2015 02 19 HPCHPC agendas and staff reports are now
available on the City's web page:
www.la-guinta. org
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITY HALL STUDY SESSION ROOM
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta
REGULAR MEETING on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015 AT 3:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
1 . Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time members of the public may address the Commission on any matter not
listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes. When discussing matters pertaining to prehistoric
sites, do not disclose the exact location of the site(s) for their protection.
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the minutes of November 20, 2014.
BUSINESS SESSION
Specific Plan 2014-1001, Tentative Tract Map 36744, and Site
Development Permit 2014-1003 submitted by Griffin Ranch Investors, LP for
the consideration of a Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report and
a Paleontological Resources Assessment prepared by CRM Tech for an
approximately 40 acre site. Project: The Estates at Griffin Lake. Location:
south side of Avenue 54, between Monroe and Madison Streets (81345
Avenue 54).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA 1 FEBRUARY 19, 2015
CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1. Discuss update of the La Quinta Historic Survey (2006).
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
1. Historic Preservation Conference will be held in San Diego, California, from
April 29 through May 2, 2015.
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will be held on
March 19, 2015, commencing at 3:00 p.m. at the La Quinta Study Session Room,
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Monika Radeva, Secretary, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the
foregoing Agenda for the Historic Preservation Commission meeting was posted on
the inside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin
boards at 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321
Avenida Bermudas, on February 12, 2015.
DATED: February 11, 2015
G
MONIKA RADEVA, secretary
City of La Quinta, California
PUBLIC NOTICES
The La Quinta City Study Session Room is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the
hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the
meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Commission, arrangements should be
made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Commission during a Historic Preservation Commission meeting,
please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Secretary for
distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be
made available for public inspection at the Community Development Department's counter at City Hall located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA 2 FEBRUARY 19, 2015
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission was called to
order at 3:37 p.m. by Chairperson Maevers.
PRESENT: Commissioners Leila Namvar, Maria Puente, Peggy Redmon,
Linda Williams and Chairperson Kevin Maevers
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager David Sawyer and Executive Assistant
Monika Radeva
Commissioner Redmon led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA- Confirmed
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Williams to
approve the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of October 16, 2014, as
submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
BUSINESS SESSION
1 . Review of draft Annual 2014/201 5 Work Program.
2. Review of the 2013/2014 Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report.
Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Redmon/Namvar
approving the submittal of the 2013/2013 CLG Annual Report as proposed.
Motion passed unanimously.
CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None.
REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES 1 OCTOBER 16, 2014
COMMISSIONER ITEMS — None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Williams/Namvar to adjourn this meeting at 4:09 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
MONIKA RADE%
City of La Quint;
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 16, 2014
BI 1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2015
ITEMS: HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2014-1001
TENTATIVE TRACT 36744
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2014-1003
APPLICANT: GRIFFIN RANCH INVESTORS, LP (MARK MAJER)
CONSULTANT: CRM TECH
PROJECT: THE ESTATES AT GRIFFIN LAKE
LOCATION: 81345 AVENUE 54
BACKGROUND:
The study area is a 40 ± acre site located on the south side of Avenue 54, between
Monroe and Madison Streets. The property, varying between 10-20 feet below mean
sea level, was developed as a residential and equestrian compound built during the late
1970's through mid-1980's, and was formerly owned by the late Mery Griffin. The
property is bordered by the Griffin Ranch residential project to the south, east and west,
with the Madison Club development across Avenue 54 to the north. The City is
currently processing development applications proposing to subdivide the site into 78
single-family lots, leaving the original Mery Griffin estate intact and expanding the
existing 2.1-acre pond to a 6-acre lake.
A Phase I (survey level) Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey was completed for
the subject property. The Survey includes a record search and field survey of the
property. As per SB 18 procedure, the City requested comments from tribal contacts
provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. The 90-day consultation period
passed with no consultation requests or specific comments on the project being
received.
A Paleontological Resources Assessment was also completed for the property, which
includes a field survey, records search, findings from the area and personnel
qualifications.
Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 1 of 4
These reports, when accepted, will be part of the environmental review required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project application.
DISCUSSION:
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey - A comprehensive records search and on -
site investigation were conducted on the project site by CRM Tech. CRM Tech also
contacted local Tribes and received no information identifying traditional cultural sites
on or in the vicinity of the project site. The records search determined that the site was
not previously surveyed. However, more than 30 prior studies have historically been
conducted within one mile of the project site. These studies uncovered 24
historic/archaeological sites and 63 isolates (sites with less than 3 artifacts). As none of
these were recorded in the project site's immediate vicinity, no further consideration
under this survey is warranted.
The on -site investigation identified no historic or prehistoric materials within the project
area. Historical sources consulted suggest the area remained mostly undeveloped by
man until the 1950's. No evidence of any buildings constructed prior to 1978 was
found; all existing buildings on the site are consistent with the period during which Mr.
Griffin developed the property and are considered modern. Overall, the entire project
area has been disturbed by past development.
The field survey showed no potential for cultural resources on the site. CRM Tech
concluded that the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any
known historic resource, no further cultural resource investigation is necessary, and has
recommended that, should any cultural materials be unearthed, all work in that area
should be halted so that the materials can be examined and evaluated by a qualified
archaeological monitor. HPC policy requires monitoring in this part of the City regardless
of whether artifacts were found during a Phase I survey.
Paleontological Resources Assessment — CRM Tech conducted a review of previous
records searches in the project vicinity through the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County, and the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands. Additionally, a
literature search of the consultant's in-house library and personal records was also
conducted. Though the results indicate that no paleontological localities have been
discovered within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, several localities have
been previously reported in nearby areas that share the project area's soils
characteristics. The San Bernardo County Museum finds the project vicinity to have a
"high paleontological sensitivity" and that the project has a "high potential to impact
significant nonrenewable fossil resources." The Natural History Museum reflects a
similar concern.
A field survey was conducted on April 4, 2014, by CRM Tech staff. While it was noted
that development activities have heavily disturbed the project area, scattered shells and
Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 2 of 4
shell fragments of freshwater species were observed, which attribute the project site to
being located within the Holocene Lake Cahuilla lakebed sequence.
The report concludes that the proposed site may contain sediments from which many
Holocene localities are known to have been found. It was also concluded that some of
these sediments may be present beneath the site and are considered as high
paleontological sensitivity. Due to the extensively disturbed condition of the site,
periodic monitoring is recommended for demolition, grubbing and shallow grading (up to
a 2 foot depth) and a paleontologic mitigation program to mitigate impacts to be
developed and implemented by a qualified monitor equipped to salvage, collect, record,
identify, and preserve unearthed fossils.
Historic Preservation Commission policy has been to require monitoring of the entire site
during its rough grading as well as trenching if the initial field survey found any fossil
mollusk shells on the surface.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2015- , accepting the "Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey; Mery Griffin Estates Project" prepared by CRM Tech for 81345
Avenue 54, and recommend to the Planning Commission the following
requirements:
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth -moving operations
associated with the project, all work in that area shall be halted or diverted until
a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
• If any resource recovery occurs, a final report shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
• Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the
property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes
and records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
2. Adopt Minute Motion 2015- , accepting the "Paleontological Resources
Assessment Report; Mery Griffin Estates Project" prepared by CRM Tech for
81345 Avenue 54, and recommend to the Planning Commission the following
requirements:
• A paleontological resource impact mitigation program shall be developed and
implemented for the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of
Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 3 of 4
CEQA, as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. The primary component of the mitigation program will be
monitoring of ground disturbances during the project by qualified personnel.
Since the surface soils have been extensively disturbed in the past, only
periodic monitoring is recommended during demolition, tree removal, grubbing,
or shallow surface grading. Continuous monitoring shall be conducted for
deeper grading and excavations that reach beyond a depth of two feet. The
mitigation program should include but not belimited to the following:
• On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as
likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage
fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the
power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal
of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be
given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving permit, or before any
clearing of the site is begun.
• Samples of sediments should be collected and washed to recover small
invertebrate and vertebrate fossils.
• Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with
permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the
future.
• A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be
submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted
by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of
all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when
submitted to the City, will signify completion of the program to mitigate
impacts to paleontological resources.
• Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City for
curation. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards
commonly used in the paleontological industry.
Report prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner
Report approved for submission by: Les Johnson, Community Development Director
Attachments: 1 . Historic/Archaeological Resources Survey; Mery Griffin
Estates Project — CRM Tech
2. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report; Mery Griffin
Estates Project — CRM Tech
Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY
MERV GRIFFIN ESTATES PROJECT
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.767-320-013
81-345 Avenue 54, City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tempico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Prepared for:
Mark Majer, Manager
Griffin Ranch Investors, LP
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite AB
Colton, CA 92324
Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
May 15, 2014
CRM TECH Contract No. 2805A
Author(s): Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian
Deirdre Encamaci6n, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liason
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite AB
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: May 15, 2014 (fieldwork completed on April 30, 2014)
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Mery Griffin Estates
Project, Assessor's Parcel No. 767-320-013, 81345 Avenue 54, City of La
Quinta, Riverside County, California
For Submittal to: Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tempico
La Quinta, CA 92253
(760) 777-7000
Prepared for: Mark Majer, Manager
Griffin Ranch Investors, LP
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 629-2580
USGS Quadrangle: Indio, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle (Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian)
Project Size: Approximately 40 acres
Keywords: Coachella Valley area, Riverside County; Phase I historical/archaeological
resources survey; no "historical resources" affected
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH
performed a cultural resources study on the former Mery Griffin estate in the City of
La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The project area consists of approximately
40 acres of land in Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive
residential compound with associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is
located at 81-345 Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the
northwest quarter of Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project,
which proposes to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development
while retaining the core of the existing residential compound. The City of La Quinta,
as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Historic Preservation
Ordinance. The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary
information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause
substantial adverse changes to any "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, that
may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological
resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native
American representatives, and carried out an intensive -level field survey. Through
these various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any "historical
resources" within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, CRM TECH
recommends to the City of La Quinta a finding of No Impact regarding cultural
resources.
No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless
development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this
study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth -
moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted
or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of
the finds.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................
1
SETTING..............................................................................................................................................
3
CurrentNatural Setting.....................................................................................................................
3
CulturalSetting.................................................................................................................................
3
PrehistoricContext........................................................................................................................
3
EthnohistoricContext...................................................................................................................
4
HistoricContext............................................................................................................................
5
RESEARCHDESIGN..........................................................................................................................
6
RESEARCHMETHODS.....................................................................................................................
7
RecordsSearch..................................................................................................................................
7
HistoricalResearch...........................................................................................................................
8
Native American Participation..........................................................................................................
8
FieldSurvey......................................................................................................................................
8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................................................
8
RecordsSearch..................................................................................................................................
8
HistoricalResearch...........................................................................................................................
9
Native American Participation........................................................................................................
12
FieldSurvey....................................................................................................................................
13
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................
14
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................
15
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................
16
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications............................................................................................
18
APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ...........................................
22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1.
Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure2.
Project area...........................................................................................................................
2
Figure 3.
Typical landscapes in the project area..................................................................................
3
Figure 4.
Previous cultural resources studies.....................................................................................
10
Figure 5.
The project area and vicinity in 1856.................................................................................
11
Figure 6.
The project area and vicinity in 1901.................................................................................
11
Figure 7.
The project area and vicinity in 1903.................................................................................
11
Figure 8.
The project area and vicinity in 1941.................................................................................
12
Figure 9.
The project area and vicinity in 1921-1959........................................................................
12
Figure 10.
Modern features of the former Mery Griffin estate..........................................................
13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Vicinity................................................................. 9
11
INTRODUCTION
In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH performed a
cultural resources study on the former Mery Griffin estate in the City of La Quinta, Riverside
County, California (Fig. 1). The project area consists of approximately 40 acres of land in
Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive residential compound with
associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is located at 81-345 Avenue 54, between
Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian (Fig. 2).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project, which proposes
to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development while retaining the core of the
existing residential compound. The City of La Quinta, as the lead agency for the project, required
the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et
seq.) and the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta Municipal Code). The
purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine
whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any "historical resources,"
as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources
records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives,
and carried out an intensive -level field survey. The following report is a complete account of the
methods, results, and final conclusion of the study.
kr-
-
i n
?1 7.
u " di A j
1 Im deSeTt
s �'c t7rk` m L7eSSFf
Project___
-, `- �• r�� G - Itaaio tow. � 7. �.-i '-� :"
KEIA�r �, location
1. two rr a
4
c75
.: 4•. � s ) `t�� .� Y -�I n I Cerny !]]1�. � �,
&
Acdes
Ranch S
! I SY
) ,1 5 5
i?f A Th,2rmTh�r,T al
_
Feis�F}{l iTklV ' �f L r Natel
L 71:c mp.1 ry k� i Ian
1 ,I
,! , oL h1e�ca - Z
_ } J TOR —
SCALE 1:250,000 "" j Ca ARTIN
0 5 10 miles k. IN AN
RES RVA ION
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979])
1
La Ouinfa Quad.1
.�
.
J r�
V
India Ouad.l ,yam' �/ Iir
k o ..
Pi
0
AVENUE 32
;�/ -fr
{Z
� � u
i�
v k
Project; • •�'-
0
area
AVENUE y►
f
N .r AVENUE
-
r—
i
f U �
�
I
AVENUE .
14
z
• .. __ R O
� l R
N M
• n
A s
i
e—J'Z
90 II
SCALE 1:24,000
0 1/2 1 mile
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000feet
i I1
s =1
n
u AVENUE_
•
p • •
•iL. 0 i
N � M
r.
�.e.�-�
22
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio and La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS 1972; 1980])
2
SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The project area is situated in the Coachella Valley, a northwest -southeast trending desert valley that
constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate
and environment of the project area and its surrounding region are typical of southern California's
desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach
over 120 degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less
than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.
As mentioned above, the project area is occupied by a number of buildings and other facilities of the
former Mery Griffin estate, including the main residence, guesthouses, gazebos, and a pond in the
northwestern portion, stables and corrals in the northeastern portion, and an equestrian racetrack in
the southern portion (Fig. 3). Elevations on the property range around 10-20 feet below mean sea
level, and the terrain is relatively level with a slight incline to the northwest. Soils consist of light
grey fine sands mixed with freshwater shells, and the vegetation observed in the project area
includes both introduced landscaping plants and some native vegetation, such as palms, palo verdes,
tamarisks, eucalyptuses, pepper trees, and small desert shrubs and grasses (Fig. 3).
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led
researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural
Figure 3. Typical landscapes within the project area. Clockwise from top left: view to the south across the equestrian
racetrack; landscaping waste; existing buildings; shell deposits in the surface soils. (Photos taken on April 30, 2014)
3
sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many
archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian
(ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when "small, mobile bands" of hunters and gatherers, who
relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the
region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled "on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes"
(ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools,
"cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types" (ibid.).
The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a
decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied
more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time
period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by
continued low population densities and groups of "flexible" sizes that settled near available seasonal
food resources and relied on "opportunistic" hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for
food processing were prominent during this time period.
The most recent period in Schaefer's scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to
the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern.
Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied
more heavily on the availability of seasonal "wild plants and animal resources" (Schaefer 1994:66).
It was during this period that brown and buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region.
The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and
resource procurement; but in times of the lake's desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer
(1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and
mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the
shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have
recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types,
ornaments, and cremations.
Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors
noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherias, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-
19th century. The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three
groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass -Palm
Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla
Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on
Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following
ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.
The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead,
membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main
divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans
from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called
L!
their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources.
They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.
The Cahuilla people were primarily hunters and gatherers who exploited nearly all of the resources
available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the and conditions
of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the
nearby mountains. When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the
resources presented by the body of fresh water. Once the lake had desiccated, they utilized the
available terrestrial resources. They also migrated to the higher elevations of the nearby mountains
to take advantage of the resources and cooler temperatures available in that environment.
The Cahuilla collected seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, pinon nuts, and
mesquite and screw beans. Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits,
wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowls. The Cahuilla hunted
with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002).
Common tools and utensils included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire
drills, awls, arrow -straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from
locally available material as well as exotic material procured through trade or travel. They also used
wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting,
parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving
food and drink (ibid.).
Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from
3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was
decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had
no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated
with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Torres
Martinez, Augustine, Agua Caliente, Cabazon, and Morongo
Historic Context
In 1823-1825, Josh Romero, Josh Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted
European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in
search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non -Indians
ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who
traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail,
an ancient Indian trading route that was "discovered" in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and
known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella
Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway 111.
During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal
southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in
1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).
Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad
stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was
opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws
5
(Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in
the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian
wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and
by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the
region as the "Arabia of America" (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new
industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread
throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California's premier winter retreat.
In today's City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur
until the turn of the century (BLM n.d.). In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the
development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter resort, typical of the desert communities
along Highway 111. Beginning in the early 1930s, the subdivision of the cove area of La Quinta and
the marketing of "weekend homes" further emphasized this new direction of development (City of
La Quinta 1997:43). On May 1, 1982, La Quinta was incorporated as the 19th city in Riverside
County.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Scientific research should be directed by a theoretical orientation that is geared toward gathering
data to answer questions of current research interest. While numerous theoretical orientations have
been put forward and used to guide archaeological research and to improve data -collecting efforts,
the cultural ecology approach still tends to be the most useful paradigm in archaeological endeavors,
although it is often used in conjunction with newer models. Basically, the cultural ecology approach
to understanding cultural development contends that people develop behavioral patterns in order to
exploit the resources of the area by means of particular technologies. It also assumes that there is
interrelationship of these technologies, the environment, survival, and other aspects of the culture.
Since archaeology deals mostly with the cultural remains that are left long after the people are gone,
this theoretical orientation has obvious advantages for archaeological research, although it is left to
the archaeologist to determine the extent to which the behavior patterns used to exploit the
environment affect other aspects of culture. Because of its continuing usefulness, the cultural
ecology theoretical orientation is the basis of the historical/archaeological investigation used in this
study.
In practice, a research design serves to identify research issues and to illuminate new information for
the purpose of evaluating the significance of cultural resources present within a study area. While
no overarching research design has been established for this part of Riverside County, a standard set
of research questions, or research domains, can be applied to historical/archaeological investigations
in the region, especially for Phase I studies such as this.
The primary goal of a Phase I survey is to identify any prehistoric or historic -period cultural
resources that may be present within the study area. This identification process generally includes a
historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background research, Native American
contacts, and a field inspection. While little detailed data may be available from the research
methods employed during Phase I studies, some types of data gathered during the investigation may
be used to address research issues, at least on a basic level. For instance, just the presence of cultural
G
resources on a property indicates that people used the area. Other research questions, such as those
posited below, can be addressed during Phase I studies only if certain types of artifacts or features
are found within or near the study area.
• Is there any evidence that important events took place on the property or that the property is
associated with a historically important person?
• Can anything be learned regarding the time period the area was used? Can it be determined
whether people used the area during early or late prehistoric times, or during the historic period?
• Can anything be learned about the duration of the use of the land? Was the land used
continuously for a long period of time, was it used only briefly, or was it used repeatedly over
time?
• Can anything be learned about the subsistence strategies of the people who used the land? Is
there any evidence visible on the surface that indicates what food resources were being processed
and/or consumed? Is there any evidence regarding the preparation of the food resources?
• Would any of the information gathered during a Phase I study shed light on settlement patterns?
Could activities in the study area be related with broader patterns of human habitation of the
region? Did the people live on the property or use it only for resource procurement? If they
lived on the property, was it a dense or sparse population? Does occupation of the subject
property disclose any information regarding settlement strategies or preferences?
• Are there historical/archaeological data to be obtained about trade, travel, or cultural
interactions?
In addition, a research design should also outline major themes in the prehistory and history of a
region or specific area, so that any cultural resources encountered during a Phase I study could be
evaluated within the proper context. Based on the prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and historic contexts
discussed above, the following themes can be established for past human activities in the vicinity of
the current project area:
• Exploitation of natural resources by Native Americans during the prehistoric and proto-historic
periods;
• European/American exploration in the Coachella Valley, especially along the historic
Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail;
• Early settlement and rural development in present-day La Quinta and the Coachella Valley in
general;
• Transformation of the "cove communities," including La Quinta, from sparsely populated
agrarian settlements to desert resort towns during the 20th century.
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
On April 21, 2014, CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo (see App. 1 for qualifications)
conducted the historical/archaeological resources records search at the Eastern Information Center
(EIC), University of California, Riverside. During the records search, Gallardo examined maps and
records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resources in or near the project area and
7
existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity. Previously identified cultural resources
include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or
Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the
California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.
HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH historian Bai "Tom"
Tang (see App. 1 for qualifications) on the basis of published literature in local and regional history,
and historic maps of the La Quinta area. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S.
General Land Office's (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856-1903 and the U.S. Geological
Survey's (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1980. These maps are collected at the Science
Library of the University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, located in Moreno Valley.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On April 18, 2014, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California's Native
American Heritage Commission for a records search in the commission's sacred lands file.
Following the Native American Heritage Commission's recommendations, CRM TECH further
contacted 16 tribal representatives in the region in writing on April 23 to solicit local Native
American input regarding any potential cultural resources concerns over the proposed project. The
correspondences between CRM TECH and the Native American representatives are attached to this
report in Appendix 2.
FIELD SURVEY
On April 30, 2014, CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester (see App. 1 for qualifications)
carried out the intensive -level, pedestrian field survey of the project area. Most of the property was
surveyed by walking a system of parallel north -south or east -west transects spaced 10-15 meters
(approx. 33-50 feet) apart. Where the regular survey transects were impracticable, such as around
the existing buildings and structures, Ballester remained as close to the courses of the transects as
possible, and examined the exposed ground surface whenever possible.
In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined
for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years ago or
older). Visibility of the native ground surface ranged from poor (0%) to good (approx. 80%) in the
project area, depending upon the density of the vegetation and the presence of other ground cover,
such as landscaping waste.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this
study, and no cultural resources had been recorded on or adjacent to the property. Outside the
project boundaries but within a one -mile radius, EIC records show more than 30 previous cultural
resources studies covering various tracts of land and linear features, including the adjacent properties
on all sides (Fig. 4).
As a result of these and other similar studies in the vicinity, 24 historical/ archaeological sites were
previously recorded within the scope of the records search, as listed in Table 1. In addition, 63
isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts —were also recorded, consisting
predominantly of ceramic sherds but including groundstone and chipped -stone artifacts as well. All
but one of the isolates, a shotgun shell base, were prehistoric—i.e., Native American —in nature.
None of these previously recorded sites or isolates was located in the immediate vicinity of the
project area, and thus none of them requires further consideration during this study.
HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical sources consulted for this study suggest that the project area apparently remained
unsettled and undeveloped through most of the historic period (Figs. 5-9). Between the 1850s and
the early 1900s, the only man-made feature observed in the present-day La Quinta area was the
historic Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail, which skirted the foot of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the
west of the project location (Figs. 5-7). Other than a foot trail along the course of today's Avenue
54, no man-made features were known to be present in or near the project area as late as 1941,
Table 1. Previously Recorded Sites within the Scope of the Records Search
Site No.
Recorded by/Date
Description
33-000142
Eberhart 1951
Unknown
33-003943
Goodman 1990
Prehistoric temporary camp site
33-003944
Goodman 1990
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-004090
Love and Torres 1990
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-008682
Schroth 1999
Human cremation
33-008683
Schroth 1999
Groundstone and chipped -stone artifacts
33-008684
Schroth 1999
Historic -period refuse scatter
33-008690
Schroth 1999
Historic -period refuse scatter
33-009043
Strudwick et at. 1999
Prehistoric temporary camp site
33-009560
McKenna 1999
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-009561
McKenna 1999
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-009562
McKenna 1999
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-009563
McKenna 1999
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-009564
McKenna 1999
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-011438
Ballester 2002
Ceramic scatter with groundstone and chipped -stone artifacts
33-013753
Boites and Ballester 2004;
Ballester 2004
Prehistoric temporary camp site
33-013754
Boites and Ballester 2004;
Ballester 2004
Prehistoric temporary camp site
33-013755
Ballester 2004
Prehistoric temporary camp site
33-013756
Jackson and Ballester 2004;
Ballester 2004
Prehistoric temporary camp site
33-013975
Tang 2004
Single-family residence
33-014734
Ballester 2005
Prehistoric habitation site with cremation features
33-014735
Ballester 2005
Ceramic sherd scatter
33-015327
Ballester 2005
Prehistoric habitation site
33-015328
Melzer 2005
Prehistoric habitation site
L
• f' La Quints Quad.
Indio Quad.
J
W;
Scope of
r
r .
! 7l
Pi its l t `.
records
' 1
0
search
4� (
AVENUE
AVENUE
52
dJ
,
3100,
4283, 4283,
`
4283
= 6300 5986_
4283;
f
3100;
o
_�
6677
4283
I
••- •�
J
ir=zar.r�.ue
,`
1� L
`r -
0 r
i
•
3091;
Y 4283,'
3092
� 0
� 8105
�..
2It44
4283
A,45,
4754
A NUE
42-83
I,— AVENUE
- --. -- -
4283;
6310
6535 ki 4175
x
0
6536,
f
1712;
6309.
�8205
1713
7975
3276
• 46
•5909
4
2793; ."
6302
n
2794
;kI
•
C)w—�72795
• 3277
Q o
2
1-2a
AVENUE
aVEAfi/E
aa
•
� r •+•
`
1712,1713
1713
'
4051
u
3915
o
�•
r
_--
Project area
a
Areas previously
surveyed
Linear surveys
'
22
0
SCALE 1:24,000
1000 0 1000 2000 feet
Figure 4. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC file number. Locations of
historical/archaeological sites are not shown as a protective measure.
10
despite the gradual growth of nearby towns such
as La Quinta, Coachella, and Thermal and the
sparsely populated agrarian settlements in
between (Fig. 8).
By the 1950s, a building had appeared on the
northern edge of the project area, beside Avenue
54 (Fig. 9). Between then and 1978, a larger
building was constructed in the western portion
of the project area, along with the pond that
remain extant today (Fig. 2). In 1986, the
property was acquired by famed musician, actor,
and television host Mervyn Edward "Merv"
Griffin, Jr., who used it as a second home and a
ranch to raise racehorses (Palm Springs Life
2012; 2013). Most of the features now present
on the property, including the lavish residence
and the equestrian facilities, were built for
Griffin over the next few years (ibid.). The
latest addition among them, the racetrack in the
southern portion of the project area, dates only
to 2006 (Google Inc. 2006). After Griffin's
I�
R +I�
,
Project
a
— area
R
At it'til+'
a
41
SCALE 1:125,000
0 1
2 miles
r,
/60
IV160
� O
hlot
Q
a T9
4
a
o Project.
40
area
1,9190
Yi,7'lS�
rZY'
T- . /60
6419
r 1,� f
4 0,,,9 1- ++
j400:Ofeet:�
i+`
rIzE
0 2000
Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1856. (Source:
GLO 1856)
y
,
4 1
774
1
1
+
r
I
I
area I
^ `'
+
�
I
I
Bb vc,
3s-ss 7D.'.gc " .
ao% s Ro'3�
34.75 -
o `
g
;
r
�
y
i
�46&00
o ,
0 2000
4000 feet
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903. (Source:
USGS 1904) GLO 1903)
11
Toro Peak Quad.
Coache7fa Quad.
4 i
3 2
I
i
I
I
I
Project
I
area
1 -
6ECEVEL1
it
l�
�
d
1I
-��------ 6 6 I
15 li 14
II
i
u
II
•II
I
SSTH �• AVENUE
II
i
• �. II II• I!• •
�I 11 II
II
�
11
II
I
I
II II, z
YI ] ' '
4
U
21 f
I
• I•
22 ��r==, 23
I
SCALE 1:62,500
IA
0
1 mile
II 6M II saTH
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959.
USGS 1941a; 1941b) (Source: USGS 1956; 1959)
death in 2007, the estate was eventually sold in 2013, and is now used for vacation rental (Palm
Springs Life 2013). As it was completely redeveloped in the late 1980s under the Griffin ownership,
the project area appears to be relatively low in sensitivity for cultural resources from the historic
period.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH's inquiry, the Native American Heritage Commission reported in a letter
dated April 18, 2014, that the sacred lands record search identified no Native American cultural
resources within the project area, but recommended that local Native American groups be contacted
for further information. For that purpose, the commission provided a list of potential contacts in the
region.
Upon receiving the NAHC's response, CRM TECH requested consultation with all 12 individuals on
the referral list and the organizations they represent. In addition, as previously recommended by
these tribal representatives or the appropriate tribal government staff, the following four individuals
were also contacted:
• Karen Kupcha of the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Yvonne Markle, Environmental Office Manager for the Cahuilla Band of Indians;
• John Gomez, Jr., Cultural Resources Coordinator for the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Gabriella Rubalcava, Environmental Director for the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians.
12
As of this time, two of the tribal representatives have responded in writing. Judy Stapp, Director of
Cultural Affairs for the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, replied in a letter dated April 30, 2014,
stating that the tribe had no specific information on any sites of Native American traditional cultural
value in the project area. On behalf of the Cabazon Band, Ms. Stapp deferred further consultation to
the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (see App. 2).
In a letter dated May 12, 2014, Patricia Garcia, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, noted that tribal records showed no previous cultural resources
surveys covering the project area. Ms. Garcia requested copies of the records search results and all
other cultural resource documentation generated from this project, and the presence of a professional
Native American Cultural Resource Monitor during any ground -disturbing activities associated with
the project (see App. 2).
FIELD SURVEY
The intensive -level field survey produced completely negative results for potential cultural
resources. The entire project area was closely inspected for any evidence of human activities dating
to the prehistoric or historic periods, but none was found. Besides the racetrack and the corrals,
there are currently at least 11 buildings on the property, including residences, stables, garages, and
gazebos, all of which appear consistent in age to the Griffin era in the property's ownership history,
and are thus modern in origin (Fig. 10).
No evidence was found of the buildings that were constructed on the property before 1978, as shown
in the historic maps (Figs. 2, 9). Since their former sites are now occupied by modern buildings
Figure 10. Modern features of the former Mery Griffin estate. Clockwise from top left: corral; stable; garage/storage
building; residence. (Photos taken on April 30, 2014)
13
from the Griffin era, these older buildings were presumably demolished prior to the development of
the Griffin estate. In short, no buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifacts more than 50
years of age were encountered during the field survey, and the ground surface in the entire project
area has been extensively disturbed as a result of past development, further reducing the property's
potential sensitivity for buried cultural remains from the prehistoric or historic period.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area,
and to assist the City of La Quinta in determining whether such resources meet the official definition
of "historical resources," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA.
According to PRC §5020.10), "`historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any object,
building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant,
or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational,
social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state
that the term "historical resources" applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of
historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR
§ 15064.5(a)(1)-(3)).
Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate
that "a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be `historically significant' if the resource
meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources" (Title 14 CCR
§ I5064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following
criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(PRC §5024.1(c))
A local register of historical resources, as defined by PRC §5020.1(k), "means a list of properties
officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a
local ordinance or resolution." For properties within the City of La Quinta, the City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta Municipal Code) provides for the establishment of a
historic resources inventory as the official local register. A property may be considered for inclusion
in the historic resources inventory based on one or more of the following:
A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic,
political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or
14
B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or
C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction,
is a valuable example of the use of the indigenous materials or craftsmanship or is
representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer or architect; or
D. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological or
geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or
E. It is a geographically definable area possessing concentration of sites, buildings,
structures, improvements or objects linked historically through location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association, in which the collective value of the
improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. (LQMC
§7.06.020)
The results of this study have established that no potential historical resources were previously
recorded within or adjacent to the project area, and none was encountered during the present survey.
The existing buildings, structures, and other features on the property, while demonstrating a clear
connection to Mery Griffin, a prominent celebrity of the entertainment industry, are less than 30
years old today, falling far short of sufficient age to attain historic significance. Furthermore, as a
second residence acquired by Griffin is his late years, the estate is not closely tied to his most
distinguished professional accomplishments. As a modern creation that does not demonstrate
extraordinary historical, architectural, or artistic merits, the former Griffin estate is not considered a
potential "historical resource," as defined above. Based on these findings, the present study
concludes that no historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC
§21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be
impaired."
In summary of the research results outlined above, no "historical resources," as defined by CEQA,
were encountered throughout the course of this study. Therefore, CRM TECH presents the
following recommendations to the City of La Quinta:
No historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area, and thus the project as
currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources.
No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless
development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth -moving operations associated with
the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
15
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior)
n.d. Historical Index, Land Status Records, T5-7S R6-8E, SBBM. Microfiches on file,
Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Moreno Valley.
City of La Quinta
1997 City of La Quinta Historic Context Statement (Draft). On file, City of La Quinta
Community Development Department.
CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and
Assessment Study. Http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online books/jotr/history6. htm.
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1856 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed
in 1856.
1903 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed
in 1903.
Google Inc.
2006 Aerial photographs taken on January 30 and August 4. Available through the Google
Earth software.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J. D.
Gunther, Riverside.
Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia
Beach, Virginia.
Palm Springs Life
2012 As Time Goes By: Mery Griffin's Morocco -Inspired Estate —Created with His Intimate
Input —Looks for a New Owner; by Ellen Paris (July). Http://www.palmspringslife.com/Palm-
Springs-Life/July-2012/As-Time-Goes-By/.
2013 Mery Griffin Estate in La Quinta Sells for $7 Million; by Jim Powers (June). Http://
www.palmspringslife. com/Palm-Springs-Life/Desert-Guide/June-2013/Merv-Griffin-Estate-in-
La-Quinta-S ells-for-7-Million/.
Robinson, W. W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave
Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.
W
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches
and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.
Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date
Gardens, Indio.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning,
California, 1972.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30', 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901.
1941a Map: Coachella, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941.
1941b Map: Toro Peak, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941.
1956 Map: Coachella, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1952 and 1953, field -
checked in 1955-1956.
1959 Map: Palm Desert, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1954, field -checked
in 1957 and 1959.
1972 Map: Indio, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1956 edition photorevised in 1972.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised.
1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1959 edition photorevised in 1978.
17
APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi'an, China.
2000 "Introduction to Section 106 Review," presented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the
Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside.
1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside.
1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside.
1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi'an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi'an, China.
Honors and Awards
1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside.
1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School.
1980, 1981 President's Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi'an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California's Cultural Resources Inventory
System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California
State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit,
Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
IN
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA*
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors.
1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 Section 106National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level.
UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 "Recognizing Historic Artifacts," workshop presented by Richard Norwood,
Historical Archaeologist.
2002 "Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze," symposium presented by the
Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer.
1992 "Historic Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield -Stoll.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside.
1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands.
1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside
1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.
Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College.
1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern
California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange
Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural
Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources
management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
* Register of Professional Archaeologists; Society for American Archaeology; Society for California
Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
19
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Deirdre Encarnacion, M.A.
Education
2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California.
2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; San Diego State University,
California.
1993 A.A., Communications, Nassau Community College, Garden City, N.Y.
2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California.
2001 Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University.
2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/NATIVE AMERICA LIAISON
Nina Gallardo, B.A.
Education
2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
• Surveys, excavations, mapping, and records searches.
Honors and Awards
2000-2002 Dean's Honors List, University of California, Riverside.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University,
San Bernardino.
2002 "Historic Archaeology Workshop," presented by Richard Norwood, Base
Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside,
California.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
• Report writing, site record preparation, and supervisory responsibilities over all
aspects of fieldwork and field crew.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
• Survey, testing, data recovery, monitoring, and mapping.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
• Two and a half months of excavations on Topomai village site, Marine Corp Air
Station, Camp Pendleton.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
• Two weeks of excavations on a site on Red Beach, Camp Pendleton, and two
weeks of survey in Camp Pendleton, Otay Mesa, and Encinitas.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
• Two weeks of survey in Anza Borrego Desert State Park and Eureka Valley,
Death Valley National Park.
21
APPENDIX 2
CORRESPONDENCE WITH
NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES*
* A total of 16 local Native American representatives were contacted; a sample letter is included in this report.
ox
SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 Capitol Mall, RM 364
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-4082
(916) 657-5390 —Fax
nahc@pacbell.net
Project: Griffin Estate Project; 81345 Avenue 54 (CRM TECH Contract No. 2805A)
County: Riverside
USGS Quadrangle Name: Indio, Calif
Township 5 South Range 7 East S.B. BM; Section(s) 15
Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH
Contact Person: Nina Gallardo
Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite AB
City:
Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405
Email: Ngallardo&crmtech.us
Zip: 92324
Project Description: The primary component of the project is to develop 40 acres of land located along
the south side of Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street (at 81345 Avenue 54, APN
767-320-013), in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California.
April 18, 2014
-� E{Lmuntl G,_9rpWn. b...Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1 $So Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
west Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373.3715
Fax(916) 373.5471
Web Site rr , nahc ca.aov
Ds-nahc®pacbell.net
Ms. Nina Gallardo, RPA
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Sent by FAX to:
No. of Pages:
April 18, 2014
909-824-6405
4
ro.
RE: Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Contacts list for the 00Griffin
Estate Project (CRM TECH #2805A);1 located in the City of La Quinta; Coachella
Valley; Riverside County, California
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
A record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory failed to indicate the
presence of Native American traditional cultural places of the Project site(s) or'areas of
Potential effect' (APE), submitted to this office. Note also that the absence of
archaeological resources does not preclude their existence at the subsurface level.
In the 1985 Appellate Court decision (170 Cal App Td 604), the Court held that
the NAHC has jurisdiction and special expertise, as a state agency, over affected Native
American resources impacted by proposed projects, including archaeological places of
religious significance to Native Americans, and to Native American burial sites.
When the project becomes public, please inform the Native American contacts as
to the nature of the project (e.g. residential, renewable energy, infrastructure or other
appropriate type). Attached is a list of Native American tribes, Native American
individuals or organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the
proposed project area (APE). As part of the consultation process, the NAHC
recommends that local government and project developers contact the tribal
governments and Native American individuals on the list in order to determine if the
proposed action might impact any cultural places or sacred sites. If a response from
those listed on the attachment is not received in two weeks of notification, the NAHC
recommends that a follow-up telephone call be made to ensure the project information
has been received.
California Government Code Sections 65040.12(e) defines 'environmental
justice' to provide "fair treatment of people... with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies." Also,
Executive Order B-10-11 requires that state agencies "consult with Native American
i0001 DHBN 06CS LS9 9i6 %B3 LC:Zi tTOZ/9i/tO
tribes, their elected officials and other representatives of tribal governments in order to
provide meaningful input into... the development of legislation, regulations, rules and
policies on matter that may affect tribal communities."
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at
(916) 373-3715.
Z00 in DHBN OM LS9 9i6 %B3 9C:Zi tTOZ/9i/tO
Native American Contacts
Riverside County California
April 18, 2014
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Cahuilla
Indio , CA 92203-3499
(760)342-2593
(760) 347-7880 Fax
Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians
Shane Chapparosa, Chairman
P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla
Warner . CA 92086
(760) 782-0711
(760) 782-2701 - FAX
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
Joseph Hamilton, Chairman
P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla
Anza , CA 92539
admin@ramonatribe.com
(951)763-4105
(951)763-4325 Fax
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Mary Resvaloso, Chairperson
PO Box 1160 Cahuilla
Thermal , CA 92274
mresvaloso @torresmartinez.
(760) 397-0300
(760) 397-8146 Fax
This list Is current only as of the date of this document
Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians
John Marcus, Chairman
P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla
Anza , CA 92539
(951)659-2700
(951) 659-2228 Fax
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
Mary Ann Green, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846 Cahuilla
Coachella CA 92236
(760)398-4722
760-369-7161 - FAX
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
William Madrigal, Jr.,Cultural Resources Manager
12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla
Banning , CA 92220 Serrano
(951) 201-1866 - cell
wmadrigal @ morongo-nsn.
gov
(951) 572-6004 Fax
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Matthew Krystal, Cultural Resources Manager
P.O. Boxt 1160 Cahuilla
Thermal , CA 92274
mkrystall @tmdci-nsn.gov
760) 397-0300,
(760) 409-2987- Cell
(760)397-8146 Fax
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
Section 6097,94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list s only applicable for contacting locative Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed
Griffin Estate Project 81345 Avenue 54 (CRM TECH #2805A); located In the City of Le Gulnta; Coachella Valley; Riverside County,
California for which a Sacred Lands File search and Native American Contacts list were requested.
C00 ln DHVN 0M LS9 9T6 XVJ 9C:ZT tT0Z/8T/r0
Native American Contacts
Riverside County California
April 18, 2014
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs
84-245 Indio Springs Cahuilla
Indio I CA 92203-3499
(760) 342-2593
jstapp@ cabazonindians-nsn.
gov
(760) 347-7880 Fax
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians THPO
Patricia Garcia, Tribal Historic Perservation Officer
5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla
Palm Springs, CA 92264
ptuck@ augacaliente-nsn_gov
(760) 699-6907
(760) 699-6924- Fax
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Luther Salgado, Chairperson
PO Box 391760 Cahuilla
Anza . CA 92539
Chairman @ cahuil la. net
760-763-5549
760-763-2631 - Tribal EPA
Ernest H. Siva
Morongo Band of Mission Indians Tribal Elder
9570 Mias Canyon Road Serrano
Banning , CA 92220 Cahuilla
siva@dlshmail.net
(951) 849-4676
This list is current only as of the data of this document
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7060.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.96 of the Public Resources Code.
Tnls list s only applicable for contacting locative Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed
Griffin Estate Project 81345 Avenue 54 (CRM TECH #2805A); located In the City of La Quinta; Coachella Valley; Riverside County,
California for which a Sacred Lands File search and Native American Contacts list ware requested.
fi00pi DHVN 0M LS9 9T6 %B3 9C:ZT fiTOZ/9T/tO
April 23, 2014
RE: Griffin Estates Project; 81345 Avenue 54; APN 767-320-013
40 Acres in the City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Contract #2805A
Dear Tribal Representative:
Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, in coordination with the City of La Quinta, will be conducting
environmental studies under CEQA for the Griffin Estate Project. The project area encompasses
approximately 40 acres of previously developed land located along the south side of Avenue 54, between
Madison Street and Monroe Street (at 81345 Avenue 54; APN 767-320-013). The project entails the
construction of 78 single-family residences, but the existing estate home will remain on the property.
The accompanying map, based on the USGS Indio, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle, depicts the location of the
project area in Section 15, T6S R7E, SBBM. CRM TECH has been hired to conduct a cultural resource
study, including the Native American scoping, for this project.
In a letter dated April 18, 2014, the Native American Heritage Commission reports that the sacred lands
record search identified no Native American cultural resources within the project area, but recommends
that local Native American groups be contacted for further information. Therefore, as part of the cultural
resources study for this project, I am writing to request your input on potential Native American cultural
resources in or near the project area.
According to records on file at the Eastern Information Center, located on the campus of the University
of California, Riverside, there are no known historical/archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
project area. However, at least 16 prehistoric sites and 64 prehistoric isolates have been recorded within
a one -mile radius. The closest of these, Site 33-013753 (CA-RIV-7523), consisting of a temporary
encampment, was located approximately 0.12 mile west of the project area. Three historic -period sites,
including two refuse scatters and a single-family residence, have also been recorded within the one -mile
radius. Lastly, one historic -period isolate has been recorded within the one -mile radius, consisting of an
isolated shotgun shell base.
Please respond at your earliest convenience if you have any specific knowledge of sacred/religious sites
or other sites of Native American traditional cultural value within or near the project area that need to be
taken into consideration as part of the cultural resources investigation. Any information or concerns may
be forwarded to CRM TECH by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or standard mail. Requests for
documentation or information we cannot provide will be forwarded to our client and/or the lead agency,
which is the City of La Quinta for CEQA-compliance purposes. We would also like to clarify that CRM
TECH, as the cultural resources consultant for the project, is not the appropriate entity to initiate
government -to -government consultations. Thank you for the time and effort in addressing this important
matter.
Respectfully,
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us
April 30, 2014
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Re.: Griffin Estates Project; 81345 Avenue 54; APN 767-320-013
40 Acres in the City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Contract #2805A
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
Thank you for contacting the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians concerning cultural
resource information relative to the above referenced project.
The project is located outside of the Tribe's current reservation boundaries. The Tribe has
no specific archival information on the site indicating that it may be a sacred/religious site
or other site of Native American traditional cultural value. The Cabazon Band will defer to
the Torres Martinez Band of Desert Cahuilla Indians for further consultation.
We look forward to continued collaboration in the preservation of cultural resources or
areas of traditional cultural importance.
Best regards,
Judy Stapp
Director of Cultural Affairs
1
d5 MAY 0 3 2014
84-245 INDIO SPRINGS PARKWAY • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92203-3499 • (760) 342-2593 FAX (760) 347-7880
TFZ6SAL MISTORD: PRESEfFVATFON
03-003-2014-003
May 12, 2014
[VIA EMAIL TO:ngallardo@crmtech.us]
CRM TECH
Ms. Nina Gallardo
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Re: Griffin Estates
Dear Ms. Nina Gallardo,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the
Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Griffin Estates project. The project area is
located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. A records check of the ACBCI
registry indicates this area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. For this reason, the
ACBCI THPO requests the folllowing:
*The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s)
during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and
surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request
that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified
Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate
and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic
Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office
*A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from
the information center.
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated
in connection with this project.
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions
or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6907. You may also email me at
ptuck@aguacaliente.net.
Cordially,
5401 DIhdAH SHORE DRIVE, PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264
7 760f6993 68OLi f 760)69S)6s;24 WYWVW,AGUACALJENTE-N5N,GOV
if?6SAL HISTORIC PRESEfPVATFON
03-003-2014-003
t"2
Pattie Garcia
Director
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
5401 DIhdAH SHORE DRIVE, PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264
7 76Ci.+£gg� 68OLi f 760)69S)6s;24 WYWVW,+4GUACALJENTE-N5N,GOV
ATTACHMENT 2
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
MERV GRIFFIN ESTATES PROJECT
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.767-320-013
81-345 Avenue 54, City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tempico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Prepared for:
Mark Maj er, Manager
Griffin Ranch Investors, LP
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
Harry M. Quinn, Paleontologist/Geologist
Deirdre Encarnaci6n, Report Writer
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator
May 15, 2014
CRM TECH Contract #2805P
Approximately 40 Acres
USGS Indio, Calif., 7.5' (1:24,000) Quadrangle
Section15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH performed
a paleontological resource assessment on the former Mery Griffin estate in the City of La
Quinta, Riverside County, California. The project area consists of approximately 40 acres of
land in Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive residential
compound with associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is located at 81-345
Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the northwest quarter of Section
15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project, which
proposes to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development while
retaining the core of the existing residential compound. The City of La Quinta, as the lead
agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary
information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would potentially disrupt
or adversely affect any significant paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project
area and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation
and construction activities, CRM TECH reviewed the results of previously completed records
searches on the project vicinity, conducted a literature search, and carried out a systematic
field survey of the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. Findings from these research procedures indicate that the project's potential to
impact significant paleontological resources ranges from low in the disturbed surface soils to
high, especially for Holocene -age invertebrate fossils, in the undisturbed Holocene Lake
Cahuilla sediments that may be present under the ground surface.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends that a paleontological resource impact
mitigation program be developed and implemented for the proposed project to prevent such
impacts or reduce them to a level less than significant. The primary component of the
mitigation program will be monitoring of ground disturbances during the project by qualified
personnel. Since the surface soils have been extensively disturbed in the past, only periodic
monitoring is recommended during demolition, tree removal, grubbing, or shallow surface
grading. Deeper grading and excavations that impact the undisturbed subsurface soils, on the
other hand, are likely to encounter paleontological resources within the Holocene Lake
Cahuilla sediments. Therefore, continuous monitoring is recommended for any earth -moving
operations that reach beyond the depth of two feet.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................
1
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................
3
Definition..........................................................................................................................................
3
SignificanceCriteria.........................................................................................................................
3
PaleontologicalSensitivity................................................................................................................
4
SETTING..............................................................................................................................................
5
METHODS AND PROCEDURES.......................................................................................................
6
RecordsSearches..............................................................................................................................
6
LiteratureReview..............................................................................................................................
6
FieldSurvey......................................................................................................................................
7
RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................................................
7
RecordsSearches..............................................................................................................................
7
LiteratureReview..............................................................................................................................
7
FieldSurvey......................................................................................................................................
8
Summary...........................................................................................................................................
8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................
8
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................
10
APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS...........................................................................
12
APPENDIX 2: RECORDS SEARCHES RESULTS.........................................................................
15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure2. Project area........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Typical landscapes in the project area.................................................................................. 6
11
INTRODUCTION
In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH performed a
paleontological resource assessment on the former Mery Griffin estate in the City of La Quinta,
Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The project area consists of approximately 40 acres of land in
Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive residential compound with
associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is located at 81-345 Avenue 54, between
Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian (Fig. 2).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project, which proposes
to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development while retaining the core of the
existing residential compound. The City of La Quinta, as the lead agency for the project, required
the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et
seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to
determine whether the proposed project would potentially disrupt or adversely affect any significant
paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area
and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and
construction activities, CRM TECH reviewed the results of previously completed records searches
To rr 7 4 M1
42521it
N r
Project t
'^' � ._ ��,ia �' "L;, ' G � � Radio tow -� �?. � � •_
location
Ranch
Therm
S
hfTAl ^ +% , x ihcrital 'Natei r-
�� r).
a NIQlJ7d'flrtl�t 5 - y != ` L 7J:ame ry
L I Me Ca Z
TOR
SCALE 1:250,000 2 / Cen, ARTIN
lNbIAN
0 5 10 miles RESeRV ]ON
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif, 1:250,000 quadrangle, 1979 edition)
1
ILa Quite Indio Quad.
Trite r -
-
X • /// tiL f'S
u r
�„J u
4 I
®a Project ;.:.6
--- !, area
a - � e
AVENUE L. 1 . AVENUE
. ml6 ==sir - -- 15 14
,y o
AVE
■
r
e ■ ;
■ II r�
■ a v l7
r �e
° ` e
-12 -23 A/J NUE
AVENUE-
! °
' 41 j'll
II -
O
F
i '� avSAC=aSL�Z i L a` -
N °
e
e
SCALE 1:24,000 !i
0 1/2 1 mile22
■
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000feet O
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio and La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles, 1972/1980 edition)
2
on the project vicinity, conducted a literature search, and carried out a systematic field survey of the
project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The
following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of this study.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DEFINITION
Paleontological resources represent the remains of prehistoric life, exclusive of any human remains,
and include the localities where fossils were collected as well as the sedimentary formations in which
they were found. The defining character of fossils or fossil deposits is their geologic age, which is
typically regarded as older than 10,000 years, the generally accepted temporal boundary marking the
end of the last late Pleistocene glaciation and the beginning of the current Holocene epoch.
Common fossil remains include marine shells; the bones and teeth of fish, reptiles, and mammals;
leaf assemblages; and petrified wood. Fossil traces, another type of paleontological resource, include
internal and external molds (impressions) and casts created by these organisms. These items can
serve as important guides to the age of the rocks and sediments in which they are contained, and may
prove useful in determining the temporal relationships between rock deposits from one area and
those from another as well as the timing of geologic events.
Fossil resources generally occur only in areas of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, siltstone,
mudstone, claystone, or shale). Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils, particularly
vertebrate fossils, are considered to be nonrenewable paleontological resources. Occasionally fossils
may be exposed at the surface through the process of natural erosion or as a result of human
disturbances; however, they generally lay buried beneath the surficial soils. Thus, the absence of
surface fossils does not preclude the possibility of their being present within subsurface deposits,
while the presence of fossils at the surface is often a good indication that more remains may be found
in the subsurface.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to guidelines proposed by Eric Scott and Kathleen Springer of the San Bernardino County
Museum, paleontological resources can be considered to be of significant scientific interest if they
meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends exhibited
among organisms, living or extinct;
2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum,
including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of
geologic events therein;
3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or the interactions
between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;
4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; and/or
3
5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements,
vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations. (Scott and
Springer 2003:6)
PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
The fossil record is unpredictable, and the preservation of organic remains is rare, requiring a
particular sequence of events involving physical and biological factors. Skeletal tissue with a high
percentage of mineral matter is the most readily preserved within the fossil record; soft tissues not
intimately connected with the skeletal parts, however, are the least likely to be preserved (Raup and
Stanley 1978). For this reason, the fossil record contains a biased selection not only of the types of
organisms preserved but also of certain parts of the organisms themselves. As a consequence,
paleontologists are unable to know with certainty, the quantity of fossils or the quality of their
preservation that might be present within any given geologic unit.
Sedimentary units that are paleontologically sensitive are those geologic units (mappable rock
formations) with a high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.
More specifically, these are geologic units within which vertebrate fossils or significant invertebrate
fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or are likely to be present. These
units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations that contain significant paleontological
resources anywhere within their geographical extent as well as sedimentary rock units temporally or
lithologically amenable to the preservation of fossils.
A geologic formation is defined as a stratigraphic unit identified by its lithic characteristics (e.g.,
grain size, texture, color, and mineral content) and stratigraphic position. There is a direct
relationship between fossils and the geologic formations within which they are enclosed, and with
sufficient knowledge of the geology and stratigraphy of a particular area, it is possible for
paleontologists to reasonably determine its potential to contain significant nonrenewable vertebrate,
invertebrate, marine, or plant fossil remains.
The paleontological sensitivity for a geologic formation is determined by the potential for that
formation to produce significant nonrenewable fossils. This determination is based on what fossil
resources the particular geologic formation has produced in the past at other nearby locations.
Determinations of paleontologic sensitivity must consider not only the potential for yielding
vertebrate fossils but also the potential for a few significant fossils that may provide new and
significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, and/or stratigraphic data.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1995:22-27) issued a set of standard guidelines intended to
assist paleontologists to assess and mitigate any adverse effects/impacts to nonrenewable
paleontological resources. The Society defined three potential categories of paleontological
sensitivity for geologic units that might be impacted by a proposed project. These categories are
described below, along with the criteria used to establish their sensitivity.
High sensitivity: Geologic units assigned to this category are considered to have a high potential
for significant nonrenewable vertebrate, invertebrate, marine, or plant fossils. Sedimentary rock
I]
units in this category contain a relatively high density of recorded fossil localities, have produced
fossil remains in the vicinity, and are very likely to yield additional fossil remains.
• Low sensitivity: Geologic units are assigned to this category when they have produced no or few
recorded fossil localities and are not likely to yield any significant nonrenewable fossil remains.
• Undetermined sensitivity: Geologic units are assigned to this category when there is limited
exposure of the rock units in the area and/or the rock units have been poorly studied.
SETTING
The project area is located in the Coachella Valley, which occupies the northwestern portion of the
Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province (Jenkins 1980:40-41; Harden 2004:63-64; Harms 1996:iii).
The Colorado Desert Province is bounded on the southwest side by the Peninsular Ranges Province,
on the north by the eastern Transverse Ranges Province, and on the northeast by the southern portion
of the Mojave Desert Province (ibid.). The province widens to the southeast through the Imperial
Valley and into Mexico.
One of the major features within the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough, a 290-km- long
(approx. 180 miles) structural depression containing the present-day Salton Sea and extending from
the San Gorgonio Pass area southward into Mexico. During the late Miocene and early Pliocene,
this trough was a northward extension of the Gulf of California (Powell 1995). By late Pleistocene
and Holocene times, the northwestern portion of this trough was filled with over 4,000 feet of
sediments (Proctor 1968). While the term "Salton Trough" refers to the entire structural depression
from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California, the term "Salton Basin" is used to describe
that portion of the area that drains directly into the Salton Sea (Harms 1996:117). The Salton Sea,
therefore, occupies the Salton Basin portion of the Salton Trough (ibid.).
The Salton Trough was once the location of a much larger freshwater lake, known as Holocene Lake
Cahuilla, that formed when water from the Colorado River flowed into the basin directly and then
back out through Baja California to the Gulf of California (Waters 1983). Holocene Lake Cahuilla
occupied a much larger portion of the Salton Basin than that of the present-day Salton Sea (Rogers
1965).
The shoreline of the last ancient lake to fill the basin can be seen today as a line along the base of the
Santa Rosa Mountains at an elevation of about 42 feet above sea level (Waters 1983; Wilke 1978).
Along some portions of this shoreline, tufa was deposited on the rocky areas. This tufa was
radiometrically dated as Late Pleistocene through early Holocene (Smith and Turner 1975:24-25;
Turner and Reynolds 1977). However, it appears that these dates are too old and that the entire tufa
sequence is more likely of Holocene age (Quinn 2000:5-6).
Elevations within the Colorado Desert province tend to be low, while those of the adjacent provinces
can be quite high. This configuration has made for local to regional rapid filling of the basin,
especially along its margins, with coarse clastic sediments. Such coarse sediments afford only local
environments for the preservation of vertebrate remains. However, some scattered vertebrate fossils
have been found in these fluvial -derived clastic sediments.
5
Figure 3. Typical landscapes within the project area. Clockwise from left: view to the south across the equestrian race
track; landscaping waste; existing buildings; shell deposits in the surface soils. (Photos taken on April 30, 2014)
As mentioned above, the project area is occupied by a number of buildings and other facilities of the
former Mery Griffin estate, including the main residence, guesthouses, gazebos, and a pond in the
northwestern portion, stables and corrals in the northeastern portion, and an equestrian racetrack in
the southern portion (Fig. 3). Elevations on the property range around 10-20 feet below mean sea
level, and the terrain is relatively level with a slight incline to the northwest. Soils consist of light
grey fine sands mixed with freshwater shells, and the vegetation observed in the project area includes
both introduced landscaping plants and some native vegetation, such as palms, palo verdes,
tamarisks, eucalyptuses, pepper trees, and small desert shrubs and grasses (Fig. 3).
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
RECORDS SEARCHES
The records search service was provided by the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands and the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in Los Angeles, originally for the adjacent griffin
Ranch project in 2004. These institutions maintain files of regional paleontological localities as well
as supporting maps and documents. The records search results were used to identify any known
paleontological localities within the project area or in the general vicinity.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In addition to the records searches, a literature search was conducted using materials in the CRM
TECH library, including unpublished reports produced during surveys of other properties in the area,
n
and the personal library of CRM TECH geologist/paleontologist Harry M. Quinn, California
Professional Geologist #3477 (see App. 1 for qualifications).
FIELD SURVEY
On April 4, 2014, CRM TECH paleontological surveyor Daniel Ballester (see App. 1 for
qualifications) carried out the intensive -level, pedestrian field survey of the project area under the
direction of Harry M. Quinn. Most of the property was surveyed by walking a system of parallel
north -south or east -west transects spaced 10-15 meters (approx. 33-50 feet) apart. Where the regular
survey transects were impracticable, such as around the existing buildings and structures, Ballester
remained as close to the courses of the transects as possible, and examined the exposed ground
surface whenever possible.
In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined
to determine the soil types, to verify the geological formations, and to look for any indications of
paleontological remains. Visibility of the native ground surface ranged from poor (0%) to good
(approx. 80%) in the project area, depending upon the density of the vegetation and the presence of
other ground cover, such as landscaping waste.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCHES
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County Museum found
no known paleontological localities within or in the immediate vicinity of the project area (McLeod
2004; Scott 2004; see App. 2). However, several paleontological localities have been reported
nearby from sediment lithologies similar to those known to occur in the subsurface at this location,
specifically the Lake Cahuilla beds of late Pleistocene or Holocene age (ibid.). These alternating
lacustrine and fluvial deposits have produced diverse freshwater fossil remains (ibid.).
Based on these previous discoveries, the San Bernardino County Museum considers the project
vicinity to be an area of "high paleontologic sensitivity," and declares ground -disturbing operations
within undisturbed Lake Cahuilla beds to have a "high potential to impact significant nonrenewable
fossil resources," primarily Holocene -age lacustrine fossils (Scott 2004). The Natural History
Museum also notes that older Quaternary deposits at some depth beneath the uppermost soil levels
may contain significant fossil remains (McLeod 2004).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The surface sediments in the project area was mapped by Dibblee (1954:Plate 3) as Qal, namely
Recent alluvial -fan, flood -plain, swamp, lake, and sand dune deposits. Rogers (1965) mapped the
surface sediments in the project area as Ql-Qal, or Quaternary lake deposits and alluvium of Recent
(Holocene) origin. Later, Dibblee (2008) mapped the surface geology as Qa, or alluvial sand and
7
clay of valley areas. Based on these mappings, the project area is located within the lakebed of
Holocene Lake Cahuilla during its last high stand.
The surface soils within the project area have been mapped by Knecht (1980:Sheet 12) as entirely
CpA. The CpA-type soils belong to the Coachella Series, specifically the Coachella fine sand, 0-2%
slopes, and form on alluvial fans and flood plains (ibid.:16).
FIELD SURVEY
During the field survey, freshwater shells and shell fragments, primarily of Physa sp., Tryonia sp.,
Anodonta sp. and Gyraulus sp., were observed on the ground surface throughout the project area.
No fish or other vertebrate remains were present. It was noted during the survey that the ground
surface in the entire project area has been extensively disturbed as a result of past development
activities, most notably the construction of the existing residential compound, a large pond, the
equestrian facilities, and other associated structures and features.
SUMMARY
The results of the records searches, literature research, and field survey indicate that the project area
may contain sediments deposited within the bed of the Holocene Lake Cahuilla, from which many
Holocene paleontological localities are known to have been found, including some near the project
location. Specimens from these localities usually consist only of freshwater mollusks from the
Holocene Lake Cahuilla. However, other invertebrates have been found in association with the
vertebrate remains of fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (McLeod 2004; Scott 2004). Some plant
spores and pollens have also discovered (ibid.).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA Appendix G provides that "a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on
the environment if it will ... disrupt or adversely affect a ... paleontological site except as a part of a
scientific study." The present study, conducted in compliance with this provision, is designed to
identify any significant, non-renewable paleontological resources that may exist within or adjacent to
the project area, and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future
excavation and construction activities.
The results of the various research procedures completed during this study suggest that the
extensively disturbed surface soils in the project area appear to be low in sensitivity for potentially
significant paleontological remains. However, undisturbed Holocene Lake Cahuilla sediments may
be present under the ground surface, and these sediments are considered high in paleontological
sensitivity, especially for Holocene -age invertebrate fossils.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends that a paleontological resource impact mitigation
program be developed and implemented for the proposed project to prevent such impacts or reduce
them to a level less than significant. The primary component of the mitigation program will be
monitoring of ground disturbances during the project by qualified personnel. Since the surface soils
have been extensively disturbed in the past, only periodic monitoring is recommended during
demolition, tree removal, grubbing, or shallow surface grading. Deeper grading and excavations that
impact the undisturbed subsurface soils, on the other hand, are likely to encounter paleontological
resources within the Holocene Lake Cahuilla sediments. Therefore, continuous monitoring is
recommended for any earth -moving operations that reach beyond the depth of two feet.
The mitigation program should be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as
the proposed guidelines of the society of Vertebrate Paleontology, and should include but not be
limited to the following:
1. The excavation of areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources, such as the
undisturbed Lake Cahuilla beds and any undisturbed subsurface older alluvium, should be
monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly
salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to
temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large
specimens.
2. Samples of sediments should be collected and washed to recover small invertebrate and
vertebrate fossils.
3. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable
storage that would allow for further research in the future.
4. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens
and a discussion of their significance, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined
above. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency, would signify
completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontologic resources.
E
REFERENCES
Dibblee, T. W., Jr.
1954 Geology of the Imperial Valley Region, California. In R. H. Jahns (ed.): Geology of
Southern California, pp. 21-28. California Division of Mines Bulletin 170, Part 2. Sacramento.
2008a Geologic Map of the Palm Desert/Coachella, 15 Minute Quadrangles, Riverside County,
California. Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-373, Santa Barbara, California.
Harden, Deborah R.
2004 California Geology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Harms, Nancy S.
1996 A Precollegiate Teachers Guide to California Geomorphic/Physiographic Provinces.
National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Far West Section, Concord, California.
Jenkins, Olaf P.
1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2):40-41. California
Division of Mines and Geology Publication. Sacramento.
Knecht, Arnold A.
1980 Soil Survey of Riverside County, California —Coachella Valley Area. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
McLeod, Samuel A.
2004 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed 1518: APNs 767-320-001, -002, -004, and
-013, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. Records review letter report prepared by the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California.
Powell, Charles L., II
1995 Paleontology and Significance of the Imperial Formation at Garnet Hill, Riverside
County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 95-489. U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Proctor, Richard J.
1968 Geology of the Desert Hot Springs -Upper Coachella Valley Area, California, with a
Selected Bibliography of the Coachella Valley, Salton Sea, and Vicinity. California Division of
Mines and Geology Special Report 94. Sacramento.
Quinn, Harry M.
2000 Petroglyphs in Tufa Along the Western Shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Coachella
Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 12(4):5-6.
Raup, David M., and Steven M. Stanley
1978 Principles of Paleontology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
Rogers, Thomas H.
1965 Geological Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet (1:250,000). California Division of
Mines and Geology, Sacramento.
Scott, Eric
2004 Paleontology Records Review, "1518: APNs 767-320-001, -002, -004, and -013," City of
La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Records review letter report prepared by the San
Bernardino County Museum, Section of Geological Sciences, Redlands, California.
Scott, Eric, and Kathleen B. Springer
2003 CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. Environmental Monitor Fall:4-10.
Association of Environmental Professionals, Sacramento, California.
10
Smith, Gerald A., and Wilson G. Turner
1975 Indian Rock Art of Southern California. San Bernardino County Museum Association,
Redlands, California.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
1995 Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontologic
Resources: Standard Guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163:22-27.
Turner, W. G., and R. E. Reynolds
1977 Dating the Salton Sea Petroglyphs. Science News I I I (February).
von Werlhof, Jay
2001 Notes on the Desert Cahuilla and Their Yuman Neighbors. In L. R. McCown, G. A.
Clopine, D. H. Bowers, J. von Werlhof, R. D. Simpson, R. V. May, and P. King (eds.): The Lake
Le Conte Survey. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 48(3):21-35.
Waters, Michael R.
1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Ancient Lake Cahuilla.
Quaternary Research 19:373-387.
Wilke, Philip J.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.
Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 38. University of
California, Berkeley.
11
APPENDIX 1
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
12
PROJECT GEOLOGIST/PALEONTOLOGIST
Harry M. Quinn, M.S.
Education
1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
1964 B. S, Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach.
1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington North Palm Springs, California.
• Graduate work oriented toward invertebrate paleontology; M.S. thesis completed as a stratigraphic
paleontology project on the Precambrian and Lower Cambrian rocks of Eastern California.
Professional Experience
2000- Project Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1998- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1992-1998 Independent Geological/Geoarchaeological/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines,
California.
1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.0 E.S., Inc, Redlands, California.
1988-1992 Project Geologist/Director of Environmental Services, STE, San Bernardino, California.
1987-1988 Senior Geologist, Jirsa Environmental Services, Norco, California.
1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, LOCO Exploration, Inc. Aurora, Colorado.
1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil E & P, Englewood, Colorado.
1965-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles, California.
Previous Work Experience in Paleontology
1969-1973 Attended Texaco company -wide seminars designed to acquaint all paleontological
laboratories with the capability of one another and the procedures of mutual assistance in solving
correlation and paleo-environmental reconstruction problems.
1967-1968 Attended Texaco seminars on Carboniferous coral zonation techniques and Carboniferous
smaller foraminifera zonation techniques for Alaska and Nevada.
1966-1972, 1974, 1975 Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological
identification in Alaska for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the
paleontological laboratory to establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic and
Mesozoic rocks and some Tertiary rocks, including both megafossil and microfossil identification, as
well as fossil plant identification.
1965 Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological identification in Nevada
for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the paleontological laboratory
to establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic rocks and some Mesozoic and Tertiary
rocks. The Tertiary work included identification of ostracods from the Humboldt and Sheep Pass
Formations and vertebrate and plant remains from Miocene alluvial sediments.
Publications in Geology
Five publications in Geology concerning an oil field study, a ground water and earthquake study, a report on
the geology of the Santa Rosa Mountain area, and papers on vertebrate and invertebrate Holocene Lake
Cahuilla faunas.
13
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
• Cross -trained in paleontological field procedures and identifications by CRM TECH
Geologist/Paleontologist Harry M. Quinn.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
REPORT WRITER
Deirdre Encarnacion, M.A.
Education
2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California.
2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; San Diego State University, California.
1993 A.A., Communications, Nassau Community College, Garden City, N.Y.
2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California.
2001 Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University.
2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation.
14
APPENDIX 2
RECORDS SEARCHES RESULTS
15
'��°bYVeq�'��,� SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
U �
- a Z
D
c� 0 2024 Orange Tree Lane - Redlands, California USA 92374-4560
do�wyd\° (909) 307-2669 • Fax (909) 307-0539 • www.sbcountymuseum.org
tlo
21 December 2004
CRM Tech
attn: Laura Hensley Shaker
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND PUBLIC SERVICES GROUP
ROBERT L. McKERNAN
Director
re: PALEONTOLOGY REVIEW, "1518: APNs 767-320-001, -002, -004 AND -01311, CITY
OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Dear Laura,
The Division of Geological Sciences ofthe San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) has completed
a literature review and records search for the above -referenced —196-acre development in the City
of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The proposed study area is located in the northern half
of section 15, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as seen on the
Indio, California and the La Quinta, California 7.5' United States Geological Survey topographic
quadrangle maps (1956 and 1959 editions, photorevised 1972 and 1980, respectively).
The study area lies within the Salton Trough, a northward extension of the Sea of Cortez (McKibben,
1993). The Salton Trough lies below sea level, and is an active continental rift underlain by the
landward extension of the East Pacific Rise; it is surrounded on three sides by mountains and
bounded to the southeast by the Colorado River delta. Since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch
[± 11,000 years before present (ybp)], the Colorado River delta has blocked marine water from
entering the Salton Trough from the Sea of Cortez. Freshwater lakes have existed intermittently in
the deeper parts of the basin that developed landward of the Colorado River delta (Van de Kamp,
1973; Waters, 1983; Maloney, 1986; Whistler and others, 1995).
Previous geologic mapping of the La Quinta region by Rogers (1965) indicates that the study area
is located upon Quaternary lake sediments deposited below the 12-meter high shoreline of ancient
Lake Cahuilla, which is thought to have existed intermittently from 470 ybp to at least ± 6,000 ybp
(Van de Kamp, 1973; Waters, 1983; Whistler and others, 1995). These sediments were deposited
during each of at least seven high stands of Lake Cahuilla, each high stand resulting from flooding
of the Salton Trough by inflow from the Colorado River (Waters, 1983). Fluvial sediments in the
area were laid down during intervening lake low stands when the lake bed was dry. These
alternating lacustrine and fluvial sediments, termed the Lake Cahuilla beds, have previously yielded
fossil remains representing diverse freshwater diatoms, land plants, sponges, ostracods, molluscs,
fish, and small terrestrial vertebrates. As these remains are not associated with any evidence of
human activity, they are considered paleontological rather than archaeological. For this reason, the
Lake Cahuilla beds are interpreted to have high potential to contain nonrenewable fossil resources.
County Administrative Officer Board of Supervisors
NORMAN A. KAN01 D � BILL POSTMUS ..... First. District DENNIS HANSBERGER ....
Assistant County Adrninistrator PAUL BIANE ....... Second District GARY C. OVrrr ..... �.... .
Economic Development and s :SIE GONZALES _ ..R��E'I'V Cb UCCt2 S 2004
Public Services Group
Literature / records review, Paleontology, CRM Tech: La Quinta properties
2
For this review, I conducted a search of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory (RPLI) at the
SBCM. The results of this records search indicated that no paleontologic localities are recorded
within the boundaries of, or within one mile of, the proposed property. However, Whistler and
others (1995) discussed paleontologic resource localities from near the proposed study area that have
produced fossils from sediment lithologies mapped (Rogers, 1965) as similar to those present at
depth within the boundaries of the proposed property. Five sampling sites yielded diatoms, land
plants, sponges, molluscs, ostracods, bony fish, reptiles, birds and small mammals (Whistler and
others, 1995). The lowest stratigraphic unit in this region was radiometrically dated to 5,890 ± 60
ybp, which indicated a high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla older than any described previously.
These sites are mapped (Whistler and others, 1995) as within approximately 1 mile or less west of
the proposed property; however, this mapping is diagrammatic and the precise location of these sites
cannot be determined from the published account. It is recommended that the locality records of the
Vertebrate Paleontology Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County be
reviewed for more detailed information on these sites.
Recommendations
The results of the literature review and the check of the RPLI at the SBCM demonstrate that
excavation for the proposed property in the City of La Quinta has high potential to impact significant
nonrenewable fossil resources. This property is therefore assigned high paleontologic sensitivity.
A qualified vertebrate paleontologist must therefore develop a program to mitigate impacts to
nonrenewable paleontologic resources. This mitigation program should be consistent with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Scott and Springer, 2003), as well as with
regulations currently implemented by the County of Riverside and the proposed guidelines of the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. This program should include, but not be limited to:
1. Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by
a qualified paleontologic monitor. Based upon the results of this review, areas of concern
include any undisturbed surface or subsurface sediments of the Lake Cahuilla beds.
Paleontologic monitoring is recommended only for those undisturbed sediments wherein
fossil plant or animal remains are found with no associated evidence of human activity or an
archaeological context. Should archaeological materials or other evidence of human
presence be encountered, sites yielding this evidence should be treated as archaeological
rather than as paleontological.
Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially-fossiliferous units described herein are not
present, or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified
paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.
Literature / records review, Paleontology, CRM Tech: La Quinta properties
3
2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation,
including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
3. Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository
with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage (e.g., SBCM). The paleontologist must
have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until
such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and
documented.
4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. It is
recommended that this report incorporate the full results of this literature review. The report
and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of
the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository,
would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources.
References
Maloney, N.J., 1986. Coastal landforms of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, northeastern Salton Basin,
California. In P.D. Guptil, E.M. Gath and R.W. Ruff (eds.), Geology of the Imperial Valley,
California. South Coast Geological Society, Santa Ana, California 14: 151-158.
McKibben, M.A., 1993. The Salton Trough rift. In R.E. and J. Reynolds (eds.), Ashes, faults and
basins. San Bernardino County Museum Association Special Publication 93-1: 76-80.
Rogers, T.H.,1965. Geologic map of California, Santa Ana sheet. California Division of Mines and
Geology. Scale 1:250,000.
Scott, E. and K. Springer, 2003. CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The
Environmental Monitor, Fall 2003, p. 4-10, 17.
Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973. Holocene continental sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California: a
reconnaissance. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84: 827-848.
Waters, M.R., 1983. Late Holocene lacustrine chronology and archaeology of ancient Lake
Cahuilla, California. Quaternary Research 19: 373-387.
Whistler, D.P., E.B. Lander and M.A. Roeder, 1995. A diverse record of microfossils and fossil
plants, invertebrates, and small vertebrates from the late Holocene Lake Cahuilla beds,
Riverside County, California. In P. Remeika and A. Sturz (eds.), Paleontology and Geology
of the Western Salton Trough Detachment, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California, p.
109-118.
Literature / records review, Paleontology, CRM Tech: La Quinta properties
Please do^ esitate contact us with any further questions you may have.
Eric Scbt't, Curator of Paleontology
Divis on of Geological Sciences
San Bernardino County Museum
NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
OF Los ANGELES COUNTY
CRM Tech
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Laura Hensley Shaker
Vertebrate Paleontology Section
Telephone: (213) 763-3325
FAX: (213) 746-7431
e-mail: smcleod@nbm.org
20 December 2004
re: Paleontological resources for the proposed 1518: APNs 767-320-001, -002, -004, -013, in the City of
La Quinta, Riverside County, Paleo project area
Dear Laura:
I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and
specimen data for the proposed 1518: APNs 767-320-001, -002, -004, -013, in the City of La Quinta,
Riverside County, Paleo project area as outlined on the section of the Indio USGS topographic
quadrangle map that you faxed to me on 17 December 2004. We do not have any vertebrate fossil
localities that lie directly within the proposed project boundaries, but we do have localities nearby
from the same deposits that occur as subsurface units in the proposed project area.
Below the uppermost soil layers, that are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, the
entire project area has surficial lacustrine and fluvial [lake and stream channel] deposits of Late
Pleistocene or Holocene age [the latter less than 10,000 years before present] known as the Lake
Cahuilla beds. Almost directly south of the western portion of the proposed project area on both
sides of Madison Street north of 58t' Avenue but slightly lower in elevation, we have several fossil
localities in the same continuous Lake Cahuilla beds. These localities were collected during
mitigation activities for the construction of the PGA West Tom Weiskopf Signature Golf Course.
LACM 6252, 6253, and 6255 were collected in a single trench site west of Madison Street. They
produced a significant fauna of terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates (see attachment) as well as
diatoms, land plants, clams, snails and crustaceans. A trench to the east of Madison Street produced
a similar fauna so was not collected. A single jaw of the bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis was
recovered from LRCM 6256, another locality to the east of Madison Street.
Any significant subsurface below the uppermost soil layers may well encounter significant
fossil remains from the Quaternary Lake Cahuilla beds. Many of the fossil specimens collected from
these deposits are small isolated elements of fossil organisms that were recovered from screen -
washing sediment samples. Thus if any significant excavation below the soil level is conducted on
900 Exposition Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90007 RECEIVED DEC 2 3 2004
the proposed project site, it is recommended that in addition to monitoring the excavations to collect
any larger fossil remains uncovered, sediment samples be collected and processed to determine the
small fossil potential at the proposed project site. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be
deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future
generations. Additional fossil locality information for the proposed project area may be available
through the University of California at Riverside Department of Geology [collections and records
now at the University of California at Berkeley Museum of Paleontology].
This records search covers only the vertebrate paleontology records of the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the
proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on -site
survey.
Sincerely,
Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D.
Vertebrate Paleontology
enclosure: attachment; invoice
Vertebrate fossil taxa from the PGA West Tom Weiskopf Signature Golf Course
Trench 1 sites - LACM 6252, 6253 and 6255
Osteichthyes
Cypriniformes
Catostomidae
Xyrauchen
Cyprinidae
Gila
Cyprinodon
Reptilia
Squamata
Iguanidae
Phrynosoma
Sceloporus
Uma
Urosaurus
Colubridae
Chionactis
Hypsiglena
Pituophis
Sonora
Crotalidae
Crotalus
Aves
Passeriformes
Mammalia
Lagomorpha
Leporidae
Sylvilagus
Rodentia
Cricetidae
Neotoma
Peromyscus
Heteromyidae
Dipodomys
Perognathus
Sciuridae
Ammospermophilus
texanus razorback sucker
elegans bonytail
macularius desert pupfish
platyrhinos
desert horned lizard
magister
desert spiny lizard
inornata
Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard
graciosus
long-tailed brush lizard
occipitalis
western shovel -nosed snake
torquata
night snake
melanoleucus
gopher snake
semiannulata
western ground snake
cerastes
lepida
longimembris
leucurus
sidewinder rattlesnake
advanced land birds
cottontail rabbit
desert wood rat
white-footed mouse
kangaroo rat
pocket mouse
antelope ground squirrel