4.C.2 Archaeological Resources 1

4.C.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. INTRODUCTION This section evaluates potential Project impacts on archaeological resources. The scope of work for the assessment included a cultural resource records search conducted through the California Historical Resources Information System (“CHRIS”), South Central Coastal Information Center (“SCCIC”); historical land use research; a Sacred Lands File (“SLF”) search commissioned through the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”); follow‐up Native American consultation; and a review of geotechnical investigations. Results of the SLF search are included in Appendix F‐2, Archaeological Resources Sacred Lands File Records Search Results.

Archaeology is the recovery and study of material evidence of human life and culture of past ages. Over time, this material evidence becomes buried, fragmented or scattered, or otherwise hidden from view. Archaeological resources can be identified during a field survey through direct observation and are often found through evaluation of secondary indicators, including the presence of geographic, vegetative, and rock features which are known or thought to be associated with early human life and culture, as well as knowledge of events or material evidence in the surrounding area. In urban areas such as the Project Site and environs, archaeological resources may include both prehistoric remains (before 1769 A.D.) and remains dating to the historical period (1769 to 1950 A.D.). Prehistoric (or Native American) archaeological resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that predate written records and are generally identified as isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, rock art, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, rock features, and burials. Historic archaeological resources can include refuse heaps, bottle dumps, ceramic scatters, privies, foundations, and burials and are generally associated in California with the Spanish Mission Period (after 1769) to the mid‐20th century of the American Period.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a. Existing Conditions (1) La Brea Tar Pits The La Brea Tar Pits are located approximately 656 feet (200 meters) east of the Project Site. This paleontological locality, also known as Rancho La Brea, is famous for containing one of the world’s richest deposits of Ice Age fossils preserved in asphalt‐rich sediments. The fossils provide a nearly complete record of life in the Los Angeles Basin between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago and characterize the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age. This diversified biota comprises of 60 different mammal species varying in size from the California pocket mouse to huge mammoths. An ecosystem consisting of reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, mollusks, insects, spiders, and plants including seeds and pollen have also been recovered from this location.1 These findings are described in more detail in Section 4.C.1, Paleontological Resources, of this Draft EIR.

The first documentation of the La Brea Tar Pits was by Gaspar de Portola in 1769, a Spanish explorer, who described them as “muchos pantanos de brea” which is translated as “countless bogs of tar” in English. Later

1 Seldon, Paul and John Nudds, Evolution of Fossil Ecosystems, 2004.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐1

4.C.2 Archaeological Resources August 2014 in 1792, Jose Longinos Martinez also recorded “. . . a large lake of pitch . . . in which bubbles or blisters are constantly forming and exploding.” By 1828, the area had become part of a Mexican land grant known as Rancho La Brea. During the 1860s and 1870s, the asphalt started to be commercially mined for road construction and it was during this time that animal bones started appearing. However, workers disregarded them as the remains of contemporary animals that had become trapped in the bogs. It was not until 1875 when Major Henry Hancock, the owner of the ranch, presented the tooth of a sabre‐toothed cat to William Denton of the Boston Society of Natural History, that the true age of the fossils started to be understood.2 As described below, the sticky tar (also known as asphaltum) from the La Brea Tar Pits was harvested by Native Americans for its adhesive properties.

(2) Prehistoric Background (13,500 Years Before Present to 1769 A.D.) Prehistoric archaeological resources identified in the greater urban Los Angeles area include remains with very old dates, such as the Los Angeles Man remains recovered in 1936 by Work Progress Administration workers digging a storm drain along the Los Angeles River. Radiocarbon dates have indicated an age greater than 20,000 years old, although a small amount of collagen tested from the remains makes the date suspect. The remains were found in association with mammoth bones, however, so the remains can be considered Pleistocene or early Holocene (i.e., 12,000 to 8,000 years before present) in age.3 One of the oldest sets of securely dated human remains discovered in North America, with an age between 13,000 and 13,500 years ago, were identified at Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island, which is located approximately 100 miles west‐northwest of the Project Site.4

(a) CA‐LAN‐159 (“La Brea Woman”) In 1914, the remains of La Brea Woman (or CA‐LAN‐159) were discovered at Pit 10 of the La Brea Tar Pits approximately six to nine feet below the ground surface.5 Speculations have been made that La Brea Woman was between 25 to 30 years old at death, although her age has not been scientifically confirmed.6 There have also been many attempts at dating La Brea Woman’s skeleton. In 1971, a bone collagen extract from La Brea Woman’s remains yielded a date of 9,000 Radiocarbon Years Before Present (“RYBP”); however; Erlandson suggests that these dates be regarded with caution given the problems with dating bone collagen and decontaminating samples from tar seeps.7 Several bones of Pleistocene fauna that exhibit possible butchering marks that were found associated with the remains should also be regarded with caution. A mano, shell beads, and extinct fauna are also known to have been discovered in association with the human remains. The shell beads were studied by Chester King in 1988 and he believes that they are similar to the ones found in Level 1 at the Malaga Cove site in the Santa Monica Bay which suggests that an early Holocene age (i.e., 12,000 to 8,000 years before present) for the remains is valid. Michael Moratto has also hypothesized that the extinct fauna (with different radio carbon dates of 12,650 RYBP and 15,200 RYBP)

2 Seldon, Paul and John Nudds, Evolution of Fossil Ecosystems, 2004. 3 Moratto, Michael J., California Archaeology, 1984. 4 Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris, Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by David R. Brown, Kathryn C. Mitchell and Henry W. Chaney, 2002, pages 541–545. 5 Heizer, R. F., DPR Site Form for CA‐LAN‐159, 1949. Record on file at the SCCIC. 6 Kennedy, G.E, A Note on the Ontogenetic Age of the Rancho La Brea Hominid, Los Angeles, California, Bulletin, Southern California Academy of Sciences 88(3): 123‐126, 1989. 7 Erlandson, Jon M., Early Hunter‐Gatherers of the California Coast, 1994.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐2

August 2014 4.C.2 Archaeological Resources which were discovered with La Brea Woman’s remains raise the possibility of a late Pleistocene human presence in the Los Angeles area.8 The remains of a domestic dog were also identified and analyzed more than seventy years after they were recovered from Pit 10 and are likely associated with La Brea Woman.9 Lastly, a wooden foreshaft (perhaps for an atlatl),10 dart shafts and a cogstone were recovered from Pits 61 and 67 of the La Brea Tar Pits.11

(b) Gabrielino In the Project Site vicinity, prehistoric archaeological resources are most likely to represent past occupation by the Gabrielino (or Gabrieleño, Tongva, or Kizh). The Gabrielino occupied territory that included the Los Angeles Basin, the coast of Aliso Creek in Orange City to the south to Topanga Canyon in the north, the four southern Channel Islands, and watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers. Their name is derived from their association with Mission San Gabriel Archangel which is located 14 miles east of the Project Site. The Gabrielino were not the first inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin, but arrived around 500 B.C. The language of the Gabrielino people has been identified as a Cupan language within the Takic family, which is part of the larger Uto‐Aztecan language family. Uto‐Aztecan speakers arrived in southern California in what is known as the Shoshonean migration, which current archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests originated in the Great Basin12 and displaced the already established Hokan speakers. The Gabrielino were advanced in their culture, social organization, religious beliefs, and art and material production. Class differentiation, inherited chieftainship, and intervillage alliances were all components of Gabrielino society.

At the time of European contact, the Gabrielino were actively involved in trade using shell and beads as currency. The Gabrielino were known for excellent artisanship in the form of pipes, ornaments, cooking implements, inlay work, and basketry. The Gabrielinos evolved an effective economic system which managed food reserves (storage and processing), exchanged goods, and distributed resources. Otherwise, few specifics are known of Gabrielino life ways. Data collected and presented by A. L. Kroeber in 1925 indicate that homes were made of tule mats on a framework of poles, but size and shape have not been recorded.13 Basketry and steatite vessels were used rather than ceramics; ceramics became common only toward the end of the mission period in the nineteenth century. The Gabrielino held some practices in common with other groups in southern California, such as the use of jimsonweed in ceremonies as did the Luiseño and Juaneño, but details of the practices and the nature of cultural interaction between the Gabrielino and other groups in southern California are unknown.

Population estimates are based solely on estimates gleaned from historical reports. There were possibly more than 100 mainland villages, Spanish reports suggested village populations ranged from 50 to 200

8 Erlandson, Jon M., Early Hunter‐Gatherers of the California Coast, 1994. 9 Reynolds, Richard L., Domestic Dog Associated with Human Remains at Rancho La Brea, Southern California Academy of Sciences 84(2): 76‐85, 1985. The domestic dog remains have not been radiocarbon dated. 10 A precursor to the bow and arrow, the atlatl was a prehistoric hunting tool formed out of a short dart with a point socketed into a longer shaft. A leather strap hooked at the far end allowed the hunter to fling the atlatl dart or spear over their shoulder at a target. 11 Heizer, R. F., DPR Site Form for CA‐LAN‐159, 1949. Record on file at the SCCIC. 12 The Great Basin is a desert region of the western United States comprising most of Nevada and parts of Utah, California, Idaho, Wyoming, and Oregon. 13 Kroeber, A. L., Handbook of the Indians of California, (reprinted 1976).

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐3

4.C.2 Archaeological Resources August 2014 people.14 Prior to actual Spanish contact the Gabrielino population had been decimated by diseases.15 The diseases were probably European diseases spread by early Spanish maritime explorers during coastal stopovers.

A map of Gabrielino villages was produced by William McCawley based on documents during the Portola expedition in 1769 and other ethnographic records. Among one of the closest Gabrielino sites to the Project Site is the village and sacred site of Kuruvungna, which is listed as a California Historical Landmark and is located approximately six miles west of the Project Site at the current location of the University High School. The second village closest to the Project Site is the village of Yang‐na, once situated at the current location of Los Angeles Civic Center, nearly seven miles east of the Project Site.

The Gabrielino used the sticky tar from the La Brea Tar Pits as glue for making weapons, vessels and jewelry, and as waterproofing for canoes and roofing.16 Before 1895, the currently known Wilshire Boulevard located immediately south of the Project Site was known as El Camino Viejo or “the old path”. The old path was the original trail established by the Gabrielino for the purpose of connecting their village of Yang‐na (located seven miles east of the Project Site) to the La Brea Tar Pits. Later in the 18th century, the Spanish were introduced to the La Brea Tar Pits by the Gabrielino and also became interested in using tar for roofing. It was more than 100 years later that El Camino Viejo would actually become Wilshire Boulevard. During the 19th century, El Camino Viejo was used to connect ranchos, barley farms, and sheep pastures with downtown Los Angeles. Although urban development grew rapidly in downtown Los Angeles, the Project Site and vicinity continued to be used for agricultural cultivation.17

Due to the relatively long history of urban development in the Project vicinity, the full extent and density of Gabrielino occupation of the immediate area are unknown. However, the known presence of two villages nearby, their use of the La Brea Tar Pits and El Camino Viejo, and CA‐LAN‐159, reveals that the area near the Project Site did have extended occupation by the Gabrielino and earlier prehistoric inhabitants.

(3) Historic Background (1769 to 1950 A.D.) A detailed historic period background and land use history is discussed in Section 4.C.3, Historical Resources, of this Draft EIR. In brief review, European contact with the Gabrielino that likely inhabited the Project Site and surrounding region began in 1542 when Spanish explorer, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, arrived by sea during his navigation of the California coast. Sebastian Vizcaino arrived in 1602 during his expedition to explore and map the western coast that Cabrillo visited 60 years earlier. In 1769, another Spanish explorer, Gaspar de Portola, passed through Gabrielino territory by land and interacted with the local indigenous groups. In 1771, Mission San Gabriel was established 14 miles east of the Project Site and it slowly integrated the Gabrielino from the surrounding region. El Pueblo de La Reina de Los Angeles (i.e., the modern day City of Los Angles) was established in 1781 approximately seven miles east of the Project Site near the Gabrielino village of Yang‐na. Spanish soldiers and missionaries continued to travel through the

14 Bean, Lowell J., and C. R. Smith, Gabrielino, in R. F. Heizer (editor) Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, 1978, pages 538‐549. 15 Tac, Pablo, Conversion de los San Luisenos de Alta California, Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Americanists, 1930. 16 Seldon, Paul and John Nudds, Evolution of Fossil Ecosystems, 2004. 17 See Appendix F‐3, Historical Resources Assessment Report, page 31, of this Draft EIR.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐4

August 2014 4.C.2 Archaeological Resources area on their way to visit various missions and outposts in the vicinity. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, some Spaniards who had worked at the missions began to set up what would later be known as the Ranchos. The Rancho era in California history was a period when the entire state was divided into large parcels of land equaling thousands of acres apiece. These large estates were ruled over in a semi‐feudal manner by men who had been deeded the land first by the Spanish crown, and later the Mexican government. In 1821 Mexico won independence from Spain and began to dismantle the mission system in California. As the missions began to secularize, they were transformed into small towns and most Gabrielinos would later be marginalized into reservations or into American society. It was during this time that Americans began to enter California. Many American Californians married into the Rancho families, a development that would transform land ownership in Mexican California. By the time the United States annexed California after the Mexican‐American War, much of the Rancho lands were already in the hands of Americans. Residential and commercial development of the immediate Project area was underway by the late nineteenth century.

(4) Resources Identified within the Project Site and Vicinity (a) Methods (i) Cultural Resources Records Search On June 17, 2013, PCR archaeologists conducted a cultural resource records search at the CHRIS‐SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton. This records search included a review of all recorded archaeological resources within a one‐half mile radius of the Project Site as well as a review of cultural resource reports and historic topographic maps on file. In addition, PCR reviewed the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register, the National Register, and the California State Historical Resources Inventory listings. The purpose of the record search is to determine whether or not there are previously recorded archaeological resources within the Project Site and surrounding vicinity that require evaluation and treatment. The results also provide a basis for assessing the sensitivity of the Project Site in regards to the potential for encountering additional archaeological resources.

(ii) Sacred Lands File Search and Follow‐up Native American Consultation On June 19, 2013, PCR archaeologists commissioned a SLF records search through the NAHC and conducted follow‐up consultation with Native American groups and/or individuals (on July 3, 2013) identified by the NAHC as having affiliation with the Project Site vicinity. Each Native American group and/or individual listed was sent a Project notification letter and map and was asked to convey any knowledge regarding prehistoric or Native American resources (archaeological sites, sacred lands, or artifacts) located within the Project Site or surrounding vicinity. The letter included information such as the Project location and a brief description of the Project. The purpose of the search and follow‐up consultation was to obtain information regarding the nature and location of additional prehistoric or Native American resources whose records may not be available at the CHRIS‐SCCIC.

(b) Results (i) Cultural Resources Records Search Results of the records search revealed that a total of 35 cultural resource studies have been previously conducted within the one‐half mile radius of the Project Site. Two of the 35 studies encompassed the Project Site and each study recommended archaeological monitoring during construction activities given the

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐5

4.C.2 Archaeological Resources August 2014 potential to encounter buried resources. A total of 13 cultural resources have been recorded within a one‐ half mile of the Project Site. Only one of these resources, P‐19‐173051, was identified within the Project Site. P‐19‐173051 is a built environment resource and includes the May Company Building which is discussed in Section 4.C.3, Historical Resources, of this Draft EIR. As discussed earlier, one prehistoric archaeological resource, CA‐LAN‐159, was identified approximately 1,000 feet (350 meters) east of the Project Site within the La Brea Tar Pits. One historic archaeological resource, CA‐LAN‐1261H, was identified approximately one‐quarter mile east of the Project Site in Hancock Park during excavation for fossil resources near the La Brea Tar Pits. CA‐LAN‐1261H is described as a refuse pit that dates to the late 19th or early 20th century that includes glass bottles, pottery, metal debris, horseshoes, mammal and fish bone, and may be associated with the Hancock family. It was identified approximately 2.5 feet (80 centimeters) below the ground surface.18 Another historic archaeological resource, P‐19‐002964, was encountered at depth during construction monitoring approximately one‐half mile north of the Project Site and is described as bottles, pottery, brick fragments, and other historic period material that date from the late 19th century to the 1930s.19 The remaining resources identified with a half‐mile radius of the Project Site include built environment resources that are discussed in Section 4.C.3, Historical Resources, of this Draft EIR.

(ii) Sacred Lands File Search and Follow‐up Native American Consultation Results of the SLF search through the NAHC did not indicate any known Native American cultural resources from the NAHC archives within the Project Site. The NAHC results letter is provided in Appendix F‐2 of this Draft EIR. The NAHC results also noted, however, that “the NAHC SLF inventory is not exhaustive; therefore, the absence of archaeological or Native American sacred places does not preclude their existence.” Pursuant to NAHC‐suggested procedure, follow‐up letters were sent via certified mail and email on June 21, 2013 to the ten Native American individuals and organizations (including Gabrielino contacts) identified by the NAHC as having affiliations with the Project Site or Project area, to request any additional information or concerns about Native American cultural resources that may be affected by the Project. As of August 12, 2013, no responses had been received from any of the Native American contacts. b. Regulatory Framework Summary The regulatory framework summarized below is described in detail in Appendix B, Regulatory Framework, Section 4.C.2, of this Draft EIR.

Archaeological resources are protected by State and local regulations and guidelines. The California Register establishes criteria for eligibility as a pre‐historic or historic property. For example, under Criterion 4, an archaeological resource is considered eligible for protection if it has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines include additional criteria to identify unique archaeological resources, such as being the oldest of its type or best example of its type. The City’s General Plan Conservation Element, identifies the importance of protecting significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during land development.

18 Salls, Roy, DPR Site Form for CA‐LAN‐1261H, 1986. Record on file at the SCClC. 19 Hale, Alice, DPR Site Form for P‐19‐002964, 2002. Record on file at the SCCIC.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐6

August 2014 4.C.2 Archaeological Resources

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS a. Methodology PCR’s archaeologists reviewed recent aerial photography and other photographic documentation of the Project Site to assess existing conditions. PCR’s archaeologists confirmed the absence of exposed native ground surface in the Project Site and therefore no archaeological pedestrian survey was undertaken as the current surface conditions were not conducive to having archaeological resources exposed on the surface. Therefore, the research described above was conducted in order to assess the potential for the Project Site to contain buried archaeological resources. b. Threshold of Significance Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following screening question to address impacts with regard to archaeological resources:

Would the project:

. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? . Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide incorporates the screening questions contained in Appendix G. In accordance with the City’s thresholds, the Project would normally have a significant impact upon archaeological resources if it could disturb, damage, or degrade an archaeological resource or its setting that is found to be important under CEQA because it:

. Is associated with an event or person of recognized importance in California or American prehistory or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory; . Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research questions; . Has a special or particular quality, such as the oldest, best, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; . Is at least 100‐years‐old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or . Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.

Based on these factors, the Project would have a significant impact on archaeological resources if it:

ARCH‐1 Disturbs, damages, or degrades an archaeological resource or its setting that is found to be important under the criteria of CEQA because it:

. Is associated with an event or person of recognized importance in California or American prehistory or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory;

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐7

4.C.2 Archaeological Resources August 2014

. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research questions; . Has a special or particular quality, such as the oldest, best, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; . Is at least 100‐years‐old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or . Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.

ARCH‐2 Disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. c. Project Characteristics If archaeological resources exist within the Project Site, they are likely to exist in native (i.e., undisturbed) sediments at depth, since previous development of the Project Site precludes the presence of resources on the surface and the potential to encounter archaeological resources in artificial fill is very low. Therefore, the focus of this evaluation is primarily on excavation that has the potential to encounter buried archaeological resources within native soils.

The Geology and Soil Discipline Report prepared for the Project and included in Appendix G of this Draft EIR indicates that, during soil boring operations at the Project Site, artificial fill was encountered at depths between one to eight feet below the ground surface. Below this thin artificial fill lies Pleistocene‐age Lakewood Formation alluvial materials consisting of stiff to very stiff clays and dense tar‐bearing sands saturated with hydrocarbons. Within the pore spaces of the Lakewood Formation is a natural hydrocarbon‐ rich, crude layer. As the hydrocarbons migrate upwards to the surface, they become more viscous through evaporation and alteration through biological processes, permeating the shallower sand deposits as asphalt and tar. Directly beneath the Lakewood Formation, in ascending order, are deeper alluvial sediments of the San Pedro Formation, followed by Tertiary‐age bedrock.

With construction of the Project, the existing basement under the May Company Building would remain and be re‐used, which could involve the installation of micropiles ranging between six to eight inches to support proposed new shear walls and elevator pits. The May Company Building’s existing basement is approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, and the micropiles would reach a maximum depth of 40 feet below the basement, meaning they could reach a depth of 55 feet below surface grade. For the Sphere, excavation for the concrete mat slab foundation would reach a depth of approximately 7 feet below existing grade, while augercast piles to support the mat slab foundation for the Sphere would reach a maximum depth of 100 feet below existing grade. Excavation to a depth of approximately 10 to 15 feet and a width of approximately 10 feet would also be required for the underground utility corridor between the Original Building and the Sphere. Because the thickness of artificial fill varies throughout the Project Site from one to eight feet deep, it is possible that excavation associated with these Project components could encounter native sediments with high potential for the presence of archaeological resources.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐8

August 2014 4.C.2 Archaeological Resources d. Project Impacts Threshold ARCH‐1: The Project would result in a significant archaeological resources impact if it disturbs, damages, or degrades an archaeological resource or its setting that is found to be important under the criteria of CEQA because it: . Is associated with an event or person of recognized importance in California or American prehistory or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory; . Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research questions; . Has a special or particular quality, such as the oldest, best, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; . Is at least 100‐years‐old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; . Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.

Impact Statement ARCH‐1: The Project has the potential to disturb, damage, or degrade a previously unknown important archaeological resource or its setting as the result of planned excavation in some areas of the Project Site underlain by native sediments. Although excavation would be limited, the overall sensitivity of the Project Site with respect to buried archaeological resources is considered high. Therefore, impacts on buried archaeological resources are considered to be potentially significant.

Given the identification of several known historic and prehistoric archaeological resources in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site (e.g., CA‐LAN‐159 and CA‐LAN‐1261H), the nearby La Brea Tar Pits that would have attracted prehistoric and historic inhabitants to the Project Site, the former existence of El Camino Viejo that was originally used by the Gabrielino, the Project Site has the potential to retain buried archaeological resources in native sediments. Since the Project would likely include excavations into native sediments for the installation of micropiles and augercast piles to support the mat foundation proposed for the New Wing, the Project has the potential to disturb, damage, or degrade a previously unknown important archaeological resource or its setting during implementation of the Project. However, as discussed above, excavations into native sediments are anticipated to be limited to the sites of specific deep foundation features, and to a lesser extent, an underground utility corridor. Therefore, although the impacts to buried archaeological resources are considered to be potentially significant, the potential for and magnitude of impacts on buried archaeological resources is considered low.

Threshold ARCH‐2: The Project would result in a significant impact if it would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Impact Statement ARCH‐2: The Project has the potential to disturb previously unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, since human remains (“La Brea Women”) have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, impacts on buried human remains are considered to be potentially significant.

As previously discussed, a SLF search of the Project Site requested of the NAHC in Sacramento failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the SLF database within the Project Site. The

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐9

4.C.2 Archaeological Resources August 2014

NAHC results also noted, however, that “the NAHC SLF inventory is not exhaustive; therefore, the absence of archaeological or Native American sacred places does not preclude their existence.”20 According to records examined at the CHRIS‐SCCIC, Native American human remains (i.e., CA‐LAN‐159) have been encountered at depth in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Although the Project would not disturb any known human remains, the Project has the potential to disturb previously unknown human remains during implementation of the Project since the Project would likely include excavations into native sediments. However, as discussed above, excavations into native sediments are anticipated to be limited and may not occur in some instances. Therefore, although the impacts to human remains are considered to be potentially significant, the potential for and magnitude of impacts is considered low. e. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant since the Project is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures MM‐ARCH‐1 through MM‐ARCH‐4 and regulations cited above in the event resources are found. These regulations include CEQA Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Furthermore, impacts on archaeological resources associated with the Project are considered less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures typically employed for development projects in the area on sites with sensitivity for such resources, as described above. As discussed above, excavations into native sediments are anticipated to be limited and may not occur in some instances. Therefore, although the impacts to buried archaeological resources is considered to be potentially significant, the potential for and magnitude of impacts on buried archaeological resources is considered low. Depending on the sensitivity of the related project sites, which are discussed and identified in Chapter 3.0, General Description of the Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR, mitigation measures would likely be required for discretionary projects that have the potential to cause significant impacts to undiscovered resources. Most, if not all, of the related projects are located in developed urban areas where the potential to encounter and have a significant impact on surface resources is unlikely. Since significant impacts to previously unknown buried resources would likely be limited to only those projects where construction activities involve excavation into native soils, most of the projects are likely to impact previously unknown buried resources. Furthermore, for those projects that may have potential for significant impacts, there is a reasonable expectation that if resources are encountered during construction they would be properly mitigated.21 Therefore, cumulative impacts on previously unknown buried resources from related projects are expected to be less than significant, and the Project’s incremental contribution to such impacts in light of the required mitigation measures would not be cumulatively considerable.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures have been prescribed to reduce potentially significant impacts on buried archaeological resources and human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries:

20 See Appendix F‐2, Archaeological Resources Sacred Lands File Records Search Results, of this Draft EIR. 21 For example, the Draft EIR for the proximate Museum Square Office Building project, February 2014 (Related Project No, 27), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement/EIR for the Metro Westside Subway Extension project, March 2012, both include comprehensive mitigation measures to address potential impacts on archaeological resources that will be implemented in association with required mitigation monitoring plans.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐10

August 2014 4.C.2 Archaeological Resources

MM‐ARCH‐1: The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for an archaeologist who shall be present during construction excavations such as grading, trenching, grubbing, or any other construction excavation activity associated with the Project. The frequency of monitoring shall be determined by the archaeological monitor based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered.

MM‐ARCH‐2: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground‐ disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the vicinity of the find. All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the archaeologist. The Applicant shall coordinate with the archaeologist and the City to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources if they are determined to be potentially eligible for the California Register or potentially qualify as unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource or preservation in place.

MM‐ARCH‐3: The archaeological monitor shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to the City, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, treatment of the resources, and evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register. The Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist and the City shall designate repositories meeting State standards in the event that archaeological material is recovered. Project material shall be curated in accordance with the State Historical Resources Commission’s Guidelines for Curation of Archaeological Collections.

MM‐ARCH‐4: If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during implementation of the Project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. 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 shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (“MLD”). The MLD may, with the permission of the Applicant, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the Applicant to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the Applicant shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the Applicant has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The Applicant shall discuss all reasonable options with the descendants regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐11

4.C.2 Archaeological Resources August 2014

Whenever the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the Applicant or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendants and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the Applicant, the Applicant or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM‐ARCH‐1 through MM‐ARCH‐4 would reduce potential impacts on archaeological resources and human remains to a less than significant level.

City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐12