JM Research and Consulting Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A. 4049 Almond Street, Suite 201 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone 951-233-6897 [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

DATE: April 5, 2021

TO: Eric Nelson Vice President of Community Development Trumark Homes 450 Newport Center Dr. #300 Newport Beach, CA 92660

FROM: Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A., Principal Historian/Architectural Historian

SUBJECT: Cultural Resources Survey for the Vita Pakt Project, Covina, Los Angeles County, California

Dear Mr. Nelson,

JM Research & Consulting (JMRC) completed a focused Cultural Resources Survey for the Vita Pakt Project, located at 707 N. Barranca Avenue (APN 8430-015-018), which proposes to construct 151 at-grade multi-family residential attached units and associated improvements on an approximately 6-acre site. Planned construction activities include over-excavation within building pad areas to a minimum depth of 5 to 7 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below planned footings, whichever is deeper, with a few, select areas of removal and re-compaction beyond the 5-foot minimum to a maximum of 15 feet.

The survey was requested by the City of Covina in compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Town Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR; November 2019) and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the Cultural Resources Survey was completed in compliance with the following Mitigation Measures (MM) for Cultural and Tribal Resources:

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, future development projects are required to prepare a Phase I Cultural Resources Technical Report in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation: Archaeological Resources Management Report Guidelines, with the purpose to assess, avoid, and mitigate potential impacts to archeological and tribal cultural resources as set forth in CEQA Regulations: Appendix G and as specified in the City of Covina Municipal Code 17.81.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, future development projects are required to conduct a paleontological record search, commissioned through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: Vertebrate Paleontology Section in order to assess and evaluate potential impacts to paleontological resources and unique geological features as set forth in CEQA Regulations: Appendix G and as specified in the City of Covina Municipal Code 17.81.

Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A., Principal Historian/Architectural Historian, JMRC, acted as Principal Historic Consultant and managed the study, which included consultation, coordination, and compliance applicable and relevant to cultural resources planning. Archaeological and paleontological investigation was subcontracted to Duke Cultural Resources Management LLC, (Duke CRM; Attachment A Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment). All staff involved in the research, identification, documentation, and evaluation meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (Attachments A& B).

The intensive-level survey was conducted in March 2021 in accordance with the Town Center MMRP and included record searches, archival research, and field survey. A paleontological records search at the LA County Museum of Natural History (NHMLA). In consultation with the City of Covina Community Development Department, due to ongoing COVID-19 restrictions and records search delays from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), internal archives and adjacent projects were reviewed for relevant background information on the Project. A Sacred Lands File Search at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was completed; scoping with tribes was not required under the Town Center Specific Plan EIR MMRP.

Cultural resources research, including archival and database searches, did not identify cultural resources within the Project Area. No archaeological deposits dating to either the historic or prehistoric period were discovered during the field survey. Due to the lack of significant historical resources in the Project Area and in the surrounding area, and the high level of disturbance observed during the field survey, the Project has a low sensitivity for intact archaeological resources. This in conjunction with the prior ground disturbance from the construction of the prior buildings on-site indicated that there is a limited potential for impacts to archaeological resources.

The NHMLA literature review and record search, additional research, and pedestrian survey did not produce any fossil localities within 3 miles of the Project Area. Survey work indicates a low sensitivity for paleontological resources in the young alluvial fan deposits that underlie the Project Area; therefore, it is unlikely that significant and unique paleontological resources will be impacted by the project during earth disturbing activities in this area.

One historic feature exposed during demolition of the Production Building along the southern end of the Project boundary was discovered during the field survey. The feature consists of two concrete walls with a concrete footing in the center that was likely used as a culvert to displace wastewater used for cleaning citrus fruits. Due to the deteriorated integrity of the culvert remnant and lack of potential to yield any important data, the feature was not documented on Department of Parks and Recreation forms (DPR 523 Series), and no further work is recommended.

The results of the Cultural Resources Survey do not indicate any further investigation or archaeological or paleontological monitoring during ground disturbance is recommended for this Project. As appropriate, and in compliance with the adopted MMRP for the Town Center Specific Plan EIR, monitoring should be initiated in the event that archaeological resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, or paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground disturbing activities in accordance to the Town Center Specific Plan EIR approved Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event that archaeological and/or cultural resources relating to Tribal Cultural Resources are unearthed during ground- disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities must be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet must be established around the find where construction activities cannot be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist examines the newly discovered artifact(s) and evaluates the area of the find. Work may be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities must be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards and is approved by the City of Covina. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals must be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring must be initiated. The Project Applicant must coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing, analysis, and curation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-5: In the event that paleontological resources or unique geological features are discovered during construction related activities, a qualified paleontological monitor shall observe all ground disturbing activities at all depths. The paleontological monitor will recover any significant fossil materials that would potentially be impacted by ground disturbing activities. To avoid construction delays, the paleontological monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils immediately as they are unearthed and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil vertebrates, in accordance with standards for such recovery established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP).

Monitoring of ground disturbance shall consist of the surface collection of visible vertebrate and invertebrate fossils within the project site. If recovery of a large or unusually productive fossil occurrence is warranted, earthmoving activities should be diverted temporarily around the fossil site and a recovery crew should be mobilized to remove the material as quickly as possible. The monitor shall be permitted to photograph and/or draw stratigraphic profiles of cut surfaces and take samples for analysis of microfossils, dating, or other specified purposes, in accordance with SVP protocols. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover smaller fossil remains. Once excavation has reached specified depths, salvage of fossil material from the sidewalls of the cut may resume. Specimens shall be identified and curated into a museum repository with retrievable storage.

Please contact me should you need any clarification or further assistance.

Regards,

Jennifer Mermilliod, Principal, JMRC

Attachment A

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Duke CRM

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment

Vita Pakt, Covina Project City of Covina, Los Angeles County, California APN 8430-015-018

Prepared for: Jennifer Mermilliod Jennifer Mermilliod Research & Consulting 4049 Almond Street, Suite 201 Riverside, California 92501

Prepared by: Edgar Alvarez, Curt Duke and Benjamin Scherzer Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC 18 Technology Dr., Ste. 103 Irvine, CA 92618 949-356-6660 www.dukecrm.com

Duke CRM Project Number: C-0356

March 2021

Per California Government Code 6254.10 archaeological site location information is exempt from the California Public Records Act. Therefore, archaeological site location information should be kept confidential and not be made available for public view.

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i ABBREVIATIONS ...... ii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... iii INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Project Description and Location...... 1 Research Design ...... 1 Regulatory Environment ...... 5 CEQA ...... 5 SETTING ...... 6 Natural...... 6 Young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) ...... 6 Cultural ...... 8 Prehistory ...... 8 Ethnography ...... 9 History ...... 9 METHODS ...... 10 Paleontological Research ...... 10 Cultural Resources Research ...... 11 Field Survey ...... 11 Personnel ...... 11 RESULTS ...... 12 Cultural Resources Research ...... 12 Field Survey ...... 13 IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 20 REFERENCES...... 21

Figures Figure 1. Project Vicinity ...... 2 Figure 2. Project Location (Baldwin Park USGS 7.5’ quadrangle) ...... 3 Figure 3. Project Aerial ...... 4 Figure 4. Project Geology ...... 7 Figure 5: Overview of Project area from southeast corner of Project boundary, view northwest...... 14 Figure 6: Overview of Project area from southwest corner of Project boundary, view northeast...... 14 Figure 7: Overview of Project area from eastern edge of Project boundary, view west...... 15 Figure 8: Overview of Project area from western edge of Project boundary, view east...... 15 Figure 9: Overview of Project area from northeastern corner of Project boundary, view southwest...... 16 Figure 10: Overview of Project area from northwest corner of Project boundary, view southeast...... 16 Figure 11: Overview of Project area from top northeastern corner of Project boundary, view southwest...... 17 Figure 12: Close up of sediment within the Project boundary, plan view...... 17 Figure 13: Overview of exposed concrete walls along the southern Project boundary, view southwest...... 18 Figure 14: Overview of exposed concrete walls along the southern Project boundary, view south...... 18 Figure 15: Overview of exposed concrete walls along the southern Project boundary, view southeast...... 19

Tables Table 1: Geologic Units and their Paleontological Potential ...... 6

Appendices Appendix A: Paleontological Records Search Results Appendix B: Resumes Appendix C: NAHC Results

i

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

ABBREVIATIONS AB-52 ...... Assembly Bill 52 B.A...... Bachelor of Arts B.P...... Before Present CRHR ...... California Register of Historical Resources CEQA ...... California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 CHRIS ...... California Historical Resources Information System City ...... City of Covina Client ...... Jennifer Mermilliod Research & Consulting DUKE CRM ...... Duke Cultural Resources Management EIR ...... Environmental Impact Report M.A...... Master of Arts M.S...... Master of Science MLD ...... Most Likely Descendant NAHC ...... Native American Heritage Commission NRHP ...... National Register of Historic Places PRC ...... Public Resources Code Project ...... Vita Pakt Project Qyf ...... Holocene young alluvial fan deposits SBCM ...... San Bernardino County Museum SCCIC ...... South Central Coastal Information Center TCR ...... Tribal Cultural Resources

ii

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE C R M ) is under contract to Jennifer Mermilliod Research & Consulting (Client) to provide cultural and paleontological resources services for the Vita Pakt Project (Project), located in the City of Covina, County of Los Angeles, California. The Project area is 6 acres and will consist of 151 homes which will be divided into 44 flex townhomes and 107 town/flat homes. The purpose of this report is to document identification efforts for cultural/paleontological resources as required by the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). The City of Covina (City) is the Lead Agency for CEQA.

The cultural and paleontological resources assessment includes records searches, archival research, and a field survey. Our research and pedestrian survey indicate that there is a low sensitivity for paleontological resources in the young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) that underlie the Project. Therefore, it is unlikely that significant and unique paleontological resources will be impacted by the project during earth disturbing activities in this area, and paleontological monitoring is not recommended for this Project.

The cultural resources research did not identify cultural resources within the Project. One historic feature was discovered during the field survey. This feature was exposed during the demolition of the no longer extant Production Building along the southern end of the Project boundary. The feature consists of two concrete walls with a concrete footing in the center that was likely used as a culvert to displace wastewater used for cleaning citrus fruits. Due to the deteriorated integrity of the feature and the lack of potential to yield any important data, the feature was not documented on Department of Parks and Recreation forms (DPR 523 Series). No further work is recommended.

Due to the lack of significant historical resources in the Project and the surrounding area, and the high level of disturbance observed during the field survey, the Project has a low sensitivity for intact archaeological resources. Further, no archaeological deposits dating to either the historic or prehistoric period were discovered. This in conjunction with the prior ground disturbance from the construction of the prior buildings on-site indicated that there is a limited potential for impacts to archaeological resources; therefore, archaeological monitoring is not recommended.

If the Project description changes additional studies may be warranted. If archaeological and/or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, work in the immediate area shall be suspended and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist retained to assess the nature and significance of the discovery. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

iii

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

iv

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

INTRODUCTION Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM) is under contract to Jennifer Mermilliod Research and Consulting (Client or JMRC) to provide cultural and paleontological resources services for the Vita Pakt, Covina Project (Project), located in the City of Covina, County of Los Angeles, California (Figures 1, 2, and 3).

Project Description and Location The Project, located at 707 North Barranca Avenue, proposes the development of approximately 151 at-grade multifamily residential units and associated improvements within a total site area of roughly 6 acres in a portion of APN 8430-015-018. Planned residential structures are anticipated to be wood- framed structures with relatively light building loads. It is expected that soils within building pad areas will be removed and recompacted to a minimum depth of 5 to 7 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below planned footing, whichever is deeper.

The Project is located near the center of the City of Covina in eastern Los Angeles County. The Project is bound to the south by existing commercial/industrial properties and the Southern Pacific Railroad, to the west by residential properties, to the north by commercial/industrial properties and Kelby Park, and to the east by North Barranca Avenue. The Project is located in the northeast ¼ of the southeast ¼ of Section 5, Township 1 South, Range 10 West as depicted on the USGS Baldwin Park, California 7.5’ Quadrangle (Figures 2 & 3).

Research Design The primary purpose of this report is to identify potential cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. Therefore, the research design and resulting methodology is to research various archives, and survey the Project to find and document cultural resources.

At the theoretical level, archaeological investigations are based on analysis of material items from past cultures. Because these cultural items are material, the basic model of the study is Cultural Materialism. The premise of Cultural Materialism links materials, as represented by those items in the archaeological record, to the patterned action of human behavior within specific environments (culture) (Harris 1968:659). We consider Cultural Materialism a basic premise encompassing all other assumptions.

The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) which requires that agencies consider impacts to cultural resources that are potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

Basic research questions include: 1. Are cultural resources located in the Project area? a. Are the conditions conducive to cultural resources within the Project area? b. What is the sensitivity of the Project location for cultural resources? c. What is the level of prior disturbance to the Project area? d. Are there cultural resources that may be impacted by the Project? e. What is the potential for buried cultural resources? 2. Should any cultural resources be considered potential historical resources for the purposes of CEQA, i.e., are they potentially significant and possess integrity? 3. What impacts will the proposed Project have on any potential historical resources? 4. What avoidance and/or mitigation measures can be implemented to decrease the level of impact to any potential historical resources?

1

Project Area

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 1 - Project Vicinity VitaPakt, Covina, C-0356 0 6 12 Miles Project Area 1 inch = 6 miles 1:360,000 ¯ K

R

S

A

A

P

M

I

N

I

D

W

N

D

A

L

S

A

B

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Figure 2 - Project Location VitaPakt, Covina, C-0356 Baldwin Park, Calif USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle 0 0.25 0.5 Date of Map: 1953 - Revised 1981 Miles T1S R10W Section 12 0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers ¯ Project Area USGS 7.5' Quads 1 inch = 2,000 feet 1:24,000 Figure 3 - Project Aerial VitaPakt, Covina, C-0356 0 150 300 Project Area Feet ¯ 1 inch =300 feet 1:3,600 &7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Regulatory Environment CEQA CEQA guidelines define a historical resource as a resource listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR. This includes cultural resources that have been determined eligible for a local register through a local historic resources survey. A resource may be considered potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the four criteria listed below:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values. 4. Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

To be considered a historical resource a cultural resource should also possess all or some of the elements of integrity including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. As used here, integrity is defined as the ability of a historical resource to convey its significance. To determine which of these factors are most important will depend on the property being evaluated and which particular CRHR criterion under which the resource is considered eligible for listing.

Furthermore, CEQA necessitates that the lead agency considers whether the project will significantly affect unique archaeological resources that may be ineligible for listing in the CRHR and to avoid these unique archaeological resources when possible or mitigate any effects to less than significant levels (PRC 21083.2). As stated by CEQA, a unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site which clearly demonstrates with a high probability that it meets, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(c)(4).) However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as tribal cultural resource (PRC 21074(c); 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.

With the adoption of Assembly Bill 52 (AB-52), CEQA has added a new category of resource, Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). The TCR is defined in PRC 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B). Potential impacts to a TCR shall be evaluated using the criterion as applied to a historical resource under CEQA. A TCR may include traditional cultural properties, which are associated with the cultural practices and beliefs of a living community that link that community to its past and help maintain its cultural identity. TCRs may also include archaeological resources, locations of historic events, sacred areas, sources of raw materials, sacred objects, or traditional hunting and gathering areas. Implementation of AB-52 is the purview of the Lead Agency. DUKE CRM was not requested or scoped to conduct this consultation.

CEQA also provides protection for paleontological resources if they represent “a unique paleontological resource or site” (Section V(c) of Appendix G). CEQA does not provide criteria for “unique,” but in their discussion of paleontological resources under CEQA, Scott and Springer (2003) establish five criteria for determining if a fossil or resource is scientifically significant:

5

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

1. The fossils provide data on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, both living and extinct; 2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein; 3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas; 4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; and/or 5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

SETTING Natural California is divided into 11 geomorphic provinces, each naturally defined by unique geologic and geomorphic characteristics (CDC 2002). The Project is located within the northwest portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is distinguished by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys following faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges are bound to the east by the Colorado Desert and extend north to the San Bernardino – Riverside county line, west into the submarine continental shelf, and south into Baja California (Norris and Webb 1976). The City of Covina is located in the northeastern San Gabriel Basin and is bounded to the southeast by the San Jose Hills. Geologically, the Project is situated upon young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) (Morton and Miller 2006) (Figure 4). Soil survey data indicates that the entire Project is urban land composed of the Palmview-Tujunga Complex. These two soil series are deep to very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium from granitic in fans that have slopes of 0 to as high as 15 percent (National Resource Conservation Service 2021).

Young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) Young alluvial fan deposits are composed of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand, and boulders from the Holocene Epoch (11,700 years ago to present) (Table 1).

The Project is located within the San Gabriel Valley, which is bordered by the San Gabriel Mountains on north, by the San Jose Hills on the east, by the San Rafael Hills on the west, and on the south by the Puente Hills. The elevation is approximately 475 feet above mean sea level. The heavily urbanized Project area is located within the Venturan-Angeleno Coast Hills ecoregion and vegetation prior to urbanization would have included annual grasslands, California sagebrush and buckwheat, sage, chaparral, and coast live oak. Climate is Mediterranean-like with mild annual temperatures and annual precipitation typically ranging between 14 to 26 inches. (Griffith et al. 2016).

Table 1. Geologic Units and their Paleontological Potential Paleontological Age Geologic Unit Fossils Present Sensitivity

Holocene Young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) none Low

6

Qyf

Figure 4 - Project Geology Project Area VitaPakt, Covina, C-0356 0 150 300 Geology from Morton and Miller (2006): Feet ¯ Qyf: young alluvial fan deposits, middle Holocene 1 inch =300 feet 1:3,600 &7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Cultural Prehistory Two of the many chronological sequences proposed for the prehistory of southern California regional syntheses are commonly used in the archaeological literature. The first, advanced by Wallace (1955), defines four cultural horizons for the southern California coastal province, each with characteristic local variations:

I. Early Man (~9000–8500 Before Present [B.P.]) II. Milling Stone (8500–4000 B.P.) III. Intermediate (4000–1500 B.P.) IV. Late Prehistoric (1500~200 B.P.)

The second common synthesis was developed by Warren (1968). It employs an ecological approach to the southern California region, defining five traditions in prehistory:

I. San Dieguito (10000–8000 B.P.) II. Encinitas (7500–1500 B.P.) III. Campbell (5000-1600 B.P.) IV. Shoshonean/Yuman (1300-200 B.P.) V. Chumash (1300-200 B.P)

Warren (1968) viewed cultural continuity and change in terms of various significant environmental shifts. Warren defined the cultural ecological approach for archaeological research used in the southern California region. Many changes in settlement pattern and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment. Regardless of either synthesis used to understand cultural change through time, prehistoric occupation of the region can be understood with the broad time periods, climatic information, and cultural manifestations, discussed below.

Early Holocene (11,600 – 8000 BP) Traditional models of the prehistory of California hypothesize that its first inhabitants were the big game hunting Paleoindians who lived at the close of the last ice-age (~11,000 years before present [B.P.]). As the environment warmed and dried, large Ice Age fauna died out, requiring adaption by groups to survive. In the coastal regions of California, the San Dieguito Tradition has been associated with lower ocean levels and plant communities similar to what they are now. The geographic distribution of human occupation is poorly known for this tradition where much of the data is largely drawn from one site in western San Diego County. Warren (1968) classified the material culture of this period as consisting of a wide variety of scraper types made on side-struck flakes, leaf shaped knives, large leaf shaped and lanceolate points, and chipped stone crescents.

Middle Holocene (8,000 – 4,000 BP) The Encinitas Tradition succeeded the San Dieguito Tradition in the Southern California Coast during the middle Holocene when ocean levels were lower, but rising, thus creating both rocky foreshores and bays and inlets at the mouths of streams. As ocean levels gradually rose, plant and animal resources changed. Warren (1968) postulated the populations began using tools related to collecting activities such as manos and milling stones. The presence of pinyon nuts, pinecones, and California hock seeds along with an abundance of shellfish indicate a well-developed collecting economy. On the Santa Barbara Coast, the introduction of the Campbell Tradition about 5000 B.P. marked a change in the use of hunting tools which were primarily used for hunting sea mammals, fishing, and collecting shellfish. Warren (1968) proposed that the Campbell Tradition is a combination of an inland tradition with developed hunting techniques and technologies with that of the well-developed collecting techniques and technologies from the Encinitas Tradition.

8

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Late Holocene (4,000 – 250 BP) In the southern California coasts during the late Holocene, the Shoshonean/Yuman and Chumash Traditions began around 1300 B.P. Th Chumash Tradition is marked by the introduction of fishhooks, spears, harpoons, and canoes (Warren 1968). Through efficient hunting and fishing techniques, the adaptation allowed the Chumash Tradition people to increase their population size and extend their effective environment. The Shoshonean Tradition in respect to ecological adaption remains unknown; however, the occupation of the Channel Islands indicates that the Shoshonean speaking maritime people adapted to maritime resources successfully. Many of the artifacts found in late sites both on the southern islands and the mainland are similar, if not identical, to that of the Chumash (Warren 1968). The Yuman Tradition can be distinguished from the Encinitas Tradition before it from traits which include pottery, small finely flaked points, drills, and scrapers. Yuman tradition collecting activities also played a major role while fishing and hunting was on a much smaller scale than on the Santa Barbara coast. The introduction of the bow and arrow and acorn processing increased food production that was not present in the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968).

Ethnography Gabrielino / Tongva The Project is located within the ethnographic territory of the Gabrielino or Tongva Indians. The Gabrielino are Takic-speakers and are descended from Late Prehistoric populations of the region. The name Gabrielino was given to the local inhabitants by Spanish Missionaries who established the San Gabriel Mission in Gabrielino territory in 1771. Important food resources would have been acorns, agave, wild seeds, and nuts, hunting game and fishing. Due to absorption into the Spanish mission system little is known concerning the details of the Gabrielinos’ political structure, social behavior, and cultural practices relative to other California Native American groups. Gabrielino villages were generally self-contained and had an autonomous political structure comprised of non- localized lineages, in which the largest and dominant lineage’s leader was usually the village chief. Village houses were domed, circular shaped structures, constructed from tree branches and thatched with tule, fern or carrizo. The villages would have been located near fresh water and raw material resources. Villagers would have utilized temporary camps throughout their localized territories for hunting, gathering, and raw material trips away from the main village (Bean and Shipek 1978).

Major Gabrielino villages or communities near the project area included Ashuukshanga to the north and Weniinga to the south. Weniinga was located within what is now the City of Covina. The word Weniinga means “one of the places where metates, etc., or anything is discarded as about an Indian camp”. Another word for Weniinga is Guinibut (McCawley 1996:45 citing Harrington 1986: R102 F323-324). Ashuukshanga was located near the mouth of the San Gabriel River Canyon and what was the entry to an important trade route between the San Gabriel valley, through the mountains to the Mojave Desert. Occupation of Ashuukshanga continued into the Spanish period, perhaps giving its name to the present-day City of Azusa, and warriors from this community likely participated in the happenings of Toypurina’s Revolt of 1785 as a response to the prohibition of traditional dances and ceremonies by the Spanish at the Mission San Gabriel (McCawley 1996).

History The historic era in California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).

Coastal California was subsumed under Spanish rule beginning in the 18th century. The first Europeans to encounter coastal California were the party of Portuguese explorer Juan Rodrigues Cabrillo, who claimed it for Spain in 1542. The first Europeans in the area were led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá, Spain’s first military governor of California in 1769 (Rolle 1963). The Portola Expedition encountered a pass through the Puente Hills and descended into present-day San Gabriel

9

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Valley. Soon after, the expedition moved northwest and camped near a large stream known today as the San Gabriel River. It was noted by Father Juan Crespi that a bridge or Puente was needed in order to cross the San Gabriel River, which gave the area its name. Created as one the many outlying ranchos operated by Mission San Gabriel, the Rancho La Puente, was established shortly after the Mission’s founding in 1771 (Bolton 1927).

The Mexican Period (1822-1848) began with Mexican independence from Spain and continued until the end of the Mexican American War (Starr 2005). The Secularization Act resulted in the transfer, through land grants (called ranchos), of large mission tracts to politically prominent individuals. At that time, cattle ranching was a more substantial business than agricultural activities, and trade in hides and tallow increased during the early portion of this period. Until the Gold Rush of 1849, livestock and horticulture dominated California's economy.

The American Period (1848-present) began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and in 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849– 1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by two years of extreme drought, which continued to some extent until 1876, altered ranching forever in the southern California area.

The early days of Covina began with a group of twenty-five emigrants known as the Rowland- Workman party who were making their way from Missouri and New Mexico on November 5, 1841 (Hoover et al. 2002). The men leading the expedition, John Rowland and William Workman, petitioned for land grants in California and received Rancho La Puente in 1845 by Governor Pio Pico (Hoover et al. 2002; Historic Preservation Partners 2007). One of the few conditions of the new grant was that the land be cultivated, and the owners build and reside in the house. Rowland and Workman complied and built adobes for themselves and experimented with a wide variety of crops for cultivation (Historic Preservation Partners 2007).

The identity and formation of Covina as a city is credited to Joseph Swift Phillips, an Ohio farmer, who moved to Los Angeles in 1879 after the death of his wife (Historic Preservation Partners 2007). Shortly after arriving in Los Angeles, Phillips’ wealth grew after establishing a renowned plow factory known as Bath and Phillips. In 1881, Phillips purchased two thousand acres of land from John E. Hollenbeck, which was originally part of Rancho La Puente, where he subsequently hired surveyor Fred Eaton. Fred Eaton, who was a city engineer and Mayor of Los Angeles, coined the term Covina and designed the 10-acre lots for Phillips. One hundred and twenty acres were allocated by Phillips to be developed into the town site, where present day downtown Covina is now located. Although 1886 is the recognized date for the founding of Covina, it was not until 1901 that the City of Covina was incorporated (Historic Preservation Partners 2007). From the early 1900s to as late as the 1950s Covina was known for its orange and grapefruit groves.

METHODS Paleontological Research The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA) performed a paleontological records search to locate fossil localities within and near the Project (Appendix A). In addition, Mr. Scherzer performed a search of the online University of California Museum of Paleontology and San

10

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Diego Natural History Museum collections, Paleobiology Database, FAUNMAP, and other published literature for nearby (within 3 miles) fossil localities in similar deposits.

Cultural Resources Research Due to ongoing COVID-19 restrictions and records search delays from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), DUKE CRM reviewed internal archives and adjacent projects for relevant background information on the Project. DUKE CRM contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a search of the Sacred Lands File. Additionally, the California State Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) was reviewed, which includes the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. DUKE CRM staff also reviewed historic aerials and topographic maps (NETR 2021; USGS 2021) as well as local online histories (City of Covina 2021).

Field Survey DUKE CRM conducted a reconnaissance pedestrian survey of the 6-acre project. The purpose of the survey is to identify any cultural/paleontological resources within the project, characterize the setting of the project, and field check any previously recorded cultural/paleontological resources discovered by the records search. Photo documentation of the Project was undertaken.

Personnel The project manager for this Project is Curt Duke. Mr. Duke is the Principal Archaeologist of DUKE CRM. Mr. Duke meets the professional qualifications of the Secretary of the Interior for prehistoric archaeology; he is also a Registered Professional Archaeologist who has worked in all phases of archaeology (archival research, field survey, testing and data recovery excavation, laboratory analysis, construction monitoring) since 1994. Mr. Duke holds a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree in Anthropology with an emphasis in archaeology from California State University, Fullerton, and a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in Anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Mr. Duke has worked throughout southern and Northern California and parts of Arizona and Nevada (see Appendix B. staff resumes).

Benjamin Scherzer is a coauthor of this report and reviewed the paleontological record search results. He holds a Master of Science in Earth Sciences from Montana State University, Bozeman. He has more than 10 years of experience in paleontological research, field surveys, fossil salvage, laboratory identification, report preparation, and curatorial experience. Mr. Scherzer is a member of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, Geological Society of America, Society for Sedimentary Geology, Paleontological Society, Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists, and Pacific Section of the Association of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. He is also trained in archaeological field methods and identification.

Edgar Alvarez is an archaeologist, GIS analyst, and cross-trained paleontological monitor with over four years of experience in southern California. Mr. Alvarez received his B.A. in Anthropology with a Minor in GIS from CSU, Northridge. Mr. Alvarez is proficient in GIS and specializes in ArcGIS software. He has worked in all phases of cultural resource management. From 2015 to 2016, he served as a collections volunteer at the UCLA Fowler Museum where he created, edited, and updated catalogs for accessions, completed osteological identification from on skeletal/faunal remains, and cataloged artifacts. Mr. Alvarez is also a member of both the Society for California Archaeology and the Society for American Archaeology.

11

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

RESULTS Cultural Resources Research A review of the Los Angeles County Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for the project location was conducted to examine if built environment resources are listed within the Project area. The BERD is a database that provides status information for non-archaeological resources in the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) inventory. The BERD lists no properties within the Project boundary or the project address (707 North Barranca Avenue) (OHP 2021).

In lieu of a formal records search at the SCCIC, DUKE CRM inspected archival information from nearby projects in the City of Covina. To the west of the Project, the Covina Bowl records search was conducted in 2019 by DUKE CRM and indicated that one previous cultural resource study has been conducted within a quarter-mile radius of the current Project area. The linear cultural resource study Preliminary Historical/Archaeological Resources Study, San Bernardino Line Positive Train Control Project, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino was conducted by Bai “Tom” Tang of CRM Tech in 2010. No cultural resources were noted within the Project area.

The results of the records search from the Covina Bowl project, indicated that there is one cultural resource located within a tenth of a mile radius of the current Project. This cultural resource, P19- 187085, is the potential location or vicinity of the Mojave Road, which existed between Fort Drum in Wilmington, California, and Fort Mojave, Arizona. This resource currently is the location of the historic and modern Southern Pacific Railroad approximately 150 feet south of the Project.

An inquiry to the NAHC was submitted to ascertain the presence of known sacred sites, Native American cultural resources, and/or human remains within the boundaries of the proposed Project. On March 10, 2021, the NAHC indicated that the search did not identify any sacred lands in or in the vicinity of the Project and recommended seven Tribes to consult (Appendix C).

Edgar Alvarez B.A., archaeologist at DUKE CRM conducted a review of on-line historical aerial photographs and historic USGS quad maps utilizing UCSB FrameFinder, historicaerials.com, and USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Review of aerial photographs from 1928, 1934, and 1938 (UCSB 2021) and historic topographic maps (USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer 2021) from 1894 to 1927 indicate that no structures were present within the Project, citrus orchards covered the Project boundary, the Southern Pacific Railroad was extant to the south, North Barranca Avenue to the east was a dirt road, and both San Bernardino Road and East Cypress Street were extant and paved. Additionally, the structures directly south of the Project were not developed.

Review of aerial photographs from 1948 (HistoricAerials.com 2021) indicate that most of the citrus orchards were removed from the Property, aside from a few along the northern and northeastern boundary. There are four structures present in 1948 in the southeast portion of the Project – three of the structures are in the same location as the easternmost portion of the present-day Production Building. One retention basin or wet pond is along the northern Project property line in the eastern portion, another in the central area of the southwest corner, and one along the eastern boundary of the northwestern portion. The structures south of the Project are extant. The Baldwin Park 1:24,000 scale map from 1953 shows an unnamed road south of the Project, citrus orchards to the west and north, structures north of the Project, but no structures within. Additionally, the 1953 aerial photograph shows that the wet ponds have been removed and two additional structures are present; one structure is the present-day Vita Pakt Main Office, and the other appears to be in the location of the westernmost portion of the Production Building.

By 1964, aerial photographs indicate that the structures within the central and eastern portions of the Project are under one roof: characteristic of the present-day configuration. The southern portion of

12

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06 the Project is paved, Barranca Avenue along the eastern boundary is paved, and the northwestern portion is undeveloped, vacant land. The land immediately north and east of the Property is vacant and graded, and orchards are no longer present. Land to the west has been developed with residential homes, and commercial structures are visible to the east and south. The 1972 aerial photograph shows very little change except the addition of the Freezer Building in the northwest portion of the Project area which is also seen in the Baldwin Park 1:24,000 scale map from 1972.

Research on the City of Covina’s webpage indicated that the area was not included in the geographic boundaries of the City’s historic survey by Historic Preservation Partners (2007) that focused on the town center. However, the research and context development of this study provided information used in this report regarding the historic development and growth of Covina within the region.

On March 3, 2021, the NHMLA completed a literature review and records search to locate fossil localities within, and in the vicinity of, the proposed Project. The search did not produce any fossil localities within 3 miles of the Project area. Further research did not produce any additional fossil localities documented within 3 miles of the Project area.

Field Survey The six-acre Project area was surveyed on March 11, 2021 by DUKE CRM archaeologist Edgar Alvarez. Access to the site was made via an alley along the southern end of the boundary. Roughly 40 percent of the Project had high surface visibility (75 -100%), 20 percent had moderate visibility (25 – 75%) and about 40 percent had low surface visibility (0 – 25%) (see Figures 5 – 16). Specifically, the western end of the project had low visibility due to the asphalt and architectural debris piles (concrete, brick, footings, steel pipes, wire, and rebar, etc.) from the active demolition of the site. The center of the project had moderate visibility but was obscured from some architectural debris and active heavy machinery on site. The eastern portion of the Project had high surface visibility as most of the pavement and buildings were removed exposing the sediment. The survey began in the southeast corner of the Project and was performed by walking transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart east to west. Digital photos were taken to document the Project area.

The topography of the Project was relatively flat with a gradual one to two percent slope rise west to east towards Barranca Avenue. Sediment in the Project consists of a 10YR 3/3 dark brown silty clay with fine silt and clay particle sizes (<.08mm) and less than 3 percent gravel density. Vegetation within the Project included eight citrus trees in the southwest corner and vegetation in the surrounding area consisted of ponderosa pines, palm trees, and various citrus trees.

During the survey, the Project was undergoing active demolition of the Production Building. Along the southern boundary of the Project, an excavator exposed about eight feet of sediment to remove the foundation and footing of the no longer extant Production Building. Two concrete walls with rebar and a cement footing in between the concrete walls were exposed. The length between the concrete walls was roughly 26 feet and the height of the walls were approximately 7 to 8 feet tall. The footing in the center was roughly 13 feet from both sides of the walls.

The rather low height of the pass-over and the location of the concrete walls suggest that the feature may have been used for water displacement such as a culvert. Given the Production Building was a citrus packinghouse, the packing sheds may have been used for cleaning the fruit and the wastewater was diverted through a culvert into a nearby drainage canal or other such feature possibly in the alley south of the building. Additionally, the concrete pad was elevated at some point by constructing a poured-in-place raised footing or footings. This feature is temporally ambiguous, it is unknown when it was constructed. Further the concrete and rebar construction are similar to construction methods used today. Further, it is largely destroyed and lacks integrity necessary for a cultural resource to be potentially significant. Lastly, given the abundance of packinghouses in the City, the feature is not

13

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06 considered significant or eligible for the CRHR and it was not documented on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation forms (DPR 523 Series). No other cultural resources were observed during the field survey.

Figure 5: Overview of Project area from southeast corner of Project boundary, view northwest.

Figure 6: Overview of Project area from southwest corner of Project boundary, view northeast.

14

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Figure 7: Overview of Project area from eastern edge of Project boundary, view west.

Figure 8: Overview of Project area from western edge of Project boundary, view east.

15

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Figure 9: Overview of Project area from northeastern corner of Project boundary, view southwest.

Figure 10: Overview of Project area from northwest corner of Project boundary, view southeast.

16

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Figure 11: Overview of Project area from top northeastern corner of Project boundary, view southwest.

Figure 12: Close up of sediment within the Project boundary, plan view.

17

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Figure 13: Overview of exposed concrete walls along the southern Project boundary, view southwest.

Figure 14: Overview of exposed concrete walls along the southern Project boundary, view south.

18

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Figure 15: Overview of exposed concrete walls along the southern Project boundary, view southeast.

19

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section addresses the Project’s potential to impact cultural and paleontological resources. Impacts to cultural resources are generally considered to be direct (e.g., destruction or demolition of a resource) or indirect (e.g., visual, audible, or cumulative changes to the setting). Under CEQA, cultural resources are evaluated for significance and eligibility for the CRHR. If a resource is considered eligible for the CRHR, it is considered a historical resource under CEQA. For the purposes of CEQA, impacts are only considered significant for historical resources.

Due to the lack of fossil material documented within three miles of the Project, the young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) underlying the Project are assigned a low paleontological sensitivity (see Table 1). Therefore, significant and unique paleontological resources are unlikely to be impacted by the project during ground disturbing activities, and paleontological monitoring is not recommended for this Project.

If a fossil or suspected fossil is encountered during earthmoving activities, the following steps will be taken:

1) The fossil(s) or suspected fossil(s) will not be touched, moved, or disturbed in any way. 2) The paleontological monitor will notify the construction manager/foreman and the Project paleontologist. 3) Work will stop in the immediate area, and within a minimum of 20 feet around the fossil site. 4) The 20-foot buffer will be marked with brightly colored caution tape to make sure no one else disturbs the fossil site. 5) The Project paleontologist will examine the fossil site, determination of significance under CEQA. 6) The Project paleontologist will contact the Client, who will contact the City. 7) The Project paleontologist will inform the construction foreman when it is okay to resume work in the area.

The culvert feature identified during the field survey is not considered significant or eligible for the CRHR. Further, no archaeological deposits dating to either the historic or prehistoric period were discovered. This in conjunction with the prior ground disturbance from the construction of the prior buildings on-site indicated that there is a limited potential for impacts to archaeological resources; therefore, archaeological monitoring is not recommended.

If the Project description changes additional studies may be warranted. If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess the nature and significance of the discovery. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

20

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

REFERENCES

Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek. 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, Washington, DC.

Bolton, Herbert E. 1927 Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast, 1769 – 1774. HathiTrust Digital Library. pp. 139-140, 270. Retrieved March 23, 2021.

California Department of Conservation (CDC) 2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geological Survey, Note 36.

City of Covina 2021 History A Strong City. Electronic document, https://covinaca.gov/community/page/history, accessed March 23, 2021

Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Smith, D.W., Cook, T.D., Tallyn, E., Moseley, K., and Johnson, C.B. 2016 Ecoregions of California (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016– 1021, with map, scale 1:1,100,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161021.

Harrington, John P. 1986 Southern California/Great Basin. John Harrington Papers Vol. 3. Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives, Washington DC.

Harris, Marvin 1968 The Fall of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. AltaMira Press, London.

Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 2002 Historic Spots in California. 5th edition revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Historic Preservation Partners 2007 Covina Town Center Historic Resources Survey. City of Covina Development Department https://covinaca.gov/cd/page/covina-historic-survey-report., accessed March 2021.

McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Morton, Douglas M., and Fred K. Miller 2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, San Bernardino County, California, USGS Open File Report 2006-1217, Scale 1:100,000.

National Resource Conservation Service 2021 Soils map for Vita Pakt Project area. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov, accessed March 23, 2021.

21

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

NETR 2021 Historic Aerial Viewer. Electronic document, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, last accessed March 2021.

Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb 1976 Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2021 Built Environment Resources Directory: Los Angeles County. Accessed on March 23, 2021.

Rolle, Andrew F. 1963 California, A History. Crowell.

Scott, E., and K. Springer 2003 CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California: The Environmental Monitor, Fall 2003, p. 4-10.

Starr, Kevin 2005 California A History. Modern Library, Random House, Inc., New York.

UCSB 2021 University of Santa Barbara Library, Aerial Photographs. Electronic document, https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos, last accessed March 2021.

USGS 2021 USGS Topographic Map Explorer. Electronic document, https://disaster- amerigeoss.opendata.arcgis.com/app/esri::usgs-historical-topographic-map- explorer, last accessed March 2021.

Wallace, William 1955 A suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, V. 2, pp. 214-230.

Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States Vol. 1, No. 3, edited by C. Irwin- Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology, Portales.

22

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Appendix A

Paleontological Records Search Results

Research & Collections

e-mail: [email protected]

March 3, 2021

Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC Attn: Benjamin Scherzer re: Paleontological resources for the Vita Pakt Project

Dear Benjamin:

I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the Vita Pakt project area as outlined on the portion of the Baldwin Park USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on February 25, 2021. We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area, but we do have fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth.

The following table shows the closest known localities in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth Unknown (light brown shale with W of intersection of interbeds of very English Rd & Peyton Dr, coarse brown sand; Horse (Equus), camel 15-20 ft LACM VP 1728 Chino Pleistocene) (Camelops) bgs Near intersection of Ground sloth Vellano Club Dr. and (Nothrotheriops); Palmero Dr., Oakcrest elephant family Development; N of Unknown formation (Proboscidea); horse LACM VP 7508 Serrano Canyon (Pleistocene) (Equus) Unknown Sundance LACM VP Condominiums, S of Los Unknown 7268, 7271 Serranos Golf Course (Pleistocene) Horse (Equus) Unknown Unknown (Pleistocene, LACM VP 3347 11204 Bluefield; Whittier lacustrine silt) Horse (Equus) 2 ft bgs Intersection of 26th St Unknown Fish (Gasterosteus); LACM VP 7702 and Atlantic Blvd, Bell Formation Snake (Colubridae), 30 ft bgs Gardens (Pleistocene; silt) Rodents (Thomomys, Microtus); Rabbit (Sylvilagus) VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface

This records search covers only the records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (“NHMLA”). It is not intended as a paleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes of CEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessment of the project area be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Bureau of Land Management or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Sincerely,

Alyssa Bell, Ph.D. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County enclosure: invoice &7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Appendix B

Resumes

18 Technology Drive, Ste. 103 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 356-6660 www.dukecrm.com

Edgar Alvarez GIS Analyst/ Archaeologist

Selected Project Experience PCH Signal Systems Project, Malibu, 2020 Indian Wells General Plan, 2020 Lawndale General Plan, 2020 Mokelumne Aqueducts Tunnel, Stockton, 2020 Sunnymead Car Wash, Moreno Valley, 2020 Vernola Marketplace Project, Jurupa Valley, 2020 Bluff Street Reservoir Project, Norco, 2020 Purple Line Extension (Westside Subway), L.A., 2018 - 2019 Southern California Edison (SCE) EC L.A., 2018 - 2019 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Survey, SD, 2018 - 2019 Purple Line Extension 2 (Rodeo Subway), Beverly Hills, 2020 El Centro International Border Wall, El Centro, 2020 SOCAL Gas Pipeline, Seal Beach, 2020 (LAWA) Terminal 1.5 Project, L.A., 2018 - 2 019 Desert Trails Preparatory Project, Victorville, 2019 Florence Mills Apartments Project, L.A. , 201 9 Ridge Development Project, Penryn, 2019 31801 Pacific Coast Highway Project, Malibu, 2018

Boyle Heights Sports Center Gym Project, L.A., 20 18 Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion, Arroyo Grande, 2018 Years Experience: 5 Years Daggett Solar Farm Project, Daggett, 2018 Years with DUKE CRM: 7 Months Roosevelt Park Stormwater Capture Project, L.A., 2018 Ava Hollywood Mixed Use High-Rise Project, L.A., 2018

Expertise Corona Affordable Housing Project, L.A., 2018 Cultural Resources Management Elk Creek Bridge Studies (TO 31), Lake Mendocino, 2019 California Prehistory Carlotta Curve Improvement (TO 56), Lake Mendocino, 2019 Section106 & CEQA Compliance Three Bridges Replacement (TO 57), Lake Mendocino, 2019 Native American Consultation South Eel River Bridge Seismic (TO 6 0), Lake Mendocino, 2019 GIS Analysis Gualala Shoulders and Rumble (TO 62), Lake Mendocino, 2019 State Route 132 West Freeway, Modesto, 2020 Education CBP Road Improvements, El Centro, 2019 CSU, Northridge, B.A., Anthropology, Yuma International Border Wall, Yuma, 2020 Minor in GIS, 2016 LAX Police Station, Inglewood, 2019 PCIAP, Catalina Island Field School, 2015 Ladera Park Storm Water Capture, L.A., 2019 Gates Canyon Storm Water Capture, Calabasas, 2020 Professional Memberships PG&E Irrigation Line, Pismo Beach, 2020 Society for California Archaeology Deep Soil Mixing Project, Malibu, 2020 Society for American Archaeology CBP Chula Vista INT Border Wall, Chula Vista, 2020 SCE Woolsey Fire, Malibu, 2018

Archaeology History Paleontology

18 Technology Drive, Suite 103 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 356-6660 Ext 1005 www.dukecrm.com

Benjamin Scherzer Paleontologist

Professional Experience Paleontologist, DUKE CRM, February 2014-present Paleontologist, VCS Environmental, 2020-present Paleontologist, Rincon Consultants, 2020-present Paleontologist, Red Tail Environmental, 2020-present Paleontologist, L&L Environmental, 2017-2018 Stratigrapher, Archeological Resource Management Corp., 2015-2018 Paleontological Specialist II, SD Natural History Museum, 2013-2018 Paleontological Specialist II, SWCA (Pasadena), 2012-2015 Paleontologist, SWCA (Vernal, UT), 2011-2012 Fossil Preparator, Carter County Museum, 2010-2011 Physical Science Technician, Badlands National Park, 2010 Mudlogger/Geologist, Pason Systems USA, 2006-2009 Paleontological Field Assistant, ARCADIS US, 2006-2007

Expertise Selected Project Experience Paleontological Resources Management 210 Mixed Flow Lane Addition, Highlands, 2020-present Fossil excavation Reid-Baldwin Adobe, Arcadia, 2019-present Fossil preparation San Jacinto GP & Update, San Jacinto, 2019-present Stratigraphy I-5 Widening, Aliso Viejo, 2018-2020 Natural gas mudlogging Sweeny Rd, Lompoc, 2018-2020 Directional drilling Atlanta Avenue Widening, Huntington Beach, 2018-present Ocean Place, Seal Beach, 2018-present Education Lake Forest Civic Center, Lake Forest, 2018-present M.S., Earth Science, 2008, MSU, Bozeman, MT Vanderham Monitoring, Jurupa Valley, 2017-2018 B.A., Geology/Math, 2002, Earlham College, IN Gold Flora Farms, Desert Hot Springs, 2017-2019 I-5 HOV Truck Lanes, Santa Clarita, 2017-2018 Professional Registrations Brasada Homes, San Dimas, 2017-2018 Paleontologist, County of Orange Indus Light Industrial Building, Chino Hills, 2017-2018 Paleontologist, County of Riverside Murrieta’s Hospitality Commons, Murrieta, 2017-2019 6th Street Viaduct, Los Angeles, 2017-present Professional Memberships I-15 TEL, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, 2017 Lewis Street, Anaheim, 2017 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology The Crossings, Chino Hills, 2016-2017 Geological Society of America Reata Glen, Mission Viejo, 2016-2018 Society for Sedimentary Geology Greenville-Banning Channel, Costa Mesa, 2016 American Association of Petroleum Diamond Valley, Hemet, 2017 Geologists, Pacific Section Marywood Residential, Orange, 2016-2017 South Coast Geological Society Rancho Mission Viejo, Mission Viejo, 2015-2018 Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists Santa Margarita Water District Tesoro Reservoirs, Mission Viejo, 2015

Evanston Inn, Pasadena, 2015 Publications and Professional Papers Sycamore to Peñasquitos 230 kV Transmission Line, San Diego, 2015 Scherzer, B. 2017. A possible physeteroid (cetacea: Lakeside Temescal Valley, Temescal Valley, 2015-2020 odontoceti) from the Yorba member of the Puente Formation, Orange County, California. Vila Borba, Chino Hills, CA, 2013-present RP-Outfall Relocation, Ontario, 2014 Scherzer, B. 2016. An archaic baleen whale (Cetacea: Serrano Ridge, Temescal Valley, 2014 Mysticeti) from the Vaqueros Formation, and other fossil Lago Los Serranos, Chino Hills, 2014 material from the Skyridge Project, Orange County, Baker WTP, Lake Forest, 2014 California. Skyridge Residential, Mission Viejo, 2014-present Pacific Highlands, San Diego, 2014 Scherzer, B. 2015. Miocene teleost fish from Chino Hills: Sol y Mar, Ranchos Palos Verdes, 2013-2014 preliminary results from the Vila Borba Project, San Mojave Solar Power, Hinkley, 2013 Bernardino County, California. Genesis Solar Energy, Blythe, 2012-13

Archaeology History Paleontology

18 Technology Dr., Ste. 103 Irvine, CA 92618 949-356-6660 www.dukecrm.com

Curt Duke President/Principal Archaeologist Professional Experience President/Principal Archaeologist, DUKE CRM, March 2011 to present Archaeologist/Principal, LSA Associates, 1997-2011 Archaeological/Paleontological Technician, Various Companies, 1995-97 Archaeological Technician/Teachers Assistant, Cabrillo College, 1994 Anthropological Laboratory Technician, UC Santa Cruz, 1994

Selected Project Experience Reid/Baldwin Adobe, LA Arboretum, Arcadia, 2019-Present Veteran Affairs Medical Clinic, Santa Rosa, 2019 Deane Dana Friendship Park, Rancho Palos Verdes, 2019 Makayla Mine Expansion Project, Olancha, 2019 Sweeny Road, Lompoc, 2018 Vantage Point Church, Eastvale, 2016 and 2018 VA West Los Angeles Campus Master Plan, 2017-Present Avenue S-8 and 40th St. E. Roundabout, Palmdale, 2017-18 SR-110 Improvements, Los Angeles, 2017 Diamond Valley Estates Specific Plan, Hemet, 2017 Expertise VA West Los Angeles Campus Hospital Replacement, 2016-Present Cultural Resources Management Shoemaker Bridge Replacement, Long Beach, 2016-Present California Prehistory Spruce Goose Hangar, Playa Vista, 2016 Section 106 Compliance Rice Avenue at 5th Street Grade Separation, Oxnard, 2015-Present CEQA Compliance Vila Borba, Chino Hills, 2013-Present Native American Consultation Skyridge Residential, Mission Viejo, 2011-Present Baker Water Treatment Plant, Lake Forest, 2014-2015 VA Clinic, Loma Linda, 2014-Present Education Evanston Inn, Pasadena, 2014-2016 CSU, Fullerton, M.A., Anth, 2006 Petersen Ranch, Leona Valley, 2013-2014 SDSU, Grad Studies, Anth, 1996-97 California Street/Highway 101, Ventura, 2014-Present UC Santa Cruz, B.A., Anth, 1994 6th Street Bridge Replacement, Los Angeles, 2013-Present I-15/I-215 IC Project, Devore, 2008-10 Professional Registrations Colton Crossing Rail-to-Rail Grade Separation, 2008-11 RPA, No. 15969 City of LA DPW BOE, On-Call, Cultural/Paleo Services, 2008-11 County of Riverside (No. 151) Mid County Parkway, Riverside County, 2014-10 County of Orange McSweeny Farms Specific Plan, Hemet, 2004-08 Mesquite Regional Landfill, Coachella Valley, 2006-08 Professional Memberships Hacienda at Fairview Valley Specific Plan, Apple Valley2007-08 Society for California Archaeology Majestic Hills Specific Plan, Hesperia, 2006-07 Society for American Archaeology Chuckwalla Solar I Project, Desert Center, 2007-08 Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Needles Highway Improvement Project, 2004-06 Assoc. of Environmental Professionals Superstition Solar I Project, Salton Sea, Imperial County, 2008 Building Industry Association Muddy Canyon Archaeological Project, Newport Beach, 1997-2001 Temecula 32, Archaeological Phase II Testing, 2007 Mammoth Lakes Parks/Rec and Trail System Master Plan, 2010 24th Street Improvements, City of Bakersfield, 2008-11 California Valley Solar Ranch, San Luis Obispo County, 2009-10 Delano-Alpaugh Water Pipeline, Kern/Tulare Counties, 2006-09 I-15/SR-79 IC Project, Temecula, 2006-10 Westlake Historic Resources Survey, Los Angeles, 2008-09 CETAP, western Riverside County, 1999-2001 Los Coches Creek Elementary School, near Alpine, 2003-06 Oak Valley Specific Plan 1 Amendment, Beaumont, 2004 San Nicolas Island, Naval Base Ventura County, CA, 1997 Archaeology History Paleontology

&7-' %7.674#.4'5174%'5/#0#)'/'06

Appendix C

NAHC Results

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

March 10, 2021

Edgar Alvarez DUKECRM

CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Via Email to: [email protected] Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON Re: Vita Pakt, Covina (C-0356) Project, Los Angeles County Reginald Pagaling Chumash Dear Mr. Alvarez: SECRETARY Merri Lopez-Keifer A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Luiseño 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 PARLIAMENTARIAN indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural Russell Attebery resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Karuk Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources COMMISSIONER in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential William Mungary adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; Paiute/White Mountain if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By Apache 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 COMMISSIONER notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to Julie Tumamait- Stenslie ensure that the project information has been received. Chumash If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. COMMISSIONER [Vacant] If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected]. COMMISSIONER [Vacant]

Sincerely, COMMISSIONER [Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider Pomo Andrew Green Cultural Resources Analyst

NAHC HEADQUARTERS Attachment 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 [email protected] NAHC.ca.gov

Page 1 of 1

Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Los Angeles County 3/10/2021

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians - Kizh Nation Indians Andrew Salas, Chairperson Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural P.O. Box 393 Gabrieleno Resource Department Covina, CA, 91723 P.O. BOX 487 Cahuilla Phone: (626) 926 - 4131 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno [email protected] Phone: (951) 663 - 5279 Fax: (951) 654-4198 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel [email protected] Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson Soboba Band of Luiseno P.O. Box 693 Gabrieleno Indians San Gabriel, CA, 91778 Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson Phone: (626) 483 - 3564 P. O. Box 487 Cahuilla Fax: (626) 286-1262 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno [email protected] Phone: (951) 654 - 5544 Fax: (951) 654-4198 Gabrielino /Tongva Nation [email protected] 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]

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 659 - 2700 Fax: (951) 659-2228 [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 Vita Pakt, Covina (C-0356) Project, Los Angeles County.

PROJ-2021- 03/10/2021 09:58 AM 1 of 1 001319

Attachment B

Professional Resume

Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A. JM Research & Consulting 4049 Almond Street, Suite 201 Riverside, CA 92501 951-233-6897 [email protected]

Statement of Qualifications & Expertise

Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A., Principal Historian/Architectural Historian exceeds the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for History and Architectural History.

Project Design, Entitlement & Consultation Historic Preservation Planning, Policy & Programs Regulatory Compliance – Section 106 & CEQA Cultural Resources Treatment & Management Survey, Evaluation & Context Development National Register, California Register, & Local Registration Design Review, Case Planning, & Plan Check Presentation, Public Relations, & Outreach

Education

UC, Riverside, M.A., History, specialization in Historic Preservation, 2001 UC, Riverside, B.A., History, 2000

Professional Experience

Cultural Resources/Historic Consultant, JM Research & Consulting, since 2001 Reviewing Official under SHPO MOU, March Joint Powers Authority, since 2012 Contract Historic Preservation Senior Planner, City of Riverside, since 2016 Historic Consultant and On-film Historian, HGTV & DIY Network, Restored Show, Seasons 1-6, since 2016

Selected Projects

Preservation Planning, Policy & Programs Determination of Eligibility, 550 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, 2021 Mission Heritage Plaza Substantial Compliance Analysis, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2020 National Register Nomination: Evergreen Cemetery, Riverside, 2020-2021 First American Title Company, 4th & Main Apartment Project, City of Santa Ana, 2020-2021 National Register Nomination: Bumann Ranch, Encinitas, 2020 San Jacinto General Plan Update, City of San Jacinto, 2019 Landmark Nomination: Bigelow’s Bungalow, Riverside, 2018 Historic Interpretive Entry Design & Plaque: Marywood Retreat Center, Orange, 2017 San Jacinto Downtown Specific Plan, City of San Jacinto, 2017 National Register Nomination: Jefferson Elementary School, Corona, 2017 Citywide Streetlight LED Conversion Project, City of Riverside, 2017 City of Riverside North Park Pergola Collapse – Salvage & Documentation Program, City of Riverside, 2017 Landmark Plaque: The Patsy O’Toole House, Riverside, 2016 Landmark Plaque: The Nielson Pool House, Riverside, 2016 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: Camp Anza Officers Club, Riverside, 2016 History Room Design & Interpretive Display: Camp Anza Officers Club, Riverside, 2016 City of Redlands Certified Local Government Program Development, 2015 Chicago/Linden Strategic Plan, City of Riverside, 2013 National Register Nomination: Huntington Beach Public Library on Triangle Park, Huntington Beach, 2013 California Baptist University Specific Plan, Riverside, 2012 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: The Walter C. Banks Residence, Riverside, 2012 Historic District Nomination: Segment of State Route 18, Corona, 2012 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: The A.C.E. Hawthorne House and Tree, Riverside, 2012 National Register Nomination: Grand Boulevard, Corona, 2011 California Register Nomination: The Jackson Building, Riverside, 2009 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: The Jackson Building, Riverside, 2008 California Point of Historical Resources Nomination: Camarillo Ranch House, Camarillo, 2005 National Register Multiple Property Nomination: Architecture of the Arts and Crafts Movement, Pasadena, 2004 Structure of Merit Nomination: House at 3855-59 11th Street, Riverside, 2003 National Register Nomination: Camarillo Ranch House, Camarillo, 2003

CEQA Compliance VitaPakt, Trumark Homes, Covina, 2021 Covina Bowl, Covina, 2020 La Atalaya, Altura Credit Union Member House, Riverside, 2019 Entrada, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2019 Main Library, City of Riverside, 2018 Redlands YMCA Properties, Redlands, 2017 Marywood Retreat Center, Orange, 2013-2017 Mission Inn La Trattoria Pergola & Wine Tasting Room, Riverside, 2016 Rhunau, Rhunau, Clark Building, Riverside, 2016 Arlington Plaza, Riverside, 2016 Mission Lofts, Riverside, 2015 Lakeside Temescal Valley Project Lake Corona, Corona, CA Harris Farm Townhomes, Riverside, 2015 Dhammakaya Retreat, Azusa, 2013 Riverside Plaza Harris’ Department Store, Riverside, 2012 Old Town Plaza, San Jacinto, 2011 Pfennighausen Ranch, Pedley, County of Riverside, 2010 March Field Historic District Garage Building #113, March Joint Powers Authority, 2009 Five Points Realignment, City of Riverside, 2008 Fox Block, City of Riverside, 2007

Section 106 & CEQA Compliance Prado Dam & Reservoir Improvement Project, Santa Ana River, 2017-present Home Front at Camp Anza - Camp Anza Officers Club, City of Riverside, 2013-2017 HRER, Colton Undergrade & C Street Crossing Seismic Retrofit Projects, City of Colton, Caltrans District 8, 2014 HPSR & FOE, University Avenue Streetscape Project, City of Riverside, Caltrans District 8, 2005 HPSR & FOE, Victoria Avenue Streetscape & Parkway Restoration Project, City of Riverside, Caltrans District 8, 2004 HPSR, Jurupa Avenue Underpass / Mountain Avenue Crossing Closure Project, City of Riverside, Caltrans District 8, 2001

Section 106 Compliance Entrada, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2019 Mission Heritage Plaza & Civil Rights Museum, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2017 HPSR, Inglewood Avenue Corridor Widening Project, City of Lawndale, Caltrans District 7, 2013 Van Buren Improvement Project, March Joint Powers Authority, County of Riverside, EDA, 2013 Wattstar Cinema and Education, Los Angeles, 2010 County of San Bernardino Lead Abatement Program, Highland, Redlands, & San Bernardino, 2003

Professional Activities

Publications The New Home Company Announces Marywood Hills, a Historic Collection of Luxury Residences with Unobstructed Views of the City of Orange. Press Release co-authored for immediate by The New Home Company. April 2018. The Grandest Boulevard. Riverside County Historical Commission and the Riverside County Regional Park and Open- Space District, The Riverside County Chronicles, Issue No. 5. Fall 2011. Riverside Project Wins Governor’s Award for Historic Preservation: ‘Home Front at Camp Anza’ Brings New Life to Old Officers Club. Press Release authored for immediate release by City of Riverside. October 4, 2016. Historic Resources Inventory Database Web site: Instructions for Online Navigation. Historic Resources Database Web site User’s Manual prepared for the City of Riverside. September 2002. Historic Resources Inventory: Instructions for Recording and Viewing. Historic Resources Database User’s Manual prepared for the City of Riverside. September 2001.

Awards California Preservation Foundation Award – Latino Context, City of Riverside. 2019. Governor’s Award for Historic Preservation – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016. California Preservation Foundation Best Restoration Award – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2017. IE Economic Partnership Award for Best Real Estate Development and Reuse – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016. Golden Nugget Award - Best Renovated, Restored, Adaptive Re-Use Residential Project – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016. Golden Nugget Award -Best Affordable Housing Community Under 30du/acre – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016.

Presentations, Speaking Engagements, and Instruction City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Board Continuing Education Program TBD 2021 Creating Space for Women: Julia Morgan, Architect, and the Riverside YWCA. Women In Tandem (WIT). COVID HOLD. The History of the Automobile in Riverside, Riverside Historical Society Four-Part Lecture Series. 2018-2021. Part 1. The Automobile Comes to Town: The Birth of the Automobile Industry in Riverside, 1902-1913. 2018. Part 2. From Agriculture to Automobile: The Internalization of a New Economy, 1913-1928. 2019. Part 3. COVID HOLD – Tentatively rescheduled April 11, 2021. Part 4. COVID HOLD. Historic Preservation: The Field of Public History. Notre Dame High School Career Day. September 2018. Historic Preservation: The Field of Public History. Riverside East Rotary Club. July 2018. Historic Preservation: The Field of Public History. Riverside Uptown Kiwanis. December 2017. Architecture: Form, Function, and Ornamentation. Architecture Series. Diocese of San Bernardino, OLPH. October 2011. How to Research Your Historic Home. City of Riverside Public Workshop. October 2010. Riverside’s Hidden Histories: The Gems Among Us – Nava Tires. Mission Inn Foundation and Museum. June 17, 2010. The Art of the Survey. Riverside County Historical Commission 5th Annual Symposium. October 26, 2007. The Field of Public History. California State University, Fullerton. Dr. Wendy Elliott Scheinberg. November 14, 2006. Arlington Heights, the Realization and Preservation of a California Dream. CPF Conference. May 14, 2005. How to Research Your Historic Home. Riverside County Historical Commission History Workshop. April 16, 2004.

Affiliations & Service National Trust for Historic Preservation, General Member #58551599. California Preservation Foundation, General Member #21244. Old Riverside Foundation, General Member; Board of Directors (2003-2005) – facilitated mission advancement through planning and direction of annual home tour, awards program, facilities maintenance, and historic preservation advocacy. Riverside Historic Society, Lifetime Member