Appendix F Cultural Resources Report

Appendix F Cultural Resources Technical Report

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN STUDIO CITY CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 3599 NORTH LANKERSHIM BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90068 November 25, 2014

Prepared for Prepared by Los Angeles City Planning Department Sapphos Environmental, Inc. EIR Unit, Mail Stop 395 430 North Halstead Street 200 North Spring Street, Suite 750 Pasadena, California 91107 Los Angeles, California 90012

Jayesh Kumar 2010 North Highland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90068

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTIONS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Project ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Cultural Resources Technical Report ...... 1-1 1.3 Intended Audience ...... 1-1 1.4 Confidentiality of Archaeological Site Information ...... 1-2 1.5 Scope of the Report ...... 1-2 1.6 Sources of Relevant Information ...... 1-2 1.7 Working Definitions ...... 1-3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Description ...... 2-1 2.3 Impact Area ...... 2-2

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 3-1 3.1 Federal ...... 3-1 3.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 ...... 3-2 3.2 State ...... 3-2 3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 3-2 3.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources ...... 3-3 3.2.3 California Historical Landmarks ...... 3-4 3.2.4 California Points of Historical Interest ...... 3-5 3.2.5 Other State Statutes and Regulations ...... 3-5 3.3 Local ...... 3-6 3.3.1 Southern California Association of Governments Growth Management Policy No 3.21 ...... 3-6 3.3.2 Conservation Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan ...... 3-6 3.3.3 Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission ...... 3-6 3.3.4 Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan ...... 3-7

4.0 METHODS ...... 4-1 4.1 Paleontological Resources ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Resource Inventory Methods ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Paleontological Resource Assessment Criteria ...... 4-1 4.1.3 Categories of Sensitivity ...... 4-2 4.2 Prehistoric and Historic Resources ...... 4-3 4.2.1 Record Search and Literature Review ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Cultural Resources Site Visit ...... 4-3 4.3 Native American Sacred Sites and Human Remains ...... 4-3 4.3.1 Record Search and Literature Review ...... 4-3

5.0 RESULTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Paleontological Resources and Geological Resources ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Paleontological Resources Characterization ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Impact Analysis ...... 5-1 5.1.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...... 5-2 5.2 Archaeological and Historic Resources ...... 5-3 5.2.1 Prehistoric, Ethnographic, and Historic Contexts ...... 5-3 5.2.2 Cultural Resources Characterization ...... 5-12 5.2.3 Impact Analysis ...... 5-16 5.2.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...... 5-16 5.3 Native American Sacred Sites and Human Remains ...... 5-17 5.3.1 Resource Characterization ...... 5-17 5.3.2 Impact Analysis ...... 5-17 5.3.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...... 5-17 5.4 Summary of Results and Recommendations ...... 5-18

6.0 REFERENCES ...... 6-1

TABLES PAGE

5.2.1.1-1 Southern California Coastal Regional Chronology ...... 5-4 5.2.2.1-1 Previous Surveys within the Cultural Resources Study Area ...... 5-13 5.2.2.2-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Located within the Cultural Resources Study Area ...... 5-16

FIGURES FOLLOWS PAGE

2.1-1 Topographic Map with USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle Index ...... 2-1 2.1-2 Local Vicinity Map ...... 2-1 4.2.1-1 Records Search Area ...... 4-3 5.2.2.1-1 Previously Conducted Investigations within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius ...... 5-12 5.2.2.2-1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius ...... 5-15

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) was prepared to determine if the proposed building of a single family house at 3599 Lankershim Boulevard (proposed project) may have a significant impact to cultural resources, thus requiring the consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives in accordance with Section 15064 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.1 The characterization and analysis contained in this report is intended to avoid and minimize potential impacts to cultural resources and relies on information developed from literature reviews; consideration of applicable federal, state, and local statues and guidelines; database searches; and a cultural resources site visit.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The goal of the project would be to build a residence to accommodate future generations. The location of the residence would be in close proximity (within 5 miles) to the occupants’ work places (City of Los Angeles). The project would provide outdoor living areas, ventilation, exposure to sunlight, desirable city views, appropriate distances from adjacent properties, and a covered, stacked stall, four-car garage. The proposed project would offer a family comfortable living quarters and outdoor living areas within a reasonable distance from the occupants’ work places.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

This CRTR was prepared to characterize the cultural resources that would potentially affect the development of the proposed project. Pursuant to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the existing adopted City of Los Angeles General Plan2 and the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan (MSPSP)3 this assessment was undertaken to determine if the proposed project would result in adverse significant impacts to cultural resources.

The proposed project would be subject to discretionary approvals by the City of Los Angeles Planning Department. Acting in its capacity as a lead agency under CEQA, the City Planning Department would need to determine the potential for the proposed project to result in significant impacts, consider mitigation measures and alternatives capable of avoiding significant impacts, and take the environmental effects of the proposed project into consideration as part of its decision- making process. This CRTR provides the substantial evidence on which the required evaluation of feasibility, environmental analysis, and findings of fact in relation to cultural resources can be made.

1.3 INTENDED AUDIENCE

This CRTR has been prepared to support the analysis to determine if the proposed project is expected to result in significant impacts to cultural resources, to be used by the City of Los Angeles to determine the appropriate level of environmental documentation to support the consideration of

1 California Code of Regulations. Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, Appendix G. 2 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, 26 September 2001. Conservation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Contact: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Available at: http://planning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/ConsvElt.pdf. 3 City of Los Angeles, City Planning Commission. 22 May 2003. Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan: Design and Preservation Guidelines. Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\3. Section 1 Introduction.doc Page 1-1 the proposed project, and whether the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources requiring the consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives. CEQA requires that the information upon which the decision-making body will render their decision be made available for public review. Ultimately, the City of Los Angeles Planning Department will use the environmental compliance documentation, input from responsible and trustee agencies, and the public, to advise their decision related to consideration of the proposed project.

1.4 CONFIDENTIALITY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INFORMATION

The location data for the archaeological resources will not be circulated for public review. To protect the sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, and/or vandalism, the locations of known archaeological resources will be kept confidential beyond what is necessary. Information concerning the nature and location of archaeological resources is protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470 hh) and other statutes. Records in the information centers are exempt from the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). Government Code Section 6254.10 states,

Nothing in this chapter requires disclosure of records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.

Government Code Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.” Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources described herein, the technical appendices to the report containing the archaeological site records and/or maps are confidential and meant for informative purposes for the City of Los Angeles only.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

The analysis of cultural resources consists of a summary of the regulatory framework that guides the decision-making process, a description of the methods employed to support the characterization and evaluation of cultural resources within the cultural resources study area, the results for baseline conditions for cultural resources, the potential for the project to affect cultural resources, and opportunities to avoid and minimize the potential effects of the project.

1.6 SOURCES OF RELEVANT INFORMATION

Information used in the preparation of this Cultural Resources Technical Report was derived from an extensive literature review, including published and gray literature, consultation with experts knowledgeable of the cultural resources identified as having the potential to occur within the cultural resources study area, consultation with responsible and trustee agencies, coordination with special interests, field investigation, and spatial analysis based on geographic information system data. Sources of relevant information are cited in footnotes and compiled in Section 6, References.

A number of technical terms are used to characterize the baseline conditions and assessment of the potential for the project to result in affects to cultural resources.

Unique paleontological resource is defined as a fossil that meets one or more of the following criteria:4

 It provides information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct.

 It provides 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.

 It provides data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between plant and animal communities.

 It demonstrates unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life.

 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.

Unique geologic feature is defined as an important and irreplaceable geological formation. Such features may have scientific and/or cultural values.

Archaeological site is defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains. Archaeological remains usually take the form of artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools, vestiges of utilitarian, or non-utilitarian objects), features (e.g., remnants of walls, cooking hearths, or midden deposits), and ecological evidence (e.g., pollen remaining from plants that were in the area when the activities occurred).5 Prehistoric archaeological sites represent the material remains of Native American groups and their activities. These sites are generally thought to date to the period before European contact but, in some cases, may contain evidence of trade contact with Europeans. Ethnohistoric archaeological sites are defined as Native American settlements occupied after the arrival of European settlers in California. Historic archaeological sites reflect the activities of nonnative populations during the Historic period.

Isolate is defined as an isolated artifact or small group of artifacts that appear to reflect a single event, loci, or activity. It may lack identifiable context but has the potential to add important information about a region, culture, or person. Isolates are not considered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to be significant and, thus, do not require avoidance or

4 Scott, E., and K. Springer. Fall 2003. “CEQA and Fossil Preservation in Southern California.” The Environmental Monitor, pp. 4–10, 17. 5 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. Available at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/arch

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\3. Section 1 Introduction.doc Page 1-3 mitigation under CEQA. All isolates located during the field effort, however, are recorded, and the data are transmitted to the appropriate CHRIS Information Center.

Historical resource is defined by CEQA as any object, building, structure, site (including archaeological sites), area, place, record, or manuscript that is listed in, or is eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution; or identified as significant in a historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CRHR statute (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g)). Properties listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR and are therefore historical resources under CEQA.

Prehistoric period is defined as the era prior to 1769 AD. The later part of the prehistoric period (post–1542 AD) is also characterized as the protohistoric period in some areas, which marks a transitional period during which native populations began to be influenced by European presence resulting in gradual changes to their lifeways.

Historic period is defined as the period that begins with the arrival of the first nonnative population and thus varies by area. In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá became the first European to enter the San Fernando Valley, initiating the historic period in the study area.

Native American sacred site is defined as an area that has been, and often continues to be, of religious significance to Native American peoples, such as an area where religious ceremonies are practiced or an area that is central to their origins as a people. They also include areas where Native Americans gather plants for food, medicinal, or economic purposes.6

B.P. stands for “before present,” which is defined as before 1950 and is used by archaeologists in conjunction with the commonly used term, AD.7

Phase I archaeological resources survey consists of a literature review (background research), consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, and fieldwork. Fieldwork consists of a physical inspection of the cultural resources survey area, generally through pedestrian surveys, or by other means when appropriate. The purpose of the Phase I survey is to identify the cultural resources known or likely to be present in the project’s impact area and in the immediate vicinity.

Impact area is defined as the geographic area or areas within which a project may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of significant historical or archaeological resources. The impact area is influenced by the scale and nature of the project as well as by the types of cultural resources in the vicinity.8 For the purposes of this report, the impact area is understood to be the area that would be expected to be subjected to ground disturbance for the fence installation of the project. It should be noted that for some types of resources, such as certain Native American traditional cultural places or a historic district, the impact area would be delineated much more broadly to account for indirect impacts, which may range from auditory to visual.

6 Native American Heritage Commission. Accessed 21 July 2006. “Understanding Cultural Resources.” Available at: www.nahc.ca.gov/understandingcr.html 7 Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. [1991] 2003. Archaeology Theories, Methods, and Practice. 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson. 8 Adapted from 36 CFR Part 800.16.

SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed project site is located on a 22,284 square-foot lot in the community of Studio City, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California (Figure 2.1-1 Topographic Map with USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle Index; Figure 2.1-2 Local Vicinity Map). The proposed project would be located approximately 0.4 mile southwest of U.S. Highway 101 (Hollywood Freeway). California State Highway 2 (Santa Monica Boulevard) is located approximately 3 miles to the south, and U.S. Interstate Highway 405 (San Diego Freeway) is located approximately 6 miles to the west of the proposed project site. Nearby landmarks include Universal City, which is located approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the proposed project site. The proposed project site is located at the base of a canyon that is bounded by Ventura Boulevard to the North, Fredonia Road to the east, Wrightwood Lane to the south, and Willowcrest Avenue to the west. The Assessor’s Parcel Number for the lot is 2380-005-009. Access to the site is provided by a private driveway from Lankershim Boulevard that serves one existing home and would also serve the proposed home on the subject property and another currently vacant parcel adjacent to Lankershim Boulevard.

Topography

The proposed project would be located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series Burbank topographic quadrangle1 (township 1 North, range 14 west) within the Rancho Ex Mission de San Fernando Land Grant Boundary at an elevation of 734 to 785 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The topography of the site can be characterized as hilly.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is the development of a two-story single-family residence with basement (approximately 3,826 square feet) including a stacked stall four-car garage. The project would be designed in a modern style with natural exterior finish materials. The project would include a swimming pool, outdoor living areas (barbeque area and patio), a landscaped area, open space, a fence surrounding the property, and an entrance gate that conforms to local tradition, the climate, and the surrounding environment. The layout of the house would follow the natural grade by creating different levels and outdoor spaces in order to blend with the natural topography. A backyard retention wall (maximum height of 10 to 12 feet) would be designed to protect the building from mudslide and debris, and to divert rainwater. The foundation of the house would be composed of concrete footings and pads. The infrastructure system would consist of a wood structure and slab constructed at grade with movement-resistant frames and plywood shear walls. The roof would be constructed using “Class A,” fire retardant, roofing material in accordance with the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Codes. The design of the structure would comply with the Los Angeles Building Code 2002 Edition and the City of Los Angeles Fire Department’s requirements for water service, hydrant location, distance from the nearest fire station/installation of substitute watering sources, street width, access, turnaround, and brush clearance as required by the Los Angeles Municipal Code 57.21.07.

1 U.S. Geological Survey, 1966 (Photoinspected 1972). Burbank 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\Section 2 Project Description.Doc Page 2-1 BURBANK 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLE LEGEND Project Boundary

734 Feet Above MSL

785 Feet Above MSL

SOURCE: SEI, ESRI, USGS

0 250 500 1,000 Feet o 1:8,000 Q:\1259\Patel_Housing\ArcProjects\TopoMap.mxd

FIGURE 2.1-1 Topographic Map with USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle Index LEGEND Project Boundary

SOURCE: SEI, ESRI

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles o 1:25,000 Q:\1259\Patel_Housing\ArcProjects\LocalVicinity.mxd

FIGURE 2.1-2 Local Vicinity Map

2.3 IMPACT AREA

This CRTR assesses the maximum impact area associated with the proposed project area. The CRTR also provides a comparative analysis of alternatives that will be considered in the EIR, to avoid or reduce the significant effects of the project. The project footprint covers 0.22 acres, including the driveway (0.04 acres), house/patio (0.1 acres), and a 15-foot wide construction zone (0.08 acres) around the edge of the house to provide sufficient space for the construction crews of the residence. It is anticipated that after the completion of the residence, the construction zone would be landscaped by the property owner; therefore, the construction zone has been included as a permanent impact area.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\Section 2 Project Description.Doc Page 2-2 SECTION 3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

This regulatory framework identifies the federal, state, and local statutes; ordinances; policies; and guidelines that govern the identification, conservation, and protection of cultural resources for the proposed residence in the community of Studio City (proposed project). During the decision- making process, the City of Los Angeles and other regulatory agencies will utilize the regulatory framework discussed in this section to consider the potential for the proposed project to result in significant impacts to cultural resources.

3.1 FEDERAL

3.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 19661

Enacted in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer and provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Section 106 of the NHPA states that federal agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally funded, assisted, or licensed undertakings must take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP and that the ACHP must be afforded an opportunity to comment, through a process outlined in the ACHP regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, on such undertakings.

3.1.1.1 National Register of Historic Places

The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.”2 The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:3

Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past.

1 United States Code, 16 USC 470. 2 Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR 60.2. 3 Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR 60.4.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\5. Section 3 Regulatory Framework.Doc Page 3-1 Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be at least 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance.

3.1.2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.

3.2 STATE

3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act4

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1.5

CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:6

4 California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21083.2, 21084.1. 5 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. Amended 6 October 2005. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15064.5(a). 6 California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 21083.2(g).

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\5. Section 3 Regulatory Framework.Doc Page 3-2 1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a set of sample questions that guide the evaluation of potential impacts with regard to cultural resources.

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?7

3.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources

Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”8 Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:9

Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

7 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. Amended 6 October 2005. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 8 California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1(a). 9 California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1(c).

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\5. Section 3 Regulatory Framework.Doc Page 3-3 Criterion 3: It 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.

Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.10 It is possible that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years also may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.11

3.2.3 California Historical Landmarks12

CHLs are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below. The resource must also be approved for designation by the County Board of Supervisors (or the City or Town Council in whose jurisdiction it is located), be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards in use now were first applied in the designation of CHL No. 770. CHLs No. 770 and above are automatically listed in the CRHR.

To be eligible for designation as a Landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

 The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California)

 Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California

 A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder

10 Office of Historic Preservation. n.d. “Technical Assistance Bulletin 6: California Register and National Register, A Comparison (for Purposes of Determining Eligibility for the California Register).” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov 11 Office of Historic Preservation. n.d. “Technical Assistance Bulletin 6: California Register and National Register, A Comparison (for Purposes of Determining Eligibility for the California Register).” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov 12 Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California. n.d. “California Historical Landmarks Registration Programs.” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points of Historical Interest (Point[s]) designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the CRHR. No historic resource may be designated as both a Landmark and a Point. If a Point is later granted status as a Landmark, the Point designation will be retired. In practice, the Point designation program is most often used in localities that do not have a locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation ordinance.

To be eligible for designation as a Point of Historical Interest, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

 The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (city or county)

 Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area

 A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder

3.2.5 Other State Statutes and Regulations

3.2.5.1 Native American Heritage Commission, Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9– 5097.991

Section 5097.91 of the Public Resource Code (PRC) established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.9 of the PRC, a State policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner. Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands.

3.2.5.2 California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001

Codified in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 8010–8030, the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Cal NAGPRA) is consistent with the federal NAGPRA. Intended to “provide a seamless and consistent state policy to ensure that all California Indian human remains and cultural items be treated with dignity and respect,” Cal NAGPRA also

13 Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California. n.d. “California Points of Historical Interest Registration Programs.” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\5. Section 3 Regulatory Framework.Doc Page 3-5 encourages and provides a mechanism for the return of remains and cultural items to lineal descendants. Section 8025 established a Repatriation Oversight Commission to oversee this process. The Act also provides a process for non–federally recognized tribes to file claims with agencies and museums for repatriation of human remains and cultural items.

3.2.5.3 Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052

Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

3.2.5.4 Penal Code, Section 622.5

Penal Code, Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.

3.3 LOCAL

3.3.1 Southern California Association of Governments Growth Management Policy No. 3.21

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Growth Management Chapter (GMC) has instituted policies regarding the protection of cultural resources. SCAG GMC Policy No. 3.21 “encourages the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.”14

3.3.2 Conservation Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan

The Conservation Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan includes policies regarding paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. The City aims to protect its archaeological and paleontological resources through continued identification and protection efforts. Additionally, the city aims to protect important cultural and historic sites/resources by the development and enforcement of preservation programs.

3.3.3 Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission

The Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission (Commission) considers and recommends to the Board of Supervisors local historical landmarks defined to be worthy of registration by the State of California, either as California Historical Landmarks or as Points of Historical Interest. The Commission may also comment for the Board on applications relating to the NRHP. The Commission is also charged with fostering and promoting the preservation of historical records. In its capacity as the memorial plaque review committee of the County of Los Angeles, the Commission screens applications for donations of historical memorial plaques and recommends to the Board plaques worthy of installation as County property.15

14 Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. SCAG Growth Management Chapter (GMC) Policy No. 3.21. Los Angeles, CA. 15 County of Los Angeles Department of Auditor-Controller (J. Tyler McCauley, Auditor-Controller). 21 October 2002. “Sunset Review for the Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission.” Accessed 17 July 2006. Available at: http://auditor.co.la.ca.us/cms1_003345.pdf Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\5. Section 3 Regulatory Framework.Doc Page 3-6 3.3.4 Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan

The Los Angeles City Council adopted the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan (MSPSP), Ordinance No. 167,943, which was adopted on May 13, 1992, and became effective on June 29, 1992. The intent of the MSPSP is to promote and preserve Mulholland Drive as a scenic parkway so that the public can enjoy the spectacular mountain, ocean, and city views. The public can also enjoy the unique features and recreational opportunities which are available throughout the scenic parkway.

The MSPSP is roughly bounded by the Mulholland Drive right-of-way to the north and south, by the Hollywood Freeway to the east, and by Topanga Canyon Boulevard, at the city-county boundary, to the west. Mulholland Drive extends for a distance of approximately 20 miles within the MSPSP area.

The MSPSP contains measures in place for potential development projects up to ½ mile away to ensure compatibility with the environment. Section 2-M lists the protection of all identified archaeological and paleontological resources as a purpose of the MSPSP. Section 5-B-5 of the MSPSP contains specific environmental protection measures for cultural resources within the MSPSP inner corridor:

“Applicants which propose to grade more than 50 cubic yards per 5,000 square feet of lot area shall submit to the Director a preliminary archaeological and paleontological record search from the State Regional Archaeological Information Center (UCLA) [Now located at California State University, Fullerton]. If this search reveals that archaeological and paleontological resources may be located on the lot, the applicant shall file an environmental assessment with the Planning Department.”

SECTION 4.0 METHODS

This section of the Cultural Resources Technical Report describes the methods employed in the characterization and evaluation of cultural resources within the proposed project. The study methods were designed to identify and assess the potential impacts to paleontological resources, archaeological resources, historical resources, human remains, and Native American sacred sites located within the proposed project.

4.1 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The following sections describe the resource inventory methods used for the paleontological assessment, the resource assessment criteria applied to the assessment, and the results of the resource inventory.

4.1.1 Resource Inventory Methods

The potential presence of recorded paleontological fossil localities and other unique geologic units within the proposed project area was assessed through a records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.1 The results of the records search were also compared to the appropriate geologic maps to assess the potential for the geologic units that characterize the mitigation parcels to yield unique paleontological resources.2 The paleontological resources records search and geologic map review form the basis of the paleontological resources assessment.

4.1.2 Paleontological Resource Assessment Criteria

It is the position of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology that a vertebrate fossil is considered scientifically important unless otherwise demonstrated.3 This position is based on the relative rarity of vertebrate fossils. Vertebrate fossils are so uncommon that, in many cases, each recovered specimen will provide additional important information about the morphological variation or the geographic distribution of its species. The SVP recommendations also mention that certain invertebrate or botanical fossils are considered important paleontological resources.

A geological unit is considered “sensitive” to adverse impacts if there is a high probability that grading, excavation, or other earth-moving activities would jeopardize important fossil remains. Using criteria published by the SVP, the paleontological importance or sensitivity (high, low, or undetermined) of each geological unit exposed in a project site or surrounding area is the measure most amenable to assessing the significance of paleontological resources because the area distribution of each geological unit can be delineated on a topographic or geologic map.4 The

1 McLeod, Samuel, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA. October 22, 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. 2 Diblee, Thomas. 1991. Geologic Map of California of the Hollywood and South ½ Burbank Quadrangles. Dibblee Geological Foundation Dibblee Foundation Map DF-30, scale 1:24,000. 3 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 1995. “Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontological Resources: Standard Guidelines.” Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163: 22–27. 4 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 1995. “Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontological Resources: Standard Guidelines.” Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163: 22–27.

paleontological sensitivity of a stratigraphic unit reflects its potential paleontological productivity and sensitivity, as well as the scientific significance of the fossils it has produced. This method of paleontological resource assessment is the most appropriate because discrete levels of paleontological importance can be delineated on a topographic or geologic map.

Reasons for considering an individual fossil specimen scientifically important include:

1. If it is well preserved 2. If it can be identified 3. If it is more complete than most specimens for that species 4. If it preserves one or more elements not known in most specimens of that species 5. If it is indicative of a particular time period 6. If it has not been recorded from that sedimentary unit 7. If it provides information concerning the environment in which it lived 8. If it could be the basis for description of a new species or comes from a site that produced the type (definitive) specimen of its species 9. If it belongs to a species rarely encountered

For specimens meeting the above, the following criteria were considered in establishing the importance and paleontological sensitivity of each rock unit exposed within each of the seven subareas of the proposed initiative:

1. Estimation of the potential paleontological productivity of each geological unit on the evidence of fossil localities in or near the seven subareas, on the basis of published and unpublished sources 2. Consideration of the scientific significance of fossils from each of the rock units exposed within the seven subareas

4.1.3 Categories of Sensitivity

The SVP established three categories of sensitivity for paleontological resources in its standard guidelines for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.5 The three categories are low, high, and undetermined.

 Low sensitivity paleontological resources are categorized as geological units that are not sedimentary in origin. Likewise, sedimentary rock units that have been well examined and have not produced paleontological resources are considered to have low sensitivity.  High sensitivity paleontological resources are categorized as geological units older than recent for which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or a significant suite of plant fossils have been recovered.  Paleontological resources with undetermined sensitivity are categorized as sedimentary geological units for which little information is available. It is often possible for an experienced paleontologist to determine whether such a rock unit should be assigned a high or low sensitivity after he or she has performed a pedestrian survey and has made detailed observations of both natural and artificial exposures of the rock unit.

5 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 1995. “Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontological Resources: Standard Guidelines.” Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163: 22–27.

4.2 PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC RESOURCES

4.2.1 Record Search and Literature Review

A literature review was undertaken to determine if the proposed project would have the potential to adversely affect prehistoric and historic resources, thus requiring the consideration of avoidance and minimization. An archaeological records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), housed at California State University, Fullerton, on October 2, 2014. The searches included reviews of all known relevant cultural resource survey reports to ascertain the presence of known prehistoric and historic archaeological resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the of the proposed project (Figure 4.2.1-1, Records Search Area). In addition, listings of the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest were reviewed to determine whether known historical resources are located within the study area.

4.2.2 Cultural Resources Site Visit

On October 23, 2014, Senior Sapphos Environmental, Inc. archaeologist Mr. Karl Holland conducted a cultural resources site visit of the proposed project area to determine the presence of cultural resources. Mr. Holland used an Ashtech Mobilemapper 100 handheld global positioning system (GPS) to carefully inspect all areas of the proposed project. During the visit, the Mr. Holland inspected areas of exposed ground surface to identify prehistoric or historic remains. It should be noted that portions of the property were densely vegetated, particularly to the north and east of the property, which diminished surface visibility. No artifacts were collected during the survey.

4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITES AND HUMAN REMAINS

4.3.1 Record Search and Literature Review

Coordination was initiated with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in association with the project on September 29, 2014. The NAHC was requested to conduct a records search from their Sacred Lands File for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains within the cultural resources study area. A NAHC response received by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. on October 14, 20146 advised that the Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the cultural resources study area. On the recommendation of the NAHC, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. sent letters to nine Native American contacts classified by the NAHC as potential sources of information related to cultural resources in the vicinity of the study area.7 The letters advised the tribes and specific individuals of the project and its geographic area and requested information regarding cultural resources within the study area, as well as feedback or concerns related to the project. As of November 21, 2014, no responses have been received.

6 Sanchez, Katy. Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento, CA. October 15, 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. 7 Sanchez, Katy. Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento, CA. October 15, 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

Project Boundary 1/2-Mile Buffer

SOURCE: SEI, ESRI

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles o 1:24,000 Q:\1259\Patel_Housing\ArcProjects\RecordsSearch.mxd

FIGURE 4.2.1-1 Records Search Area SECTION 5.0 RESULTS

This section of the Cultural Resources Technical Report summarizes the results of the record search and cultural resources field visit. In the discussion that follows, the paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources located within the study area are described. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project are identified, and feasible measures for avoiding and reducing these impacts are proposed. The results described in this section provide the substantial evidence required to address the scope of analysis recommended in the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan (MSPSP). For clarity of presentation and analysis, the results of record searches and field efforts have been organized into three major sections that include paleontological resources, archaeological and historic resources, and Native American sacred sites and human remains.

5.1 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

5.1.1 Paleontological Resources Characterization

The results of the map review and records searches at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County indicate that the proposed project area is underlain by the marine middle Miocene Upper Topanga Formation.1 In the proposed project area, the facies of the Upper Topanga Formation is primarily a rock unit of marine shales and siltstones. The Topanga Formation has the potential to yield significant paleontological resources. The closest vertebrate fossil locality in the Topanga Formation to the proposed project, LACM 6969, was collected during construction of the Metrorail Universal City subway station at the intersection of Lankershim Boulevard and the Hollywood Freeway (Highway 101) northeast of the proposed project area. Locality LACM 6969 produced specimens of grunion, Atherinidae; henings, Etringus, Ganolytes, and Sardinella; codlets, Bregmacerotidae; bigeyes, Priacanthidae; croakers, Sciaenidae; mackerels, Scombridae; and boarfishes, Caproidae. The next closest vertebrate fossil locality from the Topanga Formation is LACM 1084, southeast of the proposed project area west of Cahuenga Boulevard and north of Oakshire Drive. Locality LACM 1084 documents the occurrence of Paleoparadoxia, a member of an extinct group of marine mammals called the Desmostylia that had heavy bodies, relatively short and stout legs, and unique cylindrically cuspate cheek teeth. Desmostylian fossils are rare in Southern California.2 The Paleoparadoxia specimen collected from locality LACM 1084 has been published in scientific literature. Despite the presence of fossil localities in the vicinity of the proposed project, no fossil localities have been recorded within the proposed project area.3

5.1.2 Impact Analysis

The proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources related directly or indirectly to the destruction of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic

1 McLeod, Samuel, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA. 22 October 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. 2 McLeod, Samuel, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA. 22 October 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. 3 McLeod, Samuel, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA. 22 October 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-1 feature. The bedrock in the proposed project area is composed of the marine middle Miocene Upper Topanga Formation, a formation known to contain significant paleontological resources. Excavation proposed for the project site may affect unique paleontological contained within the Upper Topanga Formation. Surface grading or shallow excavations in the loose soil above the Upper Topanga Formation bedrock have a low potential to encounter any significant paleontological resources. However, any excavations into bedrock within the proposed project area have the potential to uncover significant paleontological resources. As a result, the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources related directly or indirectly to the destruction of a unique paleontological resource, therefore requiring the consideration of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below the level of significance.

5.1.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures

5.1.3.1 Paleontological Resources Construction Monitoring

The impacts to cultural resources related directly or indirectly to the destruction of a unique paleontological resource from the proposed project shall be reduced to below the level of significance through the salvage and disposition of paleontological resources that result from all ground-disturbing activities involving disturbances of the Upper Topanga Formation (site bedrock). Ground-disturbing activities, including, but not limited to, drilling, excavation, and trenching, within Upper Topanga Formation bedrock have the potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. For this reason, the following is required as part of Mitigation Measure Cultural-1 to reduce the level of impacts regarding the destruction of a unique paleontological resource below the level of significance:

 Construction monitoring by a qualified paleontological monitor shall be implemented during all ground-disturbing activities within the Upper Topanga Formation (site bedrock). Should a potentially unique paleontological resource be encountered, a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Impact Mitigation Guidelines, shall be contacted to assess the find.4

 Paleontological Resources Sensitivity Training is required for all project personnel prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. This brief (approximately 15 minute) field training reviews what fossils are, what fossils might potentially be found, and the appropriate procedures to follow if fossils are found.

 If fossil localities are discovered, the paleontologist shall assess the find and proceed accordingly. This includes the controlled collection of fossil and geologic samples for processing.

 Daily logs shall be kept by the qualified paleontological monitor during all monitoring activities. The daily monitoring log shall be keyed to a location map to indicate the area monitored, the date, and assigned personnel. In addition, this log shall include information of the type of rock encountered, fossil specimens recovered, and associated specimen data.

4 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. “Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines.” Available at: http://vertpaleo.org/The- Society/Governance-Documents/Conformable-Impact-Mitigation-Guidelines-Committee.aspx

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-2  All significant specimens collected shall be appropriately prepared, identified, and catalogued prior to their placement in a permanent accredited repository. The qualified paleontologist shall be required to secure a written agreement with a recognized repository, regarding the final disposition, permanent storage, and maintenance of any significant fossil remains and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data that might be recovered as a result of the specified monitoring program. The written agreement shall specify the level of treatment (i.e., preparation, identification, curation, cataloguing, etc.) required before the fossil collection would be accepted for storage. In addition, a technical report shall be completed.

 Within 90 days of the completion of any salvage operation or monitoring activities, a mitigation report shall be submitted to the City with an appended, itemized inventory of the specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

5.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES

5.2.1 Prehistoric, Ethnographic, and Historic Contexts

5.2.1.1 Prehistoric Context

Several prehistoric cultural chronologies have been proposed for the Southern California coast, with two of the most frequently cited sequences developed by William Wallace,5 Claude Warren,6 and Chester King.7 Such chronologies provide a framework to discuss archaeological data in relation to broad cultural changes seen in the archaeological record. The chronological sequence presented herein represents an updated synthesis of these schemes as compiled by Glassow and others8 for the Northern California Bight. This geographic area consists of the coastal area from Vandenberg Air Force Base south to Palos Verdes, as well as the Channel Islands and adjacent inland areas, including the Los Angeles Basin.9 The prehistoric sequence of San Fernando Valley can be divided into four broad temporal categories (Table 5.2.1.1-1, Southern California Coastal Regional Chronology). It should be noted that the prehistoric chronology for the region is being refined on a continuing basis, with new discoveries and improvements in the accuracy of dating techniques.

5 Wallace, William J. 1955. “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11:214–230. 6 Warren, Claude M. 1968. “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast.” In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, ed. Cynthia Irwin-Williams. Portales, NM: Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. 7 King, Chester. 1990. Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before AD 1804. New York, NY: Garland. 8 Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 191–213. 9 Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 191.

TABLE 5.2.1.1-1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL REGIONAL CHRONOLOGY

Epoch Coastal Region Dates Late Pleistocene / Early Holocene Paleo-Coastal Period Circa 9500 to 7000/6500 BC Middle Holocene Millingstone Period Circa 7000/6500 to 1500/1000 BC Late Holocene Intermediate Period 1500/1000 BC to AD 750 Late Holocene Late Period AD 750 to Spanish contact

Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene: Paleo-Coastal Period (Circa 9500 to 7000/6500 BC)

Although data on early human occupation for the Southern California coast are limited, archaeological evidence from the northern Channel Islands suggests that initial settlement within the region occurred at least 12,000 years before present (BP). At Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261) on San Miguel Island, radiocarbon dates indicate an early period of use in the terminal Pleistocene, sometime between 9600 and 9000 calibrated (cal) BC.10 Evidence of early human occupation in the Northern California Bight has also been found on nearby Santa Rosa Island, where human remains from the Arlington Springs Site (CA-SRI-1730) have been dated between 11,000 and 10,000 cal BC.11 Archaeological data recovered from these and other coastal Paleoindian sites indicate a distinctively maritime cultural adaptation, termed the “Paleo-Coastal Tradition,”12 which involved the use of seafaring technology and a subsistence regime focused on shellfish gathering and fishing.13

Relatively few sites have been identified in Los Angeles County that date to the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene. Currently, the earliest reliable date for human occupation in the area derives from the La Brea Tar Pits (P-19-159), where human bone has been dated to 8520 cal BC.14 Evidence of possible early human occupation has also been found at the sand dune bluff site of Malaga Cove (P-19-138), located between Redondo Beach and Palos Verdes.15 Researchers have proposed that archaeological remains recovered from the lowermost cultural stratum at the site, which include shell, animal bone, and chipped stone tools, may date as early as 8000 cal BC.16,17

10 Erlandson, J.M., D.J. Kennett, B.L. Ingram, D.A. Guthrie, D.P. Morris, M.A. Tveshov, G.J. West, and P.L. Walker. 1996. “An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California.” Radiocarbon, 38: 355–373. 11 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 12 Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press, 103–13. 13 Rick, T.C., J.M. Erlandson, and R.L. Vellanoweth. 2001. “Paleocoastal Fishing along the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Evidence from Daisy Cave, San Miguel Island, California.” American Antiquity, 66:595–614. 14 Berger, R., R. Protsch, R. Reynolds, C. Rozaire, and J.R. Sackett. 1971. New Radiocarbon Dates Based on Bone Collagen of California Indians. Los Angeles, CA: Contributions to the University of California Archaeological Survey, 43– 49. 15 Walker, Edwin Francis. 1951. Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Los Angeles, CA: Southwest Museum, F. W. Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund VI. 16 Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press, 132. 17 Wallace, W.J. 1986. “Archaeological Research at Malaga Cove.” In Symposium: A New Look at Some Old Sites, ed. G.S. Breschini and T. Haversat. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press.

The Millingstone Period or Horizon, also referred to as the “Encinitas Tradition,”18,19 is the earliest well-established cultural occupation of the coastal areas of the region. The onset of this period, which began sometime between 7000 and 6500 cal BC, is marked by the expansion of populations throughout the Northern California Bight. Regional variations in technology, settlement patterns, and mortuary practices among Millingstone sites have led researchers to define several local manifestations or “patterns” of the tradition.20 Groups that occupied modern-day Los Angeles County are thought to have been relatively small and highly mobile during this time, with a general subsistence economy focused on the gathering of shellfish and plant foods, particularly hard seeds, with hunting being of less importance.21

Two temporal subdivisions have been defined for the portion of the Topanga Pattern falling within the Millingstone Period: Topanga I (circa 6500 to 3000 BC) and Topanga II (circa 3000 to 1000 BC).22 Topanga I assemblages are characterized by abundant manos and metates, core tools and scrapers, charmstones, cogged stone, and discoidals; projectile points are quite rare with those present resembling earlier, large, leaf-shaped forms.23 Secondary inhumations with associated cairns are the most common burial form at Millingstone sites, with small numbers of extended inhumations also identified. The subsequent Topanga II phase largely represents a continuation of the Topanga pattern with site assemblages characterized by numerous manos and metates, charmstones, cogged stones, discoidals, and some stone balls. A significant technological change in ground stone occurs at this time, with the appearance of mortars and pestles at Topanga II sites suggesting the adoption of balanophagy by coastal populations.24 The quantity of projectile points also notably increases in Topanga II site deposits indicating that the hunting of large game may have played a greater role in the subsistence economy than in earlier times. While secondary burials continue to be quite common, a few flexed inhumations have also been recovered from archaeological contexts dating to the Topanga II phase.

A number of Millingstone sites have been identified in Los Angeles County. The lower component of the Tank site (P-19-1), located in the Santa Monica Mountains, was excavated in the 1940s and determined to be Topanga I in age.25 In the San Fernando Valley, the Encino site (P-19-111) is

18 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54. 19 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64. 20 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64. 21 Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 196. 22 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64. 23 Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 194. 24 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64, 41. 25 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64, 8.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-5 thought to have contained a Topanga I component.26 The artifact assemblage is definitive of the Topanga I period, containing many milling implements, but few projectile points. The presence of mortars and pestles alongside stemmed projectile points at the Chatsworth site (P-19-21), located at the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, suggests a Topanga II presence.27 The Big Tujunga Wash site, located at the eastern edge of the San Fernando Valley, may have also contained a Topanga II component.28

Late Holocene: Intermediate Period (1500/1000 BC to AD 750)

The Intermediate Period, which encompasses the early portion of the “Del Rey Tradition” as defined by Sutton,29 begins around 3500 BP. At this time, significant changes are seen throughout the coastal areas of Southern California in material culture, settlement systems, subsistence strategies, and mortuary practices. These new cultural traits have been attributed to the arrival of Takic-speaking people from the southern San Joaquin Valley.30 Biological, archaeological, and linguistic data indicate that the Takic groups who settled in the Los Angeles Basin were ethnically distinct from the preexisting Hokan-speaking Topanga populations and are believed to be ancestral to ethnographic Gabrielino groups.31 While archaeological evidence indicates that “relic” Topanga III populations continued to survive in isolation in the Santa Monica Mountains, these indigenous groups appear to have been largely replaced or absorbed by the Gabrielino or Chumash by 2000 BP.32

Intermediate Period sites within the San Fernando Valley are represented by the “Angeles Pattern” of the Del Rey Tradition.33 Three temporal subdivisions have been defined for the portion of the Angeles Pattern that falls within the Intermediate Period: Angeles I (1500 to 600 BC), Angeles II (600 BC to AD 400), and Angeles III (AD 400 to 750).34 The onset of the Angeles I phase is characterized by the increase and aggregation of regional populations and the appearance of the first village settlements. The prevalence of projectile points, single-piece shell fishhooks, and bone harpoon points at Angeles I sites suggests a subsistence shift in the Intermediate Period with an increased emphasis on fishing and terrestrial hunting and less reliance on the gathering of shellfish resources. Regional trade or interaction networks also appeared to develop at this time with coastal

26 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64, 8. 27 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64, 8. 28 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64, 8. 29 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54. 30 Sutton, Mark Q. 2009. “People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion in Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 41(2&3): 31–93. 31 Sutton, Mark Q. 2009. “People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion in Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 41(2&3): 31–93. 32 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64, 17. 33 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54. 34 Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64, 8.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-6 populations in Los Angeles County obtaining small steatite artifacts and Olivella shell beads from the southern Channel Islands and obsidian from the Coso Volcanic Field.35 Finally, marked changes are seen in mortuary practices during the Angeles I phase, with flexed primary inhumations and cremations replacing extended inhumations and cairns.

The Angeles II phase largely represents a continuation and elaboration of the Angeles I technology, settlement, and subsistence systems. One exception to this pattern is the introduction of a new funerary complex around 2600 BP, consisting of large rock cairns or platforms that contain abundant broken tools, faunal remains, and cremated human bone. These mortuary features have generally been thought to represent the predecessor of the Southern California Mourning Ceremony.36 Several important changes in the archaeological record mark the beginning of the Angeles III phase. At this time, larger seasonal villages characterized by well-developed middens and cemeteries were established along the coast or inland areas. Archaeological data from Angeles III sites indicate that residents of these settlements practiced a fairly diverse subsistence strategy that included the exploitation of both marine and terrestrial resources.37 Notable technological changes occurred at this time with the introduction of the plank canoe and bow and arrow.38 The appearance of new Olivella bead types at Angeles III sites indicates a reconfiguration of existing regional exchange networks with increased interaction with populations in the Gulf of California.39 Finally, cremations increase slightly in frequency at this time, with inhumations no longer placed in an extended position.40 Intermediate Period sites in Los Angeles County include P-19-2 and P-19- 197, located in the Santa Monica Mountains. The formal cemeteries at these sites are representative of the increased sedentism that occurred during the Intermediate Period.41

Late Holocene: Late Period (AD 750 to Spanish Contact)

The Late Period dates from approximately AD 750 until Spanish contact at AD 1542. Sutton42 has divided this period, which falls within the larger Del Rey Tradition, into two phases: Angeles IV

35 Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson. 2002. “Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, ed. M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology. 36 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54. 37 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54. 38 Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 203–4. 39 Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson. 2002. “Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, ed. M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology. 40 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54. 41 Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 202. 42 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-7 (AD 750–1200) and Angeles V (AD 1200–1550). The Angeles IV phase is characterized by the continued growth of regional populations and the development of large, sedentary villages. Although chiefdoms appear to have developed in the northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara region after 850 BP,43,44 little direct evidence has been found to suggest this level of social complexity existed in the San Fernando Valley during the late prehistoric period.45

Several new types of material culture appear during the Angeles IV phase including Cottonwood series points, birdstone and “spike” effigies, Olivella cupped beads, and Mytilus shell disk beads. The presence of Southwestern pottery, Patayan ceramic figurines, and Hohokam shell bracelets at Angeles IV sites suggests some interaction between groups in Southern California and the Southwest. Notable changes are seen in regional exchange networks after 800 BP, with an increase in the number and size of steatite artifacts, including large vessels, elaborate effigies, and comals, recovered from Angeles V sites. The presence of these artifacts suggests a strengthening of trade ties between coastal Los Angeles populations and the southern Channel Islands.46 Finally, Late Period mortuary practices remain largely unchanged from the Intermediate Period with flexed primary inhumations continuing to be the preferred burial method.

Late Period sites in Los Angeles County include P-19-227 and P-19-229, located in the Santa Monica Mountains. Both sites contain less millingstone artifacts than earlier sites, but more mortars, pestles, projectile points, drills, beads, pipes, and bone tools.47 Although these sites represent a move toward centralized sedentary villages during this period, it is unclear whether they represent year-round occupation or semipermanent villages used as base settlements.48

5.2.1.2 Ethnographic Context

Native American territorial occupation of the San Fernando Valley is traditionally assigned to the Gabrielino, or Tongva, group; however, the Chumash and Tataviam territories are thought to have bordered the northwest and northern limits of the San Fernando Valley.49,50,51 For this study, a description of Gabrielino ethnography is provided.

43 Arnold, Jeanne E. 1992. “Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands.” American Antiquity, 57(1): 60–84. 44 Gamble, Lynn H. 2005. “Culture and Climate: Reconsidering the Effect of Palaeoclimatic Variability among Southern California Hunter-Gatherer Societies.” World Archaeology, 37(1): 92–108. 45 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54. 46 Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson. 2002. “Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, ed. M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology, 69. 47 Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press, 141. 48 Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 210. 49 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 538. 50 King, C., and T. Blackburn. 1978. “Tataviam.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 535. 51 Grant, C. 1978. “Eastern Coastal Chumash.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 538.

At the time of European contact, the Native Americans subsequently known as the Gabrielino Indians occupied nearly the entire basin comprising the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange. They belonged to the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. Named after the Mission San Gabriel, the Gabrielino are considered to have been one of the two wealthiest and largest ethnic groups in aboriginal Southern California,52 the other being the Chumash. This was largely due to the many natural resources within the land base they controlled, primarily the rich coastal section from Topanga Canyon to Aliso Creek and the offshore islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina.

The Gabrielino arrived in the Los Angeles basin around 500 BC and began to spread throughout the area, displacing a preexisting Hokan-speaking population. The first Spanish contact with the Gabrielino took place in 1520, when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo arrived in Santa Catalina Island. In 1602, the Spanish returned to Santa Catalina under Sebastián Vizcaíno, and in 1769, Gaspar de Portolá made the first attempt to colonize Gabrielino territory. By 1771, the Spanish had built four missions, and the decimation of the Gabrielino had already begun.53 European diseases and conflicts among the Gabrielino population, as well as conversion to Christianity, carried a toll in their numbers, traditions, and beliefs.

Although determining an accurate account of the population numbers is difficult, Bean and Smith54 state that by AD 500, the Gabrielino established permanent settlements, and their population continued to grow. Early Spanish accounts indicate that the Gabrielino lived in permanent villages with a population ranging from 50 to 200 individuals. The Gabrielino population surpassed 5,000 people by around 1770.

Several types of structures characterized the Gabrielino villages. They lived in domed circular structures covered with tule, ferm, or carrizo. Communal structures measured over 60 feet in diameter and could house three or four families. Sweathouses, menstrual huts, and a ceremonial enclosure were also part of the village arrangements.55

The Gabrielino practiced different subsistence strategies that included hunting, fishing, and gathering. Hunting activities on land were carried out with the use of bow and arrow, deadfalls, snares, and traps. Smoke and throwing clubs also were used to assist with the hunt of burrowing animals. Aquatic animals were hunted with harpoons, spear-throwers, and clubs. Although most fishing activities took place along rivers and from shore, open water fishing trips between mainland and the islands also took place using boats made from wood planks and asphaltum. The Gabrielino fishing equipment included fishhooks made of shells, nets, basketry traps, and poison substances obtained from plants.56

52 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 538. 53 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 540–541. 54 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 540. 55 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 542. 56 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 546.

The Gabrielino diet included a large number of animals, such as deer, rabbit, squirrel, snake, and rats, as well as a wide variety of insects. However, some meat taboos also existed. The meat of bears, rattlesnakes, stingrays, and ravens were not consumed; these animals were believed to be messengers of the god Chengiichngech. Aquatic animals such as fish, whales, seals, sea otters, and shellfish were also an important part of the diet, mainly among the coastal population.57

A variety of plant foods were consumed by the Gabrielino, the main one being acorns. These nuts are rich in nutrients and have a high content of fiber and fat. Other plants used for consumption by the Gabrielino include the seeds of the Islay (Prunus ilicifolia), which were ground into a meal, and the seeds and shoots of the Chía (Salvia columbariae), which were eaten raw, made into loaves, or mixed with water to make a beverage. Roots and bulbs were also part of the diet among the mainland and island groups, as well as clover, wild sunflower seeds, and cholla seeds. Wild tobacco was used for medicinal purposes and as a sedative and narcotic.58

The Gabrielinos were involved in trade among themselves and with other groups. Coastal Gabrielinos exchanged steatite, shell and shell beads, dried fish, sea otter pelts, and salt with inland groups for acorns, seeds, obsidian, and deerskins.59 During the late prehistoric period, the principal trade item, both among the Gabrielino and for export to other groups, was steatite. Also known as soapstone or soaprock, major outcroppings of steatite are found on Santa Catalina Island. Steatite was widely used among the Gabrielino to make arrow straighteners and artistic or ritualistic objects. In addition, this rock was used in the making of functional objects for food preparation such as bowls, mortars, pestles, and comals.60 Archaeological data indicate that a steatite “industry” developed prehistorically on the island that involved the large-scale trade of both raw materials and finished artifacts to mainland communities.61

5.2.1.3 Historic Context62

European Discovery and the Mission Period

The first Europeans to pass through the San Fernando Valley were a group of Spanish explorers on their way to Monterey Bay from San Diego. Under the leadership of Gaspar de Portolá, the exploration party crossed the Santa Monica Mountains and entered the San Fernando Valley on August 5, 1769. After camping in the present-day community of Encino, the group headed north, traversing the Santa Clarita Valley on their way to Santa Barbara.

57 McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 116–117, 121, 126. 58 McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 128–131. 59 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 547. 60 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 547. 61 Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 547. 62 Much of this section is drawn from: Robinson, W. 1961. The Story of the San Fernando Valley. Los Angeles, CA: Title Insurance and Trust Company.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-10 In August of 1795, an exploration party set out to identify a site for a new mission, to be located between the San Gabriel Mission and the San Buenaventura Mission. The requirements included that the land be viable for crops, be near a source of abundant water, and have an indigenous population that could be converted to Catholicism. With these objectives met, a site for the new mission was decided upon in the upper half of the Los Encinos Valle, as the San Fernando Valley was then called. The spot for the new mission was located within the property boundary of the Reyes Rancho, which was owned by Francisco Reyes, the alcalde (mayor) of the Pueblo de Los Angeles. Reyes had prospered as a result of his landholdings, and the Reyes Rancho consisted of a large family home; livestock; crops such as corn, beans, and melon; and numerous Native American ranch hands. At the request of the church, Reyes relinquished an enormous portion of his ranch to be utilized for the new Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana (San Fernando Mission).

The San Fernando Mission was established on September 8, 1797, and was the 17th mission founded by the Catholic Church in California. Father Fermin Francisco Lausen was appointed in charge of the mission. The name given to the mission honored King Ferdinand III of Spain (1217– 1251). In order to assist in the establishment of the San Fernando Mission, several other California missions sent nearly 1,000 animals that included cattle, horses, mules, and sheep. Crops were planted, and nearby Native American groups, such as the Tongva, were forced into mission life. While living at the mission, they were under the direction of the priests who required the Native Americans to farm (wheat, barley, corn, beans, peas, and fruit trees); raise cattle; cure hides; tend vineyards; make wine; and practice a trade, such as carpentry, masonry, tailoring or shoemaking.

The Mexican Period

In 1822, when Mexico declared its independence from Spain, initially little changed for the missions. At that time, there were approximately 1,000 Native Americans living and working at the San Fernando Mission. However, in 1834, the Mexican government secularized the California Missions, which resulted in the San Fernando Mission being turned over to Don Pedro Lopez, who acted as mission majordomo (governor of the mission). Between 1840 and 1846, six separate land grants were carved out of the former Rancho Misión San Fernando Rey de España. Eulogio de Célis was the first to acquire the entire 116,858-acre ranch for an estimated $14,000. Further encroachments on mission lands in the valley included Tujunga (1840), El Escorpión (1845), El Encino (1845), La Providencia (1845), and Cahuenga (1846). In 1846, California governor Pio Pico authorized the sale of remaining mission land to raise money to defend Mexican California from an inevitable American takeover.

The American Period

After the American conquest of Mexican California in 1847, Pio Pico’s brother, Andres Pico, retained a portion of the Rancho Ex-Mission San Fernando, which included the former Mission buildings that he used as his home. This land was eventually given to Pio Pico, who in 1869 sold the land to the San Fernando Farm Homestead Association. Much of the land from this sale came under the control of two men: Isaac Lankershim and Isaac Newton Van Nuys. Together, the two men initially used the land for ranching, but after a drought killed off much of their livestock, they switched to farming wheat. By 1874, San Fernando was recognized by the county as a town, bringing in plans for railroad development, improved roads and infrastructure, and more residents. During the 1880s, many of the original Mexican land grants had been subdivided into agricultural tracts that were used primarily for raising citrus, nuts, beans, wheat, and vegetables.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-11 The 20th century brought the San Fernando Valley the critical resource it was lacking: an abundant and reliable source of water for agriculture. The Los Angeles Aqueduct was completed in 1913, and soon after San Fernando Valley was annexed by the City of Los Angeles. Between the 1910s and 1920s, much of the land in the valley was used for field crops and orchard agriculture. Most of the groves were situated on relatively frost-free land, were owner-operated, and consisted of tracts of 10 to 15 acres. Major industrial activity in the San Fernando Valley apart from agricultural processing grew to include the fledgling aerospace industry. The entertainment industry set up studios in the San Fernando Valley and used the rugged landscape of the Simi Hills on the northern edge of the valley to film many early western films and television series.

During the 1930s, the population of the San Fernando Valley grew due to the increased use of automobiles, which required the construction of roads and highways. After World War II, the population increased even more dramatically with tract home development to accommodate returning war veterans, which led to many orchards being replaced by the suburban sprawl that today dominates much of the San Fernando Valley.

5.2.2 Cultural Resources Characterization

5.2.2.1 Previous Archaeological Surveys in the Study Area

The results of the literature review indicate that 30 archaeological studies have been conducted within ½ mile of the proposed project; of these, none has been completed within the parcel boundaries. A brief summary of each of these surveys is provided below (Table 5.2.2.1-1, Previous Surveys within the Cultural Resources Study Area; Figure 5.2.2.1-1, Previously Conducted Investigations within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius).

Project Boundary 1/2-Mile Radius LA 1956 LA 5018 LA 7564 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys LA 2301 LA 9520 LA 8110

!( LA 7564 LA 3307 LA 10507 LA 3996 and LA 4461

LA 1578 LA 3426 LA 11783 LA 3009, LA 3153, LA 6716, LA 6720, and LA 6721 LA 3496 LA 3427 LA 11806 LA 3920 LA 3477 LA 11992

LA 8251 LA 3617

SOURCE: SEI, ESRI, SCCIC

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles o 1:20,000 Q:\1259\Patel_Housing\ArcProjects\CRTR\Previous_Investigations.mxd

FIGURE 5.2.2.1-1 Previously Conducted Investigations within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius TABLE 5.2.2.1-1 PREVIOUS SURVEYS WITHIN THE CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA

Report No. Year Report Title Authors Resources LA-01101 1981 Cultural Resource Survey and Impact Singer, Clay Assessment for the Universal City A. Amphitheater Bridge and Frontage Road Areas in Cahuenga Pass, Los Angeles County LA-01578 1983 Technical Report Archaeological Anonymous Resources Los Angeles Rapid Rail Transit Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report LA-01956 1977 Queenfield Estates Residential Van Horn, Development Queensfield Limited Draft David M. Environmental Impact Report LA-02301 1991 The Historic Site of Campo De Knight, 19-001945 Cahuenga Site Revisit? Assessment of an Albert Approximate One Acre Parcel, Located in Universal City (part of the City of Los Angeles), California LA-03009 1994 Damages to and Losses of Cultural Knight, 19-000052, 19-000264, Resources in Los Angeles County, Albert 19-000448, 19-000449, California During the Riots, Fire Storms 19-01126, 19-001945, and Earthquakes of 1992-1994 19-002006, 19-002175, 19-002176,19-000052, 19-000264, 19-000448, 19-000449, 19-001126,19-001945, 19-002006, 19-002175, 19-002176 LA-03153 1994 Campo De Cahunega (CA-LAN-1945h) Kaptain, 19-001945 an Historic Site in San Fernando Valley Neal 3919 Lankshim Boulevard North Hollywood, California LA-03307 1995 Interim Excavations at Universal City Foster, John 19-001945, 19-002394 Station, C-301: Campo De Cahuenga M. and (CA-LAN-1945h) Mark Selerston LA-03426 1996 Universal City Specific Plan Draft Anonymous Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices Appendix M-1 Historic Property Survey Report LA-03427 1996 Universal City Specific Plan Draft Brown, Joan Environmental Impact Report Technical C. Appendices Appendix M-2 Archaeology LA-03477 1996 Evaluation of Significance Campo De Foster, John 19-001945 Cahuenga, CA-LAN-1945h Los Angeles, M. California

Report No. Year Report Title Authors Resources LA-03496 ? Draft Environmental Impact Report Anonymous 19-000159, 19-001945 Transit Corridor Specific Plan Park Mile Specific Plan Amendments LA-03617 1997 Addendum Report on Archaeological Foster, John 19-001945 Investigations at Campo De Cahuenga, M. and CA-LAN-1945h Roberta S. Greenwood LA-03920 1998 New U.s 101 Freeway On-ramp, New Hale, Alice Access Road From Bluffside Drive to E. Park Parking Lot, and Temporary US 101 On-ramp, All Within South Weddington Park LA-03996 1998 Supplemental Excavations, Phase I Foster, John 19-001945 Universal City Station, Campo De M. Cahuenga (CA-LAN-1945h) LA-04461 1998 Department of Transportation Act of Unknown 19-001945 1966 Revised Section 4(f) Evaluation for Metro Line, Universal City Station, Campo De Cahuenga Public Park LA-04906 2000 Universal Station, Park and Ride Greenwood, 19-002804 Facility: Archaeological Investigations at Roberta S. CA-LAN-2804h LA-05018 2000 Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Iverson, 148001 Gary

LA-06120 2000 Archaeological and Historic Foster, John 19-001945 Investigations at Campo De Cahuenga, M., Leonard CA-LAN-1945h Second Addendum Pitt, and Report Edna E. Kimbro LA-06716 2000 Second Addendum Report: Foster, John 19-001945 Archaeological and Historic M., Leonard Investigations at Campo De Cahuenga, Pitt, and CA-LAN-1945h/historical Background of Edna E. Campo De Cahuenga by Leonard Pitt & Kimbro Edna Kimbro LA-06720 2000 Evaluation of Historical Significance for Slawson, 19-001945 Campo De Cahuenga Memorial Park Dana N. and 3919 Lankershim Boulevard, North Roberta S. Hollywood, California Greenwood LA-06721 2000 Universal Station Main Entrance: Foster, John 19-001945 Archaeological Investigations at CA- M. LAN-1945h LA-07564 1998 Archaeological Status Report: Greenwood, 19-001575, 19-001945, Collections and Reports Roberta S. 19-002393, 19-002394, 19-002563

Report No. Year Report Title Authors Resources LA-08110 2004 Archaeological Monitor Report Campo Hale, Alice 19-001945 De Cahuenga CA-LAN-1945h (19- E. and Scott 001945), 3919 Lankershim Boulevard, Savastion North Hollywood, California LA-08251 2004 Los Angeles Metro Red Line Project, Gust, Sherri 19-001945, 19-002393, Segments 2 and 3 Archaeological and Heather 19-002804, 19-003300, Resources Impact Mitigation Program Puckett 19-003301, 19-003302, Final Report of Findings 19-003303, 19-003304, 19-003305, 19-003306, 19-003307, 19-100281, 19-186585 LA-09520 2008 Archaeological Survey Report - United Goossens, States Route 101 at Leonora Drive Michelle Excess Parcel Sale, Los Angeles County, California LA-10507 1983 Technical Report - Anonymous Historical/Architectural Resources - Los Angeles Rail Rapid Transit Project "Metro Rail'' Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report LA-11783 2012 Supplemental Finding of No Adverse Stewart, Effect, Upgrade Bridge Rails in L.A. Noah and County on Highway 101 Allison, Noah LA-11806 2008 Archaeological Resources Assessment Strauss, 19-001945, 19-002394, for the Proposed Metro Universal Monica and 19-002804, 19-003303, Project City of Los Angeles, California Dietler, Sara 19-003304, 19-003305 LA-11992 2009 Findings of No Adverse Effect, Upgrade Stewart, Bridge Rails in L.A. County om Noah Highway 101

5.2.2.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources in the Study Area

The results of the literature review indicate that six archaeological resources have been identified within the cultural resources study area. None of these previously recorded resources are located within the proposed project area. One site (CA-LAN-001945H, the Feliz Adobe), is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and one historic district (P-19-187794, Universal City and Studios) has been determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP (Table 5.2.2.2-1, Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Located within the Cultural Resources Study Area; Figure 5.2.2.2-1, Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius).

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-037\Documents\Garlock CRTR\Section 5 Results.Doc Page 5-15 LEGEND Project Boundary Project Boundary 1/2-Mile Radius Previously Recorded Cultural Resources !( P-19-2394H 19-1945H P-19-2366H P-19-3303 P-19-3305 P-19-187794

P-19-2366H

P-19-3305 19-1945H P-19-3303 !( P-19-2394H P-19-187794

SOURCE: SEI, ESRI, SCCIC

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles o 1:20,000 Q:\1259\Patel_Housing\ArcProjects\CRTR\CulturalResources.mxd

FIGURE 5.2.2.2-1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius

TABLE 5.2.2.2-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN THE CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA

Time Period

Primary

Number Trinomial Prehistoric Historic Type Description NRHP Eligibility Site Site of the Feliz Adobe, Listed on the NRHP CA-LAN- P-19-001945 X the former headquarters (2003) 001945H of Rancho Cahuenga CA-LAN- Site Trash-filled trench and Unevaluated P-19-002366 X 002366H brick-lined well CA-LAN- Site Trash-filled trench and Unevaluated P-19-002394 X 002394H brick-lined well CA-LAN- Site Large buried trash Unevaluated P-19-003303 X 003303H dump CA-LAN- Site Unevaluated P-19-003305 X 003305H Trash dump Building; Universal City and Determined Eligible P-19-187794 X Historic District Studios

5.2.2.3 Results of the Cultural Resources Site Visit

The cultural resources site visit did not identify any new cultural resources within the proposed project area.

5.2.3 Impact Analysis

The proposed project would not be expected to result in significant impacts to archaeological and historic resources related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a prehistoric archeological resource. There are no known previously recorded archaeological or historic resources within the proposed project area.63 The cultural resources field visit did not identify any new cultural resources within the proposed project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.

5.2.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures

The proposed project would not be expected to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. There are no archaeological or historical resources within the proposed project area. Therefore, no avoidance and minimization measures regarding archaeological and historical resources are necessary.

63 Noyes, Lindsey. South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. October 2, 2014. “Re: Proposed Single-Family Residence at 3599 North Lankershim Boulevard.”

5.3 NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITES AND HUMAN REMAINS

5.3.1 Resource Characterization

A Native American sacred site is defined by the NAHC as an area that has been, and often continues to be, of religious significance to Native American peoples, such as an area where religious ceremonies are practiced or an area that is central to their origins as a people.64 Consultation with the NAHC indicated that no Native American sacred sites are located within the proposed project area.65 As of November 2014, letters to the recommended tribal organizations and individuals identified by NAHC did not result in any responses. The records searches, cultural resources site visit, and consultation did not reveal any known cemeteries or burial sites within the area of potential impact.

5.3.2 Impact Analysis

There are no known Native American sacred sites or burial sites within the proposed project area. The proposed project would not be expected to directly or indirectly affect or destroy a Native American sacred site or human remains. However, buried human remains that were not identified during record searches and field surveys could be inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, which could result in damage to these human remains.

5.3.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures

5.3.3.1 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains

In the event of an accidental discovery of human remains, work in the immediate vicinity should stop until the Los Angeles County coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are those of a Native American, the following would apply:66

a. The coroner shall contact the NAHC.

b. If the discovered human remains are determined to be Native American remains and are released by the coroner, these remains shall be left in situ with temporary barriers placed at safe distance.

c. The human remains shall be protected until Los Angeles County and the NAHC come to a decision on the final disposition of the remains.

64 Native American Heritage Commission. Accessed 21 July 2006. “Understanding Cultural Resources.” Available at: www.nahc.ca.gov/understandingcr.html 65 Sanchez, Katy. Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento, CA. October 14, 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. 66 California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5.

5.4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the map review and records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County indicate that no fossil localities have been recorded within the proposed project area. However, the Upper Topanga Formation, a formation with the potential to yield significant paleontological resources, underlies the proposed project area. Record searches indicate that no archaeological or historic resources have been recorded within the proposed project area. Additionally, a cultural resources site visit conducted by a qualified archaeologist did not identify any cultural resources within the proposed project area. The NAHC indicated that no Native American sacred sites or traditional cultural places have been identified within the proposed project area. No Native American sacred sites or traditional cultural places were identified during the cultural resources site visit. There are no formal cemeteries located within the proposed project area.

Several avoidance and minimization measures have been defined to ensure that significant impacts to paleontological resources, and Native American sacred sites and human remains are avoided during project implementation:

Paleontological Resources

 Paleontological Monitoring for Paleontological Resources within the Upper Topanga Formation

Native American Sacred Sites and Human Remains

 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains Protocol

36 CFR Part 800.16.

Arnold, Jeanne E. 1992. “Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands.” American Antiquity, 57(1): 60–84.

Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 538.

Berger, R., R. Protsch, R. Reynolds, C. Rozaire, and J.R. Sackett. 1971. New Radiocarbon Dates Based on Bone Collagen of California Indians. Los Angeles, CA: Contributions to the University of California Archaeological Survey, 43–49.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. Amended 6 October 2005. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15064.5(a).

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. Amended 6 October 2005. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G.

California Code of Regulations. Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, Appendix G.

California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5.

California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 21083.2(g).

California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21083.2, 21084.1.

California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1(a).

California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1(c).

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, 26 September 2001. Conservation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Contact: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Available at: http://planning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/ConsvElt.pdf.

City of Los Angeles, City Planning Commission. 22 May 2003. Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan: Design and Preservation Guidelines.

Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR 60.2.

Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR 60.4.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\Section 6 References.doc Page 6-1 County of Los Angeles Department of Auditor-Controller (J. Tyler McCauley, Auditor-Controller). 21 October 2002. “Sunset Review for the Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission.” Accessed 17 July 2006. Available at: http://auditor.co.la.ca.us/cms1_003345.pdf

Diblee, Thomas. 1991. Geologic Map of California of the Hollywood and South ½ Burbank Quadrangles. Dibblee Geological Foundation Dibblee Foundation Map DF-30, scale 1:24,000.

Erlandson, J.M., D.J. Kennett, B.L. Ingram, D.A. Guthrie, D.P. Morris, M.A. Tveshov, G.J. West, and P.L. Walker. 1996. “An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California.” Radiocarbon, 38: 355–373.

Gamble, Lynn H. 2005. “Culture and Climate: Reconsidering the Effect of Palaeoclimatic Variability among Southern California Hunter-Gatherer Societies.” World Archaeology, 37(1): 92–108.

Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. New York, NY: Altamira, 191–213.

Grant, C. 1978. “Eastern Coastal Chumash.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 538.

Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5.

King, C., and T. Blackburn. 1978. “Tataviam.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 535.

King, Chester. 1990. Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before AD 1804. New York, NY: Garland.

Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson. 2002. “Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, ed. M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology.

McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 116–117, 121, 126.

McLeod, Samuel, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA. October 22, 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press, 103–13.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\Section 6 References.doc Page 6-2 Native American Heritage Commission. Accessed 21 July 2006. “Understanding Cultural Resources.” Available at: www.nahc.ca.gov/understandingcr.html

Noyes, Lindsey. South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. October 2, 2014. “Re: Proposed Single-Family Residence at 3599 North Lankershim Boulevard.”

Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California. n.d. “California Historical Landmarks Registration Programs.” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California. n.d. “California Points of Historical Interest Registration Programs.” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

Office of Historic Preservation. n.d. “Technical Assistance Bulletin 6: California Register and National Register, A Comparison (for Purposes of Determining Eligibility for the California Register).” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. [1991] 2003. Archaeology Theories, Methods, and Practice. 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson.

Rick, T.C., J.M. Erlandson, and R.L. Vellanoweth. 2001. “Paleocoastal Fishing along the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Evidence from Daisy Cave, San Miguel Island, California.” American Antiquity, 66:595–614.

Robinson, W. 1961. The Story of the San Fernando Valley. Los Angeles, CA: Title Insurance and Trust Company.

Sanchez, Katy. Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento, CA. October 15, 2014. Letter response to Karl Holland, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

Scott, E., and K. Springer. Fall 2003. “CEQA and Fossil Preservation in Southern California.” The Environmental Monitor, pp. 4–10, 17.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 1995. “Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontological Resources: Standard Guidelines.” Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163: 22–27.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. “Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines.” Available at: http://vertpaleo.org/The-Society/Governance-Documents/Conformable-Impact-Mitigation- Guidelines-Committee.aspx

Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. SCAG Growth Management Chapter (GMC) Policy No. 3.21. Los Angeles, CA.

Sutton, Mark Q. 2009. “People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion in Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 41(2&3): 31–93.

Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\Section 6 References.doc Page 6-3 Sutton, Mark Q. 2010. “The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2&3): 1–54.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. “Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4): 1–64.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. Available at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/arch

U.S. Geological Survey, 1966 (Photoinspected 1972). Burbank 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000.

United States Code, 16 USC 470.

Walker, Edwin Francis. 1951. Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Los Angeles, CA: Southwest Museum, F. W. Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund VI.

Wallace, W.J. 1986. “Archaeological Research at Malaga Cove.” In Symposium: A New Look at Some Old Sites, ed. G.S. Breschini and T. Haversat. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press.

Wallace, William J. 1955. “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11:214–230.

Warren, Claude M. 1968. “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast.” In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, ed. Cynthia Irwin-Williams. Portales, NM: Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1.