is plotted on earlier maps was subdivided into two properties: a northern half owned by J. Kiefer, and a southern half, which includes the Project site, owned by Lorezo Leck, a German merchant who came to Los Angeles in 1849. The 1880s population boom in Los Angeles quickly manifested in the sale and subdivision of agricultural properties like Leck and Kiefer’s. The Project site was developed as part of the Hiscock and Smiths First Addition Tract. Sale of parcels within the Hiscock and Smiths First Addition Tract had commenced by 1900, at which point residential developments had already begun in the adjacent areas. Rowan and Koeberle’s 1886 city map shows the various lots delineated within the tract. The development of this tract established Sacramento and Bay Streets, which have remained in the same alignment to the present day.
Review of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, newspaper articles, building permits, and the City Directory document the development of the Project site as part of a residential block, before conversion to its use as a service station or truck yard from about 1891 to 1938. The first Sanborn Fire Insurance maps showing the Project site were published in 1900 and show five single-story dwellings located in Lots 78–82 and two detached structures at the back of Lots 80 and 79 (Figure 17). The construction dates for the dwellings are not known but based on review of the City Directories, it appears they were constructed as early as 1891. The Sanborn map from 1910 shows all but one of the lots in the Project site was developed with single- story dwellings, as were most of the lots in the block. Street car maps show the Project site being served by a line as early as 1910 that ran along Mateo Street as part of the Los Angeles Railway Company’s Santa Fe Avenue Line before becoming the “J” Line in 1920. All 14 of the residential buildings present in the 1910 Sanborn map were also still present in the 1921 when the Baist Real Estate map was published, but by 1927 the entire south half of the Project site was vacant and the northern half was almost entirely re-developed with commercial and industrial buildings (Figure 18). Several building permits approved in 1925 indicate that at least six of the dwellings were relocated. By 1930, Lot 78 (2016 Bay Street) contained the only dwelling in the Project site and was either relocated or demolished by 1938. Aerial photographs from 1927 to 1938 show that all but Lots 80, 82, and 84 remained largely vacant and unpaved (Figure 18); Lots 80, 82, and 84 were developed with what appear to have been six industrial buildings, plus a small restaurant located at 1010–1012 Mateo Street that Sanborn maps indicate was present at least until the mid-1950s.
In the early 1950s the Project site was developed as a storage, repair, and re-fueling yard for the Transfer Company. A certificate of completion was issued from the City in 1941 for a service station located at 2007 Sacramento Street, within Lots 81 and 83. The storage shed structure currently in the southeast corner of the Project site (Lot 73) can be seen in aerial photographs beginning in 1948. It was likely constructed
SWCA Environmental Consultants 16 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California around the same time the Project site was being redeveloped in the early 1940s, and was likely re-purposed for various uses throughout the history of the Project site. After 1950 storage buildings in Lots 80 and 82 and an auto shop in Lots 77 and 79 were demolished. By 1956 only the office building located in the northwest corner of the Project site (Lot 87, 1000 Mateo Street) and possibly the restaurant were the only remaining structures constructed before 1950. Between 1953 and 1958 a small office building was also present in the middle of the Project site (behind the restaurant). In the 1950s railway spurs had been constructed along Sacramento Street, south of the Project site, connecting to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company tracks along Alameda Street. In the early 1960s the service station was still in operation and an auto laundry facility was present in the southeastern portion of the Project site within Lots 73 and 75. RESULTS CHRIS Records Search Previously Conducted Studies Results of the records search at the SCCIC indicate that 37 cultural resource studies have been conducted within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the Project site. Only one of these studies, LA-13239—a map study of the zanja system—directly intersects the Project site but does not have any relevance to the analysis of tribal cultural resources. The results of this search are summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site
SCCIC Title Study Type Author: Affiliation Year Relationship Report to Project Number Site
Results of a Records Search Wlodarski, Robert J.: Phase Conducted for the Historical, LA- Literature Proposed Alameda Corridor Environmental, 1992 Outside 02577 search Project, Los Angeles County, Archaeological, California Research, Team The Results of a Phase 1 Wlodarski, Robert J.: Archaeological Study for the Historical, LA- Archaeological, Proposed Alameda Environmental, 1992 Outside 02644 Field study Transportation Corridor Project, Archaeological, Los Angeles County, California Research, Team Archaeological Literature and Records Review, and Impact LA- Literature Brown, Joan C.: RMW Analysis for the Eastside 1992 Outside 02788 search Paleo Associates, Inc. Corridor Alternatives Los Angeles, California Consolidated Report: Cultural LA- Archaeological, Anonymous: Peak & Resource Studies for the 1992 Outside 02950 Field study Associates, Inc. Proposed Pacific Pipeline Project Cultural Resources Impact LA- Greenwood, Roberta Mitigation Program Angeles Monitoring 1993 Outside 03103 S. Metro Red Line Segment 1 Addendum Report: Results of a Phase 1 Archaeological Study of Wlodarski, Robert J.: the Proposed Construction of the Historical, LA- Archaeological, Whittier Boulevard Shaft Site Environmental, 1995 Outside 03115 Field study East Central Interceptor Sewer Archaeological, Project, East-west Alignment, Research, Team Los Angeles County
SWCA Environmental Consultants 17 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Table 1. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site
SCCIC Title Study Type Author: Affiliation Year Relationship Report to Project Number Site An Archival Study of a Segment LA- Literature Anonymous: Peak & of the Proposed Pacific Pipeline, 1992 Outside 03813 search Associates, Inc. City of Los Angeles, California Environmental Impact Report: LA- Seismic Retrofit of Olympic Management/ Unknown: City of Los 1995 Outside 04044 Boulevard and North Broadway planning Angeles Bridges Over the Angeles River Sixth Street Viaduct Over Los LA- Angeles River Earthquake Architectural/ Ohara, Cindy L.: City 1989 Outside 04074 Damages - W.O. E6000000 historical of Los Angeles Determination of Effect Report Seismic Retrofit of Olympic LA- Architectural/ Boulevard Bridge Over the Los Lee, Portia n.d. Outside 04220 historical Angeles River Historic Property Survey Report for the Proposed Alameda LA- Corridor from the Ports of Long Starzak, Richard: Myra Other research 1994 Outside 04625 Beach and Los Angeles to L. Frank & Associates Downtown Los Angeles in Los Angeles County, California Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Proposed Ashkar, Shahira: LA- Archaeological, Fiber Optic Cable System Jones & Stokes 1999 Outside 04834 Field study Installation Project, Los Angeles Associates, Inc. to Anaheim, Los Angeles and Orange Counties Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Proposed Ashkar, Shahira: LA- Archaeological, Fiber Optic Cable System Jones & Stokes 1999 Outside 04835 Field study Installation Project, Los Angeles Associates, Inc. to Riverside, Los Angeles and Riverside Counties Negative Archaeological Survey LA- Archaeological, Storey, Noelle: Report - Highway Project 2000 Outside 04883 Field study Caltrans Description Cultural Resource Assessment LA- for Pacific Bell Wireless Facility Archaeological, Duke, Curt: LSA 2000 Outside 05430 Sm 003-02, County of Los Field study Associates, Inc. Angeles, Ca Cultural Resource Assessment LA- for Pacific Bell Wireless Facility Archaeological, Duke, Curt: LSA 2000 Outside 06348 Sm 003-02, County of Los Field study Associates, Inc. Angeles, California Cultural Resources Monitoring: Greenwood, Roberta LA- Northeast Interceptor Sewer Monitoring S.: Greenwood and 2003 Outside 06837 Project Associates City of Los Angeles Monumental Architectural/ McMorris, Christopher: LA- Bridges 1900-1950: Historic historical, JRP Historical 2004 Outside 07425 Context and Evaluation Evaluation Consulting Guidelines
SWCA Environmental Consultants 18 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Table 1. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site
SCCIC Title Study Type Author: Affiliation Year Relationship Report to Project Number Site Caltrans Historic Bridge Architectural/ McMorris, Christopher: LA- Inventory Update: Metal Truss, historical, JRP Historical 2004 Outside 07427 Movable, and Steel Arch Bridges Evaluation Consulting Request for Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the Architectural/ National Register of Historic Snyder, John W., LA- historical, Places/Historic Bridges in Stephen Mikesell, and 1986 Outside 08252 Evaluation, California: Concrete Arch, Pierzinski: Caltrans Other research Suspension, Steel Girder and Steel Arch Cultural Resources Records Search Results and Site Visit for Sprint Nextel Bonner, Wayne H. and LA- Telecommunications Facility Archaeological, Sarah A. Williams: 2006 Outside 08733 Candidate Ca8283e (van Wyck) Field study Michael Brandman 601 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Associates Angeles, Los Angeles County, California Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Bonner, Wayne H.: LA- Sprint Nextel Candidate Archaeological, Michael Brandman 2007 Outside 09110 LA73XC116B (Hardwood), South Field study Associates Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California Archaeological Resources Assessment and Evaluation of Strauss, Monica, LA- "Maintenance of Way" Building Candace Ehringer, and 2007 Outside 09271 for the Asphalt Plant No. 1 Street Angel Tomes: EDAW, Services Truck Route Project Inc City of Los Angeles, California Finding of Effect - 6th Street LA- Architectural/ Chasteen, Carrie: Viaduct Seismic Improvement 2008 Outside 10451 historical Parsons Project Historical Resources Evaluation LA- Smith, Francesca: Report - 6th Street Viaduct 2007 Outside 10452 Parsons Seismic Improvement Project Greenwood, Roberta Cultural Resources Monitoring: S., Scott Savastio, and LA- North Outfall Sewer - East Monitoring Peter Messick: 2004 Outside 10506 Central Interceptor Sewer Project Greenwood and Associates Preliminary Historical/ Archaeological Resources Study, Southern California Regional Rail LA- Authority (SCRRA) River Archaeological, Tang, Bai "Tom": CRM 2010 Outside 10638 Subdivision Positive Train Field study Tech Control Project, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
SWCA Environmental Consultants 19 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Table 1. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site
SCCIC Title Study Type Author: Affiliation Year Relationship Report to Project Number Site Cultural Resources Technical Carmack, Shannon Report for the Olympic and LA- Archaeological, and Cheryle Hunt: Mateo Street Improvements 2010 Outside 10789 Field study SWCA Environmental Project, City of Los Angeles, Los Consultants Angeles County, California Starzak, Richard, Alma Historic Property Survey Report Carlisle, Gail Miller, for the North Outfall Sewer-East LA- Catherine Barner, and Central Interceptor Sewer, City of Other research 2001 Outside 10887 Jessica Feldman: Myra Los Angeles, County of Los L. Frank& Associates, Angeles, California Inc. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funded Security Enhancement Project (PRJ29112359) - LA- Improved Access Controls, Archaeological, Speed, Lawrence: 2009 Outside 11048 Station Hardening, CCTV Field study URS Surveillance System, and Airborne Particle Detection at Los Angeles Station and Maintenance Yard, LA, CA Archaeological Monitoring Report Slawson, Dana N.: LA- - Asphalt Plant No. 1 Project, Monitoring Greenwood and 2011 Outside 11166 2484 East Olympic Boulevard, Associates Los Angeles, California Construction Phase Cultural Resources Monitoring and Management/ Horne, Melinda C.: LA- Treatment Plan for the City of planning, Myra L. Frank & 2000 Outside 11409 Los Angeles North Outfall - East Monitoring Associates Central Interceptor Sewer Project Grimes, Teresa, Architectural/ Jessica MacKenzie, LA- Los Angeles Wholesale Terminal historical, and Jessica Fatone: 2007 Outside 11618 Market Historic Resource Report Evaluation, Christopher A. Joseph Other research & Associates Westside Subway Extension Project, Historic Properties and Archaeological, LA- Daly, Pam and Nancy Archaeological Resources Field study, 2012 Outside 11642 Sikes: Cogstone Supplemental Survey Technical Other research Reports Rogers, Leslie: U.S. Final Environmental Impact Department of LA- Statement/Final Environmental Management/ Transportation 2012 Outside 11785 Impact Report for the Westside planning Fedreral Transit Subway Extension Admin. & LA County Metro Transit Authority Archaeological Survey Report for Archaeological, the 6th Street Viaduct Architectural/ Glenn, Brian and LA- Improvement Project City of Los Historical, Patrick Maxon: 2008 Outside 12586 Angeles Los Angeles County, Evaluation, BonTerra Consulting California Field study LA- Extent of Zanja Madre Map Only Gust, Sherri: Cogstone 2017 Within 13239
SWCA Environmental Consultants 20 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Previously Recorded Resources The CHRIS records search identified a total of five previously documented archaeological resources within a 0.8-km (0.5-mile) radius of the Project site. None of the sites include components that could be considered a tribal cultural resource. The closest sites that with physical remains that could be reliably associated with Native Americans are located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site, near Union Station and the MWD Headquarters building (Figure 203). These include four sites: P-19-00007, P-19-001575/H, P-19- 004662, and P-19-100515. Of these sites, only P-19-001575/H included a large and diverse assemblage of artifacts and features, which included human remains, in a location that largely retained its physical integrity. Archaeological data recovery was conducted for the site and the results were published by Goldberg et al. (1999). Although P-19-001575/H is in the purported location of the Gabrielino village known as Yaanga, Goldberg et al. did not identify conclusive evidence to support the association. Rather, scholarly research suggests Yaanga was likely located across a wide zone between the Los Angeles plaza and present-day Union Station, approximately 2.1 km (1.3 miles) north-northwest of the Project site. The materials identified at P-19-00007, P-19-004662, and P-19-100515 include only isolated artifacts recovered from settings subject to extensive disturbances, both from historical developments and flooding along the Los Angeles River, which posed significant constraints on the ability of the resources to provide important scientific information and contribute to our understanding of Native American lifeways. Archival Research Archival research concentrated on determining existing disturbances to the Project site that could influence tribal cultural resources preservation potential. Beginning at least by 1849, historical maps indicate the Project site or at least portions were likely plowed and planted as a corn field. The Project site and surrounding area was subsequent developed as a residential block between the 1890s and 1910s, which was then subject to multiple episodes of redevelopment through the twentieth century as the area transitioned into an industrial sector. With the exception of the structure currently located in the southeast corner of the Project site, all former buildings and structures in the Project site were demolished and the building that currently occupies the Project site was constructed.
The historical sequence of construction and demolition has altered the surface and near surface within the Project site. Geotechnical work conducted for the Project (currently underway) estimates up to 2 feet of artificial fill within the Project site. Variations likely exist in the depth of the Historic-period disturbances, which include several locations where sub-surface structures once existed or are still present. These are described in the Project’s Phase I ESA prepared by Environmental Managers & Auditors, Inc. (Mahmood 2015). The report identified extant and former buildings and structures associated with the historical uses, which included a wash rack with a clarifier, grease pit, above-ground storage tank, and at least two underground storage tanks (USTs). A 1975 grading permit for the storage tank backfill was approved but did not specify whether the tanks would be or already had been removed. The Phase I ESA concluded that additional work was required to assess the presence or absence of these subsurface structures, and a Phase II ESA and geophysical survey were conducted (Feldman 2015; Johannes 2015).
As a result of this work, the presence of several subsurface anomalies was identified and seemed to coincide with a previous service pump station, storage buildings, hydraulic hoists, and a grease pit (Figure 19). None of the anomalies were found to be consistent with the presence of any USTs, which seem to confirm that the USTs had been removed and backfilled when the 1975 permit was issued (Johannes 2015:3–4). The geophysical survey concluded that anomalies were reliably detected to a depth of 8 feet below grade, except
3 This figure contains confidential site location information that is included in a confidential appendix (Appendix B), which is excluded from public drafts of this report.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 21 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California where constraints prevented any investigation (Feldman 2015:5). Interpretations of the geophysical survey data and findings in the Phase II ESA with respect to tribal cultural resources sensitivity are discussed below (see Sensitivity Assessment). NATIVE AMERICAN COORDINATION Sacred Lands File Search On April 25, 2019, SWCA received the results of a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the NAHC. The NAHC letter indicated negative results. The NAHC letter is included in Appendix B. SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT No tribal cultural resources were identified in a CHRIS records search within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius. The SLF records search did not identify any sacred lands or sites in the project site. The closest known sites with Native American-affiliated materials on file at the CHRIS are mapped in approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site, between the Los Angeles Plaza, Union Station, and MWD Headquarters building. The Gabrielino village known as Yaanga and several other important Historic-period Gabrielino sites (e.g., Pueblito. Rancheria de los Poblanos, and two unnamed rancherias) were located in the same approximate area, more than 1 mile from the Project site.
The Project site is located in the floodplain of the Los Angeles River, which is currently located approximately 0.4 km (0.25 miles) to the east of the Project site. Shifts in the main channel of the Los Angeles River have occurred numerous times in recorded history, including two significant shifts in 1815 and 1825, the most recent which realigned the channel to its current location. The significance of the Los Angeles River to the Gabrielino is well-documented in ethnographic works and oral history. Waterways likely also influenced the location of footpaths and travel corridors used by foragers, increasing the likelihood that temporary camps may have been located within these travel corridors. The general proximity of the Project site to areas of known habitation, the river, and broad travel corridors has the effect of an overall increase in the sensitivity for unknown tribal cultural resources, at least higher than low background levels, particularly for the physical remains of temporary open camps. Such camps are typically identified by the presence of hearth features, ground stone and other types of artifact assemblages.
Additional criteria are required to distinguish levels of sensitivity for tribal cultural resource potential. Specifically, the scale of the Project site, land use history, depositional (soil) setting, and existing subsurface disturbances must also be considered and given weight in determining the sensitivity. Beginning at least by 1849, the Project site or at least portions were likely plowed and planted as a corn field. Subsequent development as a residential block between the 1890s and 1910s, and multiple episodes of redevelopment through the twentieth century would have displaced any former tribal cultural resources that were once present on the surface or near surface. This significantly reduces the sensitivity for tribal cultural resources within the Project site but does not preclude the potential for tribal cultural resources to be preserved as more deeply buried sites.
Tribal cultural resources can be preserved as deeply buried deposits that underlay Historic-period disturbances, particularly in Quaternary alluvium—soils deposited through flood events between 11,700 and 1000 years ago. It has been demonstrated elsewhere in the downtown portion of Los Angeles that deeply buried Native American archaeological sites can exist within alluvium below Historic-period disturbances and may also be intermixed with Historic-period debris. Alluvial deposits within the Los Angeles Basin can be massive, extending hundreds of feet below the surface, and may contain sediments deposited before human occupation of North America. Furthermore, most accumulations of alluvial sediments in the Los Angeles Basin were formed by a combination of high- and low-energy depositional
SWCA Environmental Consultants 22 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California events. High-energy events are less likely to have preserved any material remains left on the surface by Native Americans, while low-energy floods tend to produce more favorable environments for the preservation of cultural materials. Thus, low-energy Quaternary alluvial sediments have the greatest potential for preserving tribal cultural resources. There is no absolute measure of depth below the surface in which sediments with these properties occur and site-specific conditions must be considered. Also, such soil conditions are an indicator of a setting favorable for preservation, but the presence of soils with these properties is not an absolute indicator of tribal cultural resources presence.
Preliminary geotechnical work at the Project site reports up to 2 feet of artificial fill present within the Project site. Prior soil testing included four samples taken at 5-foot intervals to a depth of 30 feet below grade. The sediment profiles described multiple alluvial layers of fine-grained sand and silty sand, some with gravel inclusions, extending down to 10 to 30 feet. Below this the soil consisted of poorly graded sand. Three of the bores identified a stratum of decomposing granite mixed with sand between 15 and 25 feet below the surface. This is typical of deposits within the Los Angeles River floodplain and reflects a mixture of high- and low-energy deposition. Although subtle variations may exist within the alluvial substratum that were not distinguished here, which could have relevance for tribal cultural resource preservation potential, SWCA interprets the disturbances from flood events represented in the soil profiles as having a net reduction in the sensitivity for tribal cultural resources. To the extent that the proposed ground disturbance extends into undisturbed alluvial soils buried beneath previously disturbed sediments, there may be some potential for preservation, but it is considered very unlikely for any tribal cultural resource to be present.
Based on the above considerations, SWCA finds a low potential for encountering tribal cultural resources within the Project site. CONCLUSION The CHRIS search identified no previously recorded tribal cultural resources within the project site or 0.5- mile radius. An ethnographic literature review and archival research identified several former Native American communities located between 0.5 and 1.5 miles to the east-northeast of the project site, near the Los Angeles Plaza, Union Station, and eastern portions of the downtown area. The NAHC’s search of the SLF did not identify any sacred lands or sites.
Ground disturbances for the project will occur during the proposed demolition, site preparation, and grading phases. Grading is estimated to require up to 25 feet of excavation below the surrounding street elevation that will extend into the underlying alluvial soils. SWCA assessed the potential for an unidentified tribal cultural resource to be present below the surface that could be encountered during the proposed ground disturbing activities. Although the location near the Los Angeles River, south of a known area of habitation would have provided generally favorable setting for Native American use, prehistorically and during the Historic period, the existing disturbances from the agricultural, residential, and industrial development of the Project site, plus flooding events prior to these developments would have likely destroyed any tribal cultural resources that may have once been present. Although deeply buried deposits are possible, they are considered to have a very low probability of occurring within the Project site. As a result, the potential for unidentified tribal cultural resources within the project site is found to be low.
The project is subject to the City’s standard condition of approval for the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources, which requires construction be halted and California Native American tribes be consulted on treatment. Though unlikely, if present, any unidentified tribal cultural resources have the potential to be significant under CEQA. However, based on the condition of approval, any potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, SWCA finds that the project will have less-than- significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 23 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
REFERENCES CITED Altschul, Jeffrey H., John G. Douglass, Richard Ciolek-Torrello, Sarah Van Galder, Benjamin R. Vargas, Kathleen L. Hull, Donn R. Grenda, Jeffrey Homburg, Manuel Palacios-Fest, Steven Shelley, Angela Keller, and David Maxwell 2007 Life at the Nexus of the Wetlands and Coastal Prairie, West Los Angeles. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:34–42. Ashby, G. E., and J. W. Winterbourne 1966 A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County and Some of Its Coastal Areas. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1):5–52. Bancroft, Hubert Howe 1886 History of California, Volume 1, 1542-1800. The History Company Publishers, San Francisco, California. Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Beattie, George William 1942 Battle of Chino. The Quarterly: Historical Society of Southern California. 24(4):143–160. Bedrossian, Trinda L., CEG, and Peer D. Roffers 2012 Geological Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California Los Angeles 30’ × 60’ Quadrangle. CGS Special Report 217. California Geological Survey Bedrossian, Trinda L., Peter D. Roffers, Cheryle A. Hayhurst, Jermey T. Lancaster, and William R. Short 2012 Geological Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California. CGS Special Report 217. California Geological Survey Blackburn, Thomas 1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Annual Report, Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles. Brooks, Sheilagh, Richard A. Brooks, G. E. Kennedy, J. Austin, James R. Firby, Louis A. Payen, Peter J. Slota, Jr., Christine A. Prior, and R. E. Taylor 1990 The Haverty Human Skeletons: Morphological, Depositional, and Geochronological Characteristics. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12(1):60–83. Buchanan, Diana 2015 Site Characterization Report: 1024 Mateo Street; 2016 Bay Street; 2001, 2005, and 2025 Sacramento Street, Los Angeles, California 90021. Technical report prepared by Anderson Environmental.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 24 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab 2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215–228. Altimira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Caughey, John, and LaRee Caughey 1977 Los Angeles, Biography of a City. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Cleland, Robert Glass 1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-80. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Cleland, James H., Andrew L. York, and Lorraine M. Willey 2007 Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3. EDAW, Inc., San Diego, California. Crandell, John 2010 Homage to Downtown: In Search of Place and Memory in Ancient L.A. Visions of L.A., Los Angeles, California. Dakin, Susanna Bryant 1978 A Scotch Paisano in Old Los Angeles: Hugo Reid’s Life in California, 1832-1852 Derived from His Correspondence. Originally published 1939. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, United Kingdom. Dillon, B. D. 1994 Alameda District Plan, Los Angeles, California: Prehistoric and Early Historic Archaeological Research. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California, Historic Resources Information System, University of California, Los Angeles. Drover, Christopher E. 1971 Three Fired-Clay Figurines from 4-Ora-64, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 7(4):73–86. 1975 Early Ceramics from Southern California. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):101–107. Dumke, Glenn S. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California. Elliot, H.B. 1891 Los Angeles, Cal., population of city and environs 65,000. [map] Southern California Land Co., Los Angeles, California. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/75693095/. Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1927 San Gabriel Mission and the Beginning of Los Angeles. Mission San Gabriel, San Gabriel, California.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 25 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Erlandson, Jon M. 1991 Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. Colten, pp. 101–112. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi 2007 One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 53–62. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Feldman, Emily 2015 Geophysical Investigation at 2016 Bay Street, Los Angeles, California. Technical report submitted by GeoVision Geophysical Services. Glassow, Michael A., L. Wilcoxon, and J. M. Erlandson 1988 Cultural and Environmental Change During the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by G. Bailey and J. Parkington, pp. 64–77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Glover, Eli Sheldon 1877 Birds eye view of Los Angeles, California [Map]. Published by A. L. Bancroft & Co., San Francisco, California. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/75693093. Goldberg, Susan K., B.J. Adams, C. Denardo, S.A. Williams, M.J. Wyss, M.C. Robinson, S.L. Martin, M.S. Shackley, T.M. Oringer, J.L. McVicar, and Beta Analytic Inc 1999 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Headquarters Facility Project, The People of Yaanga?: Archaeological Investigations at CA-LAN-1575/H. Report prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. On-file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California Status University, Fullerton. Gumprecht, Blake 2001 The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Hancock, Henry 1857 Map of the City Of Los Angeles Showing the Confirmed Limits Surveyed in August 1857 by Henry Hancock U.S. Dep. Survey. Plan de la Ciudad De Los Angeles. Surveyed by E.O.C. Ord, Lt. U.S.A. and Wm. R. Hutton, Assistant, August 29, 1849. Donation Lots Surveyed by H. Hancock in August and April 1853, Geo. Hanson, Asst. Bancroft & Thayer, Los Angeles. 1859 Plat of the City Lands of Los Angeles. [map] Huntington Library, Solano-Reeve Collection. Unique Digital Identifier 313205. Hansen, George 1855 Los Angeles: Vigné Vineyard sold to Barela and Sainsevain. [map] Huntington Library, Solano-Reeve Collection. Unique Digital Identifier 313167.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 26 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Harrington, John P. 1942 Culture Element Distributions: XIX Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7(1):1–46. Heizer, Robert F. 1968 Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 74. Hoffman, Abraham and Teena Stern 2007 The Zanjas and the Pioneer Water Systems for Los Angeles. Southern California Quarterly 89(1): 1-22. Johannes, David 2015 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report for Commercial Property Located at 1024 Mateo Street, 2016 Bay Street, and 2001, 2005, and 2025 Sacramento Street, within the City of Los Angeles, California. Technical report submitted by Certified Environmental Consultants, Inc. Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. R. Brown, K. C. Mitchell, and H. W. Chaney, pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Johnston, Bernice E. 1962 California’s Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, California. Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Douglas J. Kennett, Charles Miksicek, John L. Fagan, John Sharp, and Jon M. Erlandson 2002 The Cross Creek Site and Its Implications for New World Colonization. American Antiquity 67:213–230. King, Chester D. 1994 Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California. Kirkman, George W. 1938 Kirkman-Harriman Pictorial and Historical Map of Los Angeles County 1860-1937 [Map]. Retrieved from Los Angeles Public Library Online Map Collection. Call Number 91.7941 L88Ki. Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34. Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson
SWCA Environmental Consultants 27 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–81. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6. Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Los Angeles Conservancy.
2016 The Arts District: History and Architecture in Downtown L.A. Retrieved from https://www.laconservancy.org (accessed April 2016). McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki-Ballena Press, Banning, California. Macko, Michael E. 1998 The Muddy Canyon Archaeological Project: Results of Phase II Test Excavations and Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at Archaeological Sites within the Crystal Cove Planned Community, Phase IV, Tentative Tract 15447, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Mahmood, Khalid 2015 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Property Located at 2025 Sacramento Street, 1024 Mateo Street and 2016 Bay Street (Also Includes 2001-2005 Sacramento Street) Los Angeles, CA 91402. Technical report submitted by Environmental Managers & Auditors, Inc. Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems–Analysis and Discussion, Vol. 1, part 1 of 2. Prepared by the Keith Companies. Copies on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215–227.
Merriam, Clinton Hart 1955 Studies of California Indians. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Miller, Lindsey 2014 Isolation and Authenticity in Los Angeles’ Arts District Neighborhood. Master’s thesis, University of Southern California. Moratto, M. J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 28 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Morris, Susan L., John R. Johnson, Steven J. Schwartz, René L. Vellanoweth, Glenn J. Farris, and Sara L. Schwebel 2016 The Nicoleños in Los Angeles: Documenting the Fate of the lone Woman’s Community. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36(1):91–118. Nadeau, Remi 1997 The Water Seekers. 4th ed. Revised. Crest Publishers, Santa Barbara, California. Nelson, James William, C.J. Zinn, A.T. Strahorn, E.B. Watson, and J.E. Dunn 1919 Soil Survey of the Los Angeles area, California. United States Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Soils. Newcomb, Rexford 1980 Architectural Observations (1822). In The Old Plaza Church, compiled and edited by Francis J. Weber, pp. 66–70. Libra Press Limited, Leicestershire, United Kingdom. Ord, E. O. C. 1849 Plan de la Ciudad De Los Angeles. Surveyed by E.O.C. Ord, Lt. U.S.A. and Wm. R. Hutton, Assistant, August 29, 1849. [Map] Owen, Thomas J. 1960 The Church by the Plaza: A History of the Pueblo Church of Los Angeles. The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly March:5–28. Ríos-Bustamante, Antonio 1992 Mexican Los Angeles: A Narrative and Pictorial History. Floricanto Press, Mountain View, California. Robinson, W. W. 1979 Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. University of California Press, Berkeley. Rolle, Andrew F. 2003 California A History. Revised and expanded 6th Ed. Harlan Davidson, Wheeling, Illinois. Rowan, V.J. and T.G. Koeberle 1887 Map of the City of Los Angeles. California. Compiled From Surveys Made By The City Surveyor During 1886, and from Records On File In The County Recorders Office. [map] Schmidt Label & Litho Co., San Francisco, California. Sawyer, William A., and Henry C. Koerper 2006 The San Joaquin Hills Venus: A Ceramic Figurine from CA-ORA-1405-B. In Contributions from Orange County Presented in Remembrance of John Peabody Harrington, edited by Henry C. Koerper, pp. 13–34. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 53. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 29 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Southwest Museum 1962 The Gabrielino Indians at the Time of the Portola Expedition. [Map] Los Angeles Public Library Online Map Collection. Call Number R 91.7941 L88Los. Stevenson, Henry J. 1884 Map of the City of Los Angeles, California [Map]. Huntington Library, Rare Book Maps Collection. Unique Digital Identifier 164406. True, Delbert L. 1993 Bedrock Milling Elements as Indicators of Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in Northern San Diego County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(2):1–26. Wallace, W. J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14, Portales, New Mexico. Warren, Claude N., and D. L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in California Prehistory. Archaeological Survey Annual Report for 1960-1961, pp. 246–337. University of California, Los Angeles. Weber, Francis J. 1980 Nuestra Señora de Los Angeles (1966). In The Old Plaza Church, A Documentary History, compiled and edited by Francis J. Weber, pp. 203–211. Libra Press Limited, Hong Kong. Women’s University Club of L.A. 1929 Los Angeles as It Appeared in 1871 [Map]. Issued by the Women’s University Club of L.A., California. Library of Congress Control No. 75690623.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 30 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Appendix A.
Report Figures
SWCA Environmental Consultants Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
This page intentionally left blank.
SWCA Environmental Consultants Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 1. Project site plotted on city map of Los Angeles.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 2. Project site with associated parcels on a 2013 aerial and street map.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-2 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 3. Former street addresses associated with each lot in the Project Site.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-3 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 4. Project site and 0.5-mile records search radius plotted on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-4 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 5. Surficial geology from Bedrossian and Roffers (2012) and former courses of the Los Angeles River from Gumprecht (2001).
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-5 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 6. Project site plotted on McCawley’s (1996:36) map of Gabrielieno placenames cited in ethongraphic sources.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-6 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 7. Project site plotted on a map of Native American and historical sites in the Los Angeles Basin published by the Southwest Museum (1962) and re-printed in Johnston (1962).
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-7 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 8. Project site plotted on the Kirkman-Harriman map (Kirkman 1938).
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-8 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 9. Historical reference points associated with Gabrielino settlement in the downtown Los Angeles area. The base map is a reconstruction of the late nineteenth century topography (gray contours) that includes former stream courses, irrigation channels (zanjas), and parcels composing the downtown “Lower District” (now downtown Los Angeles). Sources for the locations are indicated in the legend and footer.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-9 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 10. Project site plotted on an appended draft of Hancock’s 1857 map, which was based on Ord’s original map of the City (Ord 1849). The parcel overlapped by the Project site was identified as a corn field in Ord’s original map. The colored property lines were added after 1857.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-10 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 11. Bird’s eye view of Los Angeles facing southwest illustrated by E.S. Glover in 1877. The Project site is located in the area southwest of 7th and Alameda Streets.
Figure 12. Illustration of Los Angeles by H.B. Elliott in 1891 facing southwest showing the vicinity of the Project site and an early alignment of Zanja No. 2. The zanja alignment corresponds to the same approximate route depicted by Ord, Hancock, and Hanson’s survey maps. The Project site is located in the open space between the Los Angeles River and Alameda Street, south of 7th Street.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-11 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 13. Project site plotted on the original plat for the City of Los Angeles, surveyed in 1858 by Henry Hancock and published in 1859. The city limits are outlined light red. The historic core— including the Los Angeles Plaza and pueblo site—are located in the center.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-12 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 14. The project site plotted on Stevenson’s 1884 real estate map. The project site is in a parcel owned by Lorenzo Leck, and Zanja No. 1 is located directly within the Project site.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-13 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 15. Project site plotted on an 1887 city map. This map is an updated version of Rowan and Koeberle’s earlier 1886 map, showing the extensive development that occurred at the time. Zanja No. 1 can still be seen north of 7th Street but appears to longer exist within the Project site.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-14 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 16. Project site plotted on USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles from 1894 to 2018. Note that Mateo Street was present but not included in the 1894 map.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-15 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 17. Project site plotted on Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1900 to 1953.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-16 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 18. Project site plotted on aerial photographs from 1927, 1930, 1938, and 1956.
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-17 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Figure 19. Geophysical survey results (Feldman 2015).
SWCA Environmental Consultants A-18 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Appendix B.
Confidential Report Figure
[CONFIDENTIAL—NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION]
Archaeological and other heritage resources can be damaged or destroyed through uncontrolled public disclosure of information regarding their location. This appendix contains sensitive information regarding the nature and location of archaeological sites, which should not be disclosed to the general public or unauthorized persons and are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Code of Regulations Section 15120(d)).
SWCA Environmental Consultants Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
This page intentionally left blank.
SWCA Environmental Consultants Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
Appendix C.
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search Results Letter
SWCA Environmental Consultants Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1024 Mateo Street Project, Los Angeles, California
This page intentionally left blank.
SWCA Environmental Consultants STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Cultural and Environmental Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone: (916) 373-3710 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov Twitter: @CA_NAHC
April 25, 2019
Chris Millington SWCA
VIA Email to: [email protected]
RE: 1024 Mateo Street Mixed-Use Development Project, Los Angeles County
Dear Mr. Millington:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven Quinn Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Los Angeles County 4/25/2019
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Gabrieleno Covina, CA, 91723 Phone: (626) 926 - 4131 [email protected]
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 Gabrieleno San Gabriel, CA, 91778 Phone: (626) 483 - 3564 Fax: (626) 286-1262 [email protected]
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., Gabrielino #231 Los Angeles, CA, 90012 Phone: (951) 807 - 0479 [email protected]
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Bellflower, CA, 90707 Phone: (562) 761 - 6417 Fax: (562) 761-6417 [email protected]
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Charles Alvarez, 23454 Vanowen Street Gabrielino West Hills, CA, 91307 Phone: (310) 403 - 6048 [email protected]
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 1024 Mateo Street Mixed-Use Development Project, Los Angeles County.
PROJ-2019- 04/25/2019 09:15 AM 1 of 1 002417