HomeMy WebLinkAboutPhase I Cultural Resources Assessment PA 2021-13A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-13
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01)
NORTH ELSINORE BUSINESS PARK
APN 389-220-003, 004, 005, 006
+7.22 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SECTION 36, SBM
USGS LAKE ELSINORE, CA2021-13LIFORNIA QUADRANGLE, 7.5’ SERIES
By
Jean A. Keller, Ph.D.
Cultural Resources Consultant
1042 N. El Camino Real, Suite B-244
Encinitas, California 92024
760-815-1691
Prepared on Behalf Of: Prepared For:
Saddleback Associates City of Lake Elsinore
27405 Puerta Real, Suite 120 130 South Main Street
Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
December 2021
PA 2021-13
i
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Topography and Geology 7
Biology 7
Climate 11
Discussion 11
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory 13
Ethnography 14
History 19
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Research 27
Fieldwork 28
RESULTS
Research 29
Fieldwork 41
RECOMMENDATIONS 42
CONSULTANT CERTIFICATION 43
REFERENCES 44
APPENDIX
Records Search Results
Sacred Lands File Search Results
Tribal Responses to Project Scoping Letters
PA 2021-13
ii
LIST OF FIGURES Page
1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124. 4
2. North Elsinore Business Park (Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01). 5
3. Location of Planning Application No. 2021-13 in the City of Lake Elsinore, 6
western Riverside County.
4. Location of the study area relative to western Riverside County. 8
5. Aerial view of the subject property. 9
6. Views of the subject property. 10
7. Ethnographic location of the study area. 15
8. Map showing Subdivisions in Elsinore (Graham, Collier, & Heald, 1883). 24
9. Town center of North Elsinore. 25
10. General Land Office Plat for Township 5 south, Range 5 west, 1854-1880, 34
showing original boundaries of the La Laguna Rancho and the subject property.
11. Location of the subject property (original 12.44 acres) in relation to the 35
1880 corrected boundaries of the La Laguna Rancho.
12. Serial patent issued to Abel Stearns for the 13,337.84 acres of the La Laguna 36
Rancho on September 3, 1872.
13. Cartographic history of the subject property, 1901 – 1942. 39
14. Cartographic history of the subject property, 1953 – 1997. 40
15. Wooden fence. 41
LIST OF TABLES
1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the Scope of the Records Search. 24
2. Historical Property Ownership and Value Summary for PA 2021-13. 37
PA 2021-13
1
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application No. 2021-13 was requested by
the project sponsor, Mr. Mark Severson of Saddleback Associates. Planning Application No. 2021-
13 is comprised of two associated cases: Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design
Review No. 2021-01. Parcel Map No. 38124 is the subdivision of 7.22 acres of land into 12 parcels
ranging in size from 0.34-acre to 0.88-acre. The North Elsinore Business Park (Industrial Design
Review No. 2021-01) will include limited industrial and manufacturing land uses permitted within
the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed project will include the
construction of 12 buildings ranging in size from 5,900 square feet to 10,200 square feet. Total
building area is 94,665 square feet, including 82,665 square feet of warehouse space and 12,000
square feet of office space.
The purpose of the cultural resources assessment was two-fold: 1) information was to be
obtained pertaining to previous land uses of the subject property through research and a
comprehensive field survey, and 2) a determination was to be made if, and to what extent,
existing cultural resources would be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
No cultural resources of prehistoric (Native American) or historical origin were observed within
the boundaries of Planning Application No 2021-13. No information has been obtained through
Native American consultation that the subject property is culturally or spiritually significant and
no Traditional Cultural Properties that currently serve religious or other community practices are
known to exist within the project area. Results of the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the
Native American Heritage Commission for the subject property were negative. According to the
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the City of Lake Elsinore is considered a Traditional Cultural Place
(TCP) and Landscape (TCL), as it is associated with the Luiseño Creation and contains numerous
recorded cultural places and other Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). They have no knowledge of
cultural resources within the project area encompassed by PA 2021-13, and recommended that
an archaeological records search and cultural resources assessment be conducted, with copies
provided to them.
Planning Application No. 2021-13 is located within an area of high sensitivity for cultural,
archaeological, and historical resources, with 33 cultural resources properties having been
recorded within a one-mile radius of the subject property. Eleven of these properties are of
Native American origin, four of which represent small temporary sites used for seasonal resource
procurement and processing, while seven are isolated artifacts. The relatively limited size and
number of habitation sites, as well as the number of isolated artifacts, is undoubtedly a product
of long-term historical development of the Lake Elsinore area instead of an accurate indication
PA 2021-13
2
of Native American occupation over time. Twenty-two cultural resource properties are of
historical-period origin. Seven are standing structures, ten are deposits and/or isolated artifacts,
and five represent the remains of built features. Development of the Lake Elsinore area and
associated small towns such as Lucerne, Terra Cotta, and North Elsinore, began in the mid-19th
century and the number of historical-era cultural resources recorded within a one-mile radius of
PA 2021-13 reflect this activity.
Although no cultural resources were observed within the boundaries of the subject property, it
was originally part of a +12.44-acre parcel that was continuously occupied for approximately 100
years, beginning with construction of a house in 1893. The parcel was divided into six lots,
probably in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and PA-2021-13 currently encompasses four of the lots
(389-2220-003, 004, 005, 006); the ca-1893 residence occupied Lots 1 and 2. However, aerial
photographs indicate that some landscaping and other features associated with that house
encroached onto lots included in the subject property until relatively recently.
Despite the fact that no cultural resources were observed within the project boundaries during
the current or previous Phase I field surveys, in consideration of the high cultural, archaeological,
and historical sensitivity of the area in which the project is located, as well as the fact that the
subject property was associated with land continuously occupied for 100 years, it is
recommended that monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of
the North Elsinore Business Park be actively monitored by a Riverside County/City of Lake
Elsinore qualified archaeologist. Although no Tribe requested monitoring, if such a request is
made during the AB 52 process, it is recommended that Tribal monitoring be required in addition
to archaeological monitoring.
Should any cultural resources be discovered during the course of ground-disturbing activities
anywhere on the subject property, said activities should be halted or diverted until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the resources, make a determination of their significance, and
recommend appropriate treatment measures to mitigate impacts to the resource from the project,
if found to be significant. If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during implementation
of the project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbances
shall proceed until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The
NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD
may, with the permission of the landowner, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site
of the discovery of the Native American remains and recommend to the owner or the person
responsible for the excavation work means for treating, with appropriate dignity, the human and
any associated grave goods,
PA 2021-13
3
INTRODUCTION
In compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Lake Elsinore Planning
Department requirements, the project sponsor contracted with Jean A. Keller, Ph.D., Cultural
Resources Consultant, to conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the subject
property. The purpose of the assessment was to identify, evaluate, and recommend mitigation
measures for existing cultural resources that may be adversely impacted by the proposed
development.
The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment commenced with a review of maps, site records, and
reports conducted by staff at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California,
Riverside. A request for a Sacred Lands File search was submitted to the Native American Heritage
Commission and project scoping letters sent to 15 Tribal representatives listed as being
interested in project development within the Lake Elsinore area. Literature, archival,
cartographic, and photographic research pertaining the subject property was conducted utilizing
available resources. Finally, a comprehensive pedestrian field survey of the subject property was
conducted for the purpose of locating, documenting, and evaluating all existing cultural
resources within its boundaries.
The proposed project, Planning Application No. 2021-13, is comprised of two associated cases:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01. Parcel Map No.
38124 is the subdivision of +7.22 acres of land into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34-acre to
0.88-acre (Fig. 1). The North Elsinore Business Park (Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01) will
include limited industrial and manufacturing land uses permitted within the City of Lake
Elsinore’s General Plan and Zoning Code. The North Elsinore Business Park will include
construction of 12 buildings ranging in size from 5,900 square feet to 10,200 square feet. Total
building area is 94,665 square feet, including 82,665 square feet of warehouse space and 12,000
square feet of office space. A total of 276 parking spaces will be provided, including standard
parking spaces and A.D.A stalls (Fig. 2).
As shown on the USGS Lake Elsinore, California Topographic Map, 7.5’ series, the subject
property, which encompasses a total of +7.22 acres, is located in Section 36, Township 5 south,
Range 5 west, SBM (Fig. 3). Current land use is vacant. Adjacent land uses are vacant and the
Outlets at Lake Elsinore to the north, vacant and retail to the west, Interstate 15 to the east, and
Lake Elsinore Self-Storage to the south. Literally every inch of the subject property has been
disturbed, reflecting the cumulative impacts of such activities as residential construction and
occupation, agricultural endeavors, commercial and business activities, grading, excavation,
paving, vegetation clearance, vehicle activity, homeless encampments, and trash dumping.
PA 2021-13
4
PA 2021-13
5
Figure 2: North Elsinore Business Park (Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01)
PA 2021-13
6
Figure 3: Location of the North Elsinore Business Park (Planning Application No. 2021-13) in
the City of Lake Elsinore, western Riverside County. Adapted from USGS Lake
Elsinore. California Quadrangle, 7.5’ series (1997).
PA 2021-13
7
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Topography and Geology
The subject property is located in the City of Elsinore, western Riverside County (Fig. 4). It is
situated in a topographically diverse region that is defined by Lake Elsinore to the south, Trabuco
Canyon to the west, Steele Peak to the north, and Quail Valley to the east. The study area lies
within a portion of the Northern Peninsular Ranges of Southern California, with the general
province characterized by upland surfaces, prominent ridges and peaks, longitudinal valleys,
basins, and steep-walled canyons.
The subject property is generally flat-lying and featureless, with all natural topography having
been completely altered by past ground-disturbing activities such as construction, residential and
commercial occupation, grading, vegetation removal via plowing/discing, and agricultural
endeavors (Fig. 5 & 6). Current elevations reflect a downward slope in topography from 1280 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) on top of a low knoll in the northern property corner to 1260 feet
AMSL at the southern corner. Across the relatively flat portions of the property, elevations range
from 1270 - 1265 feet AMSL in the central area to 1265-1260 feet AMSL in the flat western
section of the property. A permanent source of water does not exist within the property
boundaries, and despite the presence of two manmade drainage features, no evidence was
observed that even intermittent streams or ephemeral drainages are present. Lake Elsinore,
which is a permanent source of water, is located approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest.
The subject property is located within the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern sector of
the structural unit known as the Perris Block, which is bounded on the northeast by the San
Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north by the
Cucamonga Fault Zone (EnGen 2021:7). The Northern Peninsular Range is generally comprised
of the great mass of basement igneous rocks called the Southern California Batholith, with the
primary rocks being granitic tonalite and diorite of Jurassic age. Exposed granitic bedrock
outcrops or boulders suitable for use by indigenous peoples of the region for food preparation,
rock art, or shelter are not present within the property boundaries. Sparsely scattered loose lithic
material was observed throughout the subject property, but none of that observed would have
been suitable for production of flaked or ground stone tools by Native Americans of the region.
Biology
As a result of previous disturbances and development there are large areas within the property
that are bare ground with exposed soils and areas covered with gravel, with no vegetation
present. Intact native plant communities no longer exist, and Non-native Grassland is the
PA 2021-13
8
Figure 4: Location of the study area relative to western Riverside County. Adapted from
USGS Santa Ana, California Topographic Map (1979). Scale 1:250,000.
PA 2021-13
9
Figure 5: Aerial view of the subject property. (Google Earth, August 2019)
predominant vegetation throughout the property. Several non-native species are invasive and
abundant, but there are other species that are less diverse and occur with minimal frequency.
Non-native Grassland species identified during the current field survey included but are not
limited to slender wild oat (Avena barbata), shortpod mustard (Brassica geniculate), filaree
(Erodium brachycarpum), common horehound (Marrubium vulgare), Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus) brome grass (Bromus diandrus), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum). Native Grassland
plant species, while much less abundant, were present throughout the property, intermixed with
Non-native species or as separate occurrences, generally along the perimeter fencing. Native
plant species identified during the current field survey included but were not limited to common
fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), slender sunflower (Helianthus gracilentus), Australian saltbrush
(Atriplex semibaccata), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora). Native Americans of the
region used most of the native plants for food, implement production, medicine, and
construction.
PA 2021-13
10
View from the northern property corner looking south.
View from the southern property corner looking north.
Figure 6: Views of the subject property.
PA 2021-13
11
Many very large non-native tree species are also present throughout the subject property and
are considered to be associated with the Non-native Grasslands Vegetation designation. While
the size of these trees would seem to indicate that they were planted in conjunction with
settlement of the original 12.44-acre parcel in 1893, historical aerial photographs instead show
that with the exception of those growing in the northeastern portion of PA 2021-13, most trees
were planted in the late 20th century, probably after the house was built on the subject property
in 1965 (EnGen 2020:41-55). Non-native trees identified during the field survey included
common fig (Ficus carica), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Mediterranean tamarisk (Tamarix
ramosissima), river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima),
Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Mexican fan palm
(Washintonia robusta), swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), lemon-scented gum (Corymbia
citridora), and cider gum (Eucalyptus gunii). Non-native grasses and weeds are found throughout
the subject property, with greatest density around the property perimeters. Observed plant
species include, but are not limited to, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), shortpod mustard
(Brassica geniculate), brome grass (Bromus diandrus), and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros).
During both the prehistoric and historical periods an abundance of faunal species undoubtedly
inhabited the study area. However, due to regional urbanization, the current faunal community
is generally restricted to those species that can exist in proximity to humans, such as valley pocket
gopher (Thomomys bottae), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Audobon’s cottontail
(Sylvilagus audobonii), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), coyote (Canis latrans),
western fence lizard (Scelopous occidentalis), and occasionally, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).
Climate
The climate of the study area is that typical of cismontane Southern California, which on the
whole is warm, and rather dry. This climate is classified as Mediterranean or “summer-dry
subtropical.” Temperatures seldom fall below freezing or rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The
rather limited precipitation received occurs primarily during the summer months.
Discussion
Based on existing resources found on undeveloped land in the proximity of the subject property,
it is probable that floral and faunal resources would have offered opportunities to Native
Americans for procuring food, as well as components for medicines, tools, and construction
materials. Bedrock outcrops suitable for use in food processing, rock art, or shelter are not
present within the project boundaries and loose lithic material has very limited availability, with
none of that observed suitable for ground or flaked stone tool production. No natural
watercourses are present within the property boundaries, although ephemeral drainage
probably existed in the vicinity. Lake Elsinore, which obviously represents a permanent and
PA 2021-13
12
(usually) abundant source of water, is located approximately 1.25 miles south of the subject
property. It is probable that the subject property was viewed in a favorable light for seasonal
resource exploitation, but due to the lack of preferred defensive locations, suitable bedrock and
lithic material food processing and tool production, and the distance to a permanent water
source, it is unlikely that the subject property would have been considered desirable for
permanent habitation.
Criteria for occupation during the historical era were generally somewhat different than for
aboriginal occupation since later populations did not depend solely on natural resources for
survival. During the historical era the subject property would probably have been considered very
desirable due to tillable soil, relatively flat topography, and its proximity to an urban center and
major transportation corridors.
PA 2021-13
13
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
On the basis of currently available archaeological research, occupation of Southern California by
human populations is believed to have begun at least 10,000 years ago. Theories proposing much
earlier occupation, specifically during the Pleistocene Age, exist but at this time archaeological
evidence has not been fully substantiating. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, only human
occupation within the past 10,000 years will be addressed. A time frame of occupation may be
determined on the basis of characteristic cultural resources. These comprise what are known as
cultural traditions or complexes. It is through the presence or absence of time-sensitive artifacts
at a particular site that the apparent time of occupation may be suggested.
In general, the earliest established cultural tradition in Southern California is accepted to be the
San Dieguito Tradition, first described by Malcolm Rogers in the 1920’s. The San Dieguito people
were nomadic large-game hunters whose tool assemblage included large domed scrapers, leaf-
shaped knives and projectile points, stemmed projectile points, chipped stone crescentics, and
hammerstones (Rogers 1939; Rogers 1966). The San Dieguito Tradition was further divided into
three phases: San Dieguito I is found only in the desert regions, while San Dieguito II and III occur
on both sides of the Peninsular Ranges. Rogers felt that these phases formed a sequence in which
increasing specialization and refinement of tool types were the key elements. Although absolute
dates for the various phase changes have not been hypothesized or fully substantiated by a
stratigraphic sequence, the San Dieguito Tradition as a whole is believed to have existed from
approximately 7000 to 10,000 years ago (8000 to 5000 BCE).
Throughout southwestern California the La Jolla Complex followed the San Dieguito Tradition.
The La Jolla Complex, as first described by Rogers (1939, 1945), then redefined by Harding (1951),
is recognized primarily by the presence of millingstone assemblages within shell middens.
Characteristic cultural resources of the La Jolla Complex include basined millingstones, unshaped
manos, flaked stone tools, shell middens, and a few Pinto-like projectile points. Flexed
inhumations under stone cairns, with heads pointing north, are also present (Rogers 1939, 1945;
Warren et al 1961).
The La Jolla Complex existed from 5500 to 1000 BCE. Although there are several hypotheses to
account for the origins of this complex, it would appear that it was a cultural adaptation to
climatic warming after c. 6000 BCE. This warming may have stimulated movements to the coast
of desert peoples who then shared their millingstone technology with the older coastal groups
(Moratto 1984). The La Jollan economy and tool assemblage seems to indicate such an infusion
of coastal and desert traits instead of a total cultural displacement.
PA 2021-13
14
The Pauma Tradition, as first identified by D.L. True in 1958, may be an inland variant of the La
Jolla Complex, exhibiting a shift to a hunting and gathering economy, rather than one based on
shellfish gathering. Implications of this shift are an increase in number and variety of stone tools
and a decrease in the amount of shell (Meighan 1954; True 1958; Warren 1968; True 1977). At
this time, it is not known whether the Pauma Complex represents the seasonal occupation of
inland sites by La Jollan groups or whether it represents a shift from a coastal to a non-coastal
cultural adaptation by the same people.
The late period is represented by the San Luis Rey Complex, first identified by Meighan (1954)
and later redefined by True et al (1974). Meighan divided this complex into two periods: San Luis
Rey I (1400-1750 CE) and the San Luis Rey II (1750-1850 CE). The San Luis Rey I type component
includes cremations, bedrock mortars, millingstones, small triangular projectile points with
concave bases, bone awls, stone pendants, Olivella shell beads, and quartz crystals. The San Luis
Rey II assemblage is the same as San Luis Rey I, but with the addition of pottery vessels, cremation
urns, tubular pipes, stone knives, steatite arrow straighteners, red and black pictographs, and
such non-aboriginal items as metal knives and glass beads (Meighan 1954). Inferred San Luis Rey
subsistence activities include hunting and gathering with an emphasis on acorn harvesting.
Ethnography
According to available ethnographic research, the study area was included in the known territory
of the Luiseño Indians during both prehistoric and historic times. The name Luiseño is Spanish in
origin and was used in reference to those aboriginal inhabitants of Southern California associated
with the Mission San Luis Rey. As far as can be determined, the Luiseño, whose language is of the
Takic family (part of the Californian Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock), had no equivalent word for their
nationality because they did not consider themselves to “belong to” the Spanish occupiers. The
Luiseño people refer to themselves as ‘Atáaxum.
According to ethnographers and Luiseño oral tradition, the territory of the Luiseño was extensive,
encompassing much of coastal and inland Southern California. Known territorial boundaries
extended on the west to the Southern Channel Islands, to the Santa Ana River and Box Springs
Mountain on the north, as far northeast as Mt. San Jacinto, to Lake Henshaw on the southeast,
and to Agua Hedionda Creek on the southwest. Their habitat included every ecological zone from
sea level to 6000 mean feet above sea level. northeast as Territorial boundaries of the Luiseño
were shared with the Gabrieliño and Serrano to the north, the Cahuilla to the east, the Cupeño
and Ipai to the south (Fig. 7). With the exception of the Ipai, these tribes shared similar cultural
and language traditions. Although the social structure and philosophy of the Luiseño were similar
to that of neighboring tribes, they had a greater population density and correspondingly, a more
rigid social structure.
PA 2021-13
15
Figure 7: Ethnographic location of the study area. Adapted from Kroeber (1925).
Project Location
PA 2021-13
16
The settlement pattern of the Luiseño was based on the establishment and occupation of
sedentary autonomous village groups. Villages were usually situated near adequate sources of
food and water, in defensive locations primarily found in sheltered coves and canyons. Typically,
r a village was comprised of permanent houses, a sweathouse, and a religious edifice. The
permanent houses of the Luiseño were earth-covered and built over a two-foot excavation
(Kroeber 654). According to informants’ accounts, the dwellings were conical roofs resting on a
few logs leaning together, with a smoke hole in the middle of the roof and entrance through a
door. Cooking was done outside, when possible, on a central interior hearth when necessary. The
sweathouse was similar to the houses except that it was smaller, elliptical, and had a door in one
of the long sides. Heat was produced directly by a wood fire. Finally, the religious edifice was
usually just a round fence of brush with a main entrance for viewing by the spectators and several
narrow openings for entry buy the ceremonial dancers (Kroeber 655).
Luiseño subsistence was based on seasonal floral and faunal resource procurement. Each village
had specific resource procurement territories, most of which were within one day’s travel of the
village. During the autumn of each year, however, most of the village population would migrate
to the mountain oak groves and camp for several weeks to harvest the acorn crop, hunt, and
collect local resources not available near the village. Hunters typically employed traps, nets,
throwing sticks, snares, or clubs for procuring small animals, while larger animals were usually
ambushed, then shot with bow and arrow. The Luiseño normally hunted antelope and
jackrabbits in the autumn by means of communal drives, although individual hunters also used
bow and arrow to hunt jackrabbits throughout the year. Many other animals were available to
the Luiseño during various times of the year but were generally not eaten. These included dog,
coyote, bear, tree squirrel, dove, pigeon, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and
turtles (Kroeber 62).
Small game was prepared by broiling it on coals. Venison and rabbit were either broiled on coals
or cooked in and earthen oven. Whatever meat was not immediately consumed was crushed on
a mortar, then dried and stored for future use (Sparkman 208). Of all the food sources utilized by
the Luiseño, acorns were by far the most important. Six species were collected in great quantities
during the autumn of every year, although some were favored more than others. In order of
preference, they were black oak (Quercus kelloggii), coast live oak (Q. agrifolia), canyon live oak
(Q. chrysolepsis), Engelmann Oak (Q. engelmannii), interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), and scrub oak
(Q. berberidifoilia). The latter three were used only when others were not available. Acorns were
prepared for consumption by crushing them in a stone mortar and leaching off the tannic acid,
then made into either a mush or dried to a flour-like material for future use.
Herb and grass seeds were used almost as extensively as acorns. Many plants produce edible
seeds which were collected between April and November. Important seeds included, but were
PA 2021-13
17
not limited to, the following: California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), wild tarragon
(Artemisia dracunculus), white tidy tips (Layia glandulosa), sunflower (Helianthus annus),
calabazilla (Cucurbita foetidissima), sage (Salvia carduacea and S. colombariae), California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), peppergrass (Lepidium nitidum), and chamise
(Adenostoma fasciculatum). Seeds were parched, ground, cooked as mush, or used as flavoring
in other foods.
Fruit, berries, corms, tubers, and fresh herbage were collected and often immediately consumed
during the spring and summer months. Among those plants commonly used were basketweed
(Rhus trilobata), Manzanita (Arctostaphylos Adans.), miner’s lettuce (Montia Claytonia),
thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinuss). When an occasional
large yield occurred, some berries, particularly juniper and manzanita, were dried and made into
a mush at a later time.
Tools for food acquisition, preparation, and storage were made from widely available materials.
Hunting was done with a bow and fire-hardened or stone-tipped arrows. Coiled and twined
baskets were used in food gathering, preparation, serving, and storage. Seeds were ground with
handstones on shallow granitic mutates, while stone mortars and pestles were used to pound
acorns, nuts, and berries. Food was cooked in clay vessels over fireplaces or earthen ovens. The
Luiseño employed a wide variety of other utensils produced from locally available geological,
floral, and faunal resources in all phases of food acquisition and preparation.
The Luiseño subsistence system described above constitutes seasonal resource exploitation
within their prescribed village-centered procurement territory. In essence, this cycle of seasonal
exploitation was at the core of all Luiseño lifeways. During the spring collection of roots, tubers,
and greens was emphasized, while seed collecting and processing during the summer months
shifted this emphasis. The collection areas and personnel (primarily small groups of women)
involved in these activities remained virtually unchanged. However, as the autumn acorn harvest
approached, the settlement pattern of the Luiseño altered completely. Small groups joined to
form the larger groups necessary for the harvest and village members left the villages for the
mountain oak groves for several weeks. Upon completion of the annual harvest, village activities
centered on the preparation of collected foods for use during the winter. Since few plant food
resources were available for collection during the winter, this time was generally spent repairing
and manufacturing tools and necessary implements in preparation for the coming resource
procurement seasons.
Each Luiseño village was a clan tribelet – a group of people patrilineally related who owned an
area in common and who were both politically and economically autonomous from neighboring
villages (Bean & Shipek 555). The chief of each village inherited his position and was responsible,
with the help of an assistant, for the administration of religious, economic, and warfare powers.
PA 2021-13
18
A council comprised of ritual specialists and shamans, also hereditary positions, advised the chief
on matters concerning the environment, rituals, and supernatural powers.
According to early ethnographers, the social structure of the villages was considered obscure,
since the Luiseño apparently did not practice the organizational system of exogamous moieties
used by many of the surrounding Native American groups. At birth, a baby was confirmed into
the house-holding group and patrilineage. Girls and boys went through numerous puberty
initiation rituals during which they learned about the supernatural beings governing them and
punishing any infractions of the rules of behavior and ritual (Sparkman 221-225). The boys’
ceremonies included the drinking of toloache (Datura), visions, dancing, ordeals, and the
teaching of songs and rituals. Girl’s puberty rituals, which included “roasting” in warm sands and
rock painting, were centered on how to be a contributing adult in their society and their
responsibilities in the cycles of the world. Marriages did not take place immediately after puberty
rituals were completed as the relationship between girls, puberty, and marriage was very
complex. Children’s future marriages were often arranged at birth, but as the parties became
adults, relationships were reevaluated. The Luiseño were concerned that marriages not occur
between individuals too closely related. Although cross-cousin marriages occurred on occasion,
they were not commonly accepted. Instead, marriage was based more on clan relationships.
Luiseño marriages created important economic and social alliances between lineages and were
celebrated accordingly with elaborate ceremonies and a bride price. Residence was typically
patrilineal. Men and women with large social responsibility often lived with multiple people and
the relationships were of support for the community.
One of the most important elements in the Luiseño life cycle was death. At least a dozen
successive mourning ceremonies were held following an individual’s death, with feasting taking
place and gifts being distributed to ceremony guests. Luiseño cosmology was based on a dying-
god theme, the focus of which was Wiyó-t’, a creator-culture hero and teacher who was the son
of earth-mother (Bean & Shipek 557). The order of the world was established by this entity, and
he was one of the first “people” or creations. Upon the death of Wiyó-t’ the nature of the
universe changed, and the existing world of plants, animals, and humans was created. The
original creations took on the various life forms now existing and worked out solutions for living.
These solutions included a spatial organization of species for living space and a chain-of-being
concept that placed each species into a mutually beneficial relationship with all others.
Based on Luiseño settlement and subsistence patterns, the type of archaeological sites
associated with this culture may be expected to represent the various activities involved in
seasonal resource exploitation. Temporary campsites usually evidenced by lithic debris and/or
milling features, may be expected to occur relatively frequently. Food processing stations, often
only single milling features, are perhaps the most abundant type of site found. Isolated artifacts
PA 2021-13
19
occur with approximately the same frequency as food processing stations. The most infrequently
occurring archaeological site is the village site. Sites of this type are usually large (often spanning
out five miles in all directions), in defensive locations amidst abundant natural resources, and
usually surrounded by the types of sites previously discussed, which reflect the daily activity of
the villagers. Little is known of ceremonial sites, although the ceremonies themselves are
discussed frequently in the ethnographic literature. It may be assumed that such sites would be
found in association with village sites, but with what frequency is not known.
History
Four principal periods of historical occupation existed in Southern California: the Protohistoric
Period (1540-1768 CE), the Spanish Mission Period (1769-1830 CE), the Mexican Rancho Period
(1830-1860 CE), and the American Developmental Period (1860 CE-present).
In the general study area, the Spanish Mission Period (1769-1830 CE) first represents historical
occupation. Although earlier European explorers had traveled throughout South California, it was
not until the 1769 “Sacred Expedition” of Captain Gaspar dé Portola and Franciscan Father
Junipero Serra that there was actual contact with aboriginal inhabitants of the region. The intent
of the expedition, which began in San Blas, Baja California, was to establish missions and presidios
along the California coast, thereby serving the dual purpose of converting Indians to Christianity
and expanding Spain’s military presence in the “New World.” In addition, each mission became
a commercial enterprise utilizing Indian labor to produce commodities such as wheat, hides, and
tallow that could be exported to Spain. Founded on July 16, 1769, the Mission San Diego de Alcalá
was the first of the missions, while the Mission San Francisco Solana was the last mission,
founded on July 4, 1823.
In 1798 the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia was founded and all aboriginals living within the
mission’s realm of influence became known as the “Luiseño.” Within a 20-year period, under the
guidance of Fr. Antonio Peyri, the mission prospered to a degree that it was often referred to as
the “King of the Missions.” At its peak, the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia, which is located in
what is now Oceanside, controlled six ranches and annually produced 27,000 cattle, 26,000
sheep, 1300 goats, 500 pigs, 1900 horses, and 67,000 bushels of grain. During this period, the
Mission San Luis Rey de Francia claimed the entire region that is now western Riverside County
and northern San Diego County as a cattle ranch, although records of the Mission San Juan
Capistrano show this region as part of their holdings.
By 1818 the greater Temecula Valley had become the Mission San Luis Rey’s principal producer
of grain and was considered one of the mission’s most important holdings. It was at
approximately this time that a granary, chapel, and majordomo’s home were built in Temecula.
These were the first structures built by whites within the boundaries of Riverside County. The
PA 2021-13
20
buildings were constructed at the original Indian village of Temecula on a high bluff at the
southern side of Temecula Creek where it joins Murrieta Creek to form the Santa Margarita River.
This entire area continued to be an abundant producer of grain, as well as horses and cattle, for
the thriving Mission San Luis Rey until the region became part of Mexico on April 11, 1822.
Following this event, the Spanish missions and mission ranches began a slow decline.
During the Mexican Rancho Period (1830-1860 CE) the first of the Mexican ranchos were
established following the enactment of the Secularization Act of 1833 by the Mexican
government. Mexican governors were empowered to grant vacant land to “contractors
(empresarios), families, or private citizens, whether Mexicans or foreigners, who may ask for
them for the purpose of cultivating or inhabiting them” (Robinson 66). Mexican governors
granted approximately 500 ranchos during this period. Although legally a land grant could not
exceed 11 square leagues (about 50,000 acres or 76 square miles) and absentee ownership was
officially forbidden, neither edict was rigorously enforced (ibid). The subject property was
originally located within the La Laguna Rancho, but as will be discussed in the Research Results
section of this report, it was ultimately removed and was granted to the State of California as
public land. Currently, PA 2101-13 lies immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the La
Laguna Rancho.
The La Laguna Rancho, encompassing three square leagues, was granted to Julian Manriquez by
Mexican Governor Manuel Micheltorena on June 7, 1844. The land grant included all of the lake
and shoreline but did not extend very far onto land around the lake in any direction. Manriquez
died a few years after receiving the grant and the property passed to his widow, Trinidad, and
their two sons. They sold the rancho to Abel Stearns in 1852 for $4,125, but Stearns only held the
rancho for six years, selling it to Augustin Machado for $6000 (Gunther 281). Machado built an
adobe on the northwest corner of his property and with the advent of the Butterfield Stage Road,
the house became a focal point and a stage stop for the mail stages (Lech 85). Augustin Machado
died in 1865 and left the La Laguna Rancho to his wife, Ramona, and their twelve children.
Ramona received an undivided one-half interest, while each child received an undivided twenty-
sixth interest.
It was also during this historical period that the central event of California history -the Gold Rush
- occurred. Although gold had been discovered as early as 1842 in the Sierra Pelona north of Los
Angeles, it cost more to extract and process the gold than it was worth. The second discovery of
gold in 1848 at Sutter's Mill by James Marshall was serendipitously coincidental with California's
change in ownership as the result of the Anglo-American victory in the Mexican War, occurring
at a time when many adventurers had come to California in the vanguard of military conquest.
If gold had not been discovered, California may have remained an essentially Hispanic territory
of the United States. The discovery of gold and the riches it promised caused California to become
PA 2021-13
21
a magnet that attracted Anglo-American exploration and colonization. It has been estimated that
the Anglo-American population of California at the beginning of 1848 was 2000 and that by the
end of 1849 it had exploded to over 53,000 (Farquhar 1965). In 1849 alone, more than 40,000
people traveled overland from the Eastern United States to California and by the end of the year,
697 ships had arrived in San Francisco, bringing another 41,000 individuals. In 1850, over 50,000
people came overland and 35,000 came by sea. Hence, despite the fact that thousands of
disenchanted prospectors who left California (reportedly 31,000 in 1853 alone), California’s
population had grown to 380,000 by 1860 and to 560,000 by 1870, not including the Native
Americans, whose populations were decimated by the Anglo-American invasion. Conversely, in
1846 the Native American population in California is estimated to have been at least 120,000 and
by the 1860s, only 20,000-40,000 had survived. This period of history is often referred to as the
“California Indian Holocaust”.
During the years of the Gold Rush most mining occurred in the northern and central portions of
the state. As a result, these areas were far more populated than most of southern California.
Nevertheless, there was an increasing demand for land throughout the state and the federal
government was forced to address the issue of how much land in California would be declared
public land for sale. The Congressional Act of 1851 created a land commission to receive petitions
from private land claimants and to determine the validity of their claims. The United States Land
Survey of California conducted by the General Land Office, began that year.
Throughout the 1840’s and 1850’s thousands of settlers and prospectors traveled through the
study area on the Emigrant Trail in route to various destinations in the West. The southern
portion of the trail ran from the Colorado River to Warner’s Ranch and then westward to
Aguanga, where it split into two roads. The main road continued westward past Aguanga and
into the valley north of the Santa Ana Mountains. This road was alternately called the Colorado
Road, Old Temescal Road, or Fort Yuma Road and what is now SR-79 generally follows its
alignment. The second road, known as the San Bernardino Road, split off northward from
Aguanga and ran along the base of the San Jacinto Mountains.
On September 16, 1858, the Butterfield Company, following the southern Emigrant Trail, began
carrying the Overland Mail from Tipton, Missouri to San Francisco, California. The first
stagecoach passed through Temecula on October 7, 1858, and exchanged horses at John Magee’s
store, which was located south of Temecula Creek on the Little Temecula Rancho. It was around
this store that the second location of Temecula had been established. In addition to being a
Butterfield Overland Mail stop, it was at John Magee’s store that the first post office in what is
now Riverside County opened on April 22, 1859, with Louis A. Rouen being appointed the first
United States postmaster in inland southern California (Hudson 1968:8). From this time until the
PA 2021-13
22
outbreak of the Civil War terminated Butterfield’s service, mail was delivered to the Temecula
Post Office four times per week.
In the final period of historic occupation, the American Developmental Period (1860 CE - current)
the first major changes in the study area took place as a result of the land issues addressed in the
previous decade. Following completion of the GLO land survey, large tracts of federal land
became available for sale and for preemption purposes, particularly after Congress passed the
Homestead Act of 1862. The state was eventually granted 500,000 acres of land by the federal
government for distribution, as well as two sections of land in each township for school purposes.
Much of this land was in the southern part of the state. Under the Homestead Act of 1862 160-
acre homesteads were available to citizens of the United States (or those who had filed an
intention to become one) who were either head-of-household or a single person over the age of
21 (including women). Once the homestead claim was filed, the applicant had six months to
move onto the land and was required to maintain residency for five years as well as to build a
dwelling and raise crops. Upon completion of these requirements, the homesteader was required
to publish an intent to close on the property in order to allow others to dispute the claim; if no
one did so, the homesteader was issued a patent to the property, thus conveying ownership.
Individuals were attracted to the federal lands by their low prices and as a result, the population
began to increase in regions where the lands available for homestead were located. It was at this
time, that the region of southern California which came to be known as Riverside County saw an
influx of settlers, as well as those seeking other opportunities, including gold mining.
In June of 1873, Augustin Machado’s wife and eleven of the children sold their rights to 12,832
acres of the La Laguna Rancho for $29,000 to Charles Ammon Sumner (SDC Deed Bk. 21:453).
The oldest of Machado’s children, Juan Machado, retained his share, a pie-shaped piece 513
acres in size, whose point extended into the lake. Machado built an adobe to house his family
and continued to live there for many years. In 1875 Sumner mortgaged the La Laguna Rancho to
the Temple and Workman Bank of Los Angeles for $5000 with interest at 1 ¼% monthly. In 1876
the note was foreclosed on and sold at a sheriff’s sale in 1877 for $6714.49 to Milton S. Latham.
Later the same year, Latham sold the rancho to Frederick M. Sumner, brother of Charles Ammon
Sumner (Gunther 281). In 1881 Sumner transferred the land grant to Arthur Scrivener, Trustee
for the London and San Francisco Bank, Ltd.
On March 17, 1882, the California Southern Railroad (San Bernardino and Temecula Line) was
opened, extending from National City near the Mexican border in San Diego County, northerly to
Temecula and Murrieta, across the Perris Valley, down Box Springs Grade, and on to the City of
San Bernardino and the entire region anticipated a boom in industry and population. With the
arrival of rail access, the La Laguna Rancho flourished, and within fifteen years no fewer than eight
separate developments were founded on, or adjacent to, rancho lands (Lech 342). While many of
PA 2021-13
23
these developments died in the bust of the 1880s, the town of Elsinore survived and became one of
the foremost towns in western Riverside County. Unfortunately, rail access was short-lived.
Flooding and washouts in Temecula Canyon had plagued the California Southern Railroad from
the beginning, railway service was disrupted for months at a time, and a fortune was spent on
rebuilding the washed-out tracks. Finally, in 1891 the Santa Fe Railway constructed a new line
from Los Angeles to San Diego down the coast and when later that year the California Southern
Railway's route through Temecula Canyon once again was washed out, that portion of the line
was discontinued.
Serendipitously, the great land boom in California commenced shortly after the opening of the
California Southern Railroad and on September 24, 1883, Franklin H. Heald, Donald M. Graham,
and William Collier purchased 12,832 acres of the La Laguna Rancho for $24,000 ($1.95/acre).
The rancho was renamed Elsinore and subdivided into town lots and small acreages for sale
(Figure 8). Graham and Collier had also been trying to persuade Juan Machado to sell them his
513 acres, but since they spoke no Spanish and he spoke no English, they were unsuccessful.
Unluckily for them, Spanish-speaking George Irish came along, liked Machado’s place, and
succeeded in buying most of it in 1884 at an undisclosed price. Machado continued living with
his family on his decreased acreage, eventually adding 150 acres through a purchase from the
General Land Office in October 1890 (SDC Patent Bk. 6: 423).
Franklin, Heald, and Collier dissolved their partnership in 1885, with Heald taking the portion of
the rancho that lay northwesterly of Corydon Street. Unfortunately, he was unable to pay his
mortgage and in 1892, lost approximately 10,000 acres to Security Loan and Trust Company. That
company quickly sold to land to the South Riverside Land and Water Company for $36,000
(Gunther 282). Collier and Graham took as their share the land that lay southeasterly of Corydon
Street and platted a town site with the name “Wildon” on the land. In November of 1886, a
second plat for the new town was recorded with the name “Wildomar.” This final name was
comprised of letters of each partner’s first name, plus letters from the first name of Margaret
Collier, who was Graham’s sister and Collier’s wife.
PA 2021-13
24
Figure 8: Map Showing Subdivisions in Elsinore (Graham, Collier, and Heald, 1883)
PA 2021-13
25
In addition to Elsinore and Wildomar, another potential boom town emerged in the late 1880s.
Named North Elsinore, it was the product of the Lake Elsinore Valley Improvement Company,
which owned approximately 1200 acres of land north of the actual town and adjoining lands of
Elsinore (Lech 353). The town center of North Elsinore was located approximately one-half mile
southeast of what is now PA 2021-13. In October of 1887, the principals behind the Lake Elsinore
Valley Improvement Company - Franklin Heald, Howard Conrad, and S.M. Cambern – hired
Charles Elliot to survey half of their holdings and subdivide them into two separate maps. The
first map, the “Plat of the Townsite of North Elsinore,” subdivided 120 acres into 22 blocks of
town lots, most measuring 50’ x 125’ (Lech 354). The center of town was Central Avenue and
along it, between Dexter and Cambern Avenues, the town lots were 25’ wide (Fig. 9) Ultimately,
almost 600 town lots comprised North Elsinore, with larger acreage surrounding them.
Figure 9: Town center of North Elsinore.
The second, larger map, “Map of the North Elsinore Town and Colony Lands,” subdivided 480
acres of land around the proposed town of North Elsinore into 25 blocks of agricultural lots
ranging in size from 2.5 to 10 acres. Streets tending northeast were numbered First through
Eleventh, while streets trending southeast were named for Conrad and Cambern, as well as two
other investors, Dexter and Collins. Both of the Lake Elsinore Valley Improvement Company’s
PA 2021-13
26
subdivision maps were recorded, and at least some of streets were built, but little else seems to
have been developed in and around North Elsinore at that time.
In addition to North Elsinore, the mining town of Terra Cotta was established northwest of the
town of Lake Elsinore in 1887 and later incorporated into the City of Lake Elsinore. Terra Cotta
was located one mile west of the subject property. In the lates 1880s, coal, as well as clay
deposits, were discovered on the site by John D. Huff and the Southern California Coal and Clay
Company was formed to mine them. The town of Terra Cotta was subsequently laid out and
assigned its own post office on October 26, 1887. In May of 1893, the post office was closed and
moved to Lake Elsinore. A plant for the manufacture of sewer and water pipes was built using
the coal to fire ceramic pipes in the four kilns. The finished product had to be shipped by wagon
six miles through Lake Elsinore to the La Laguna rail station at the mouth of Railroad Canyon until
1896, when a spur line was built through Lake Elsinore and Terra Cotta to the new clay deposits
in Alberhill. The coal mined was also used locally as fuel for the stamping mill at the Good Hope
Mine and was shipped elsewhere in the state. Almost abandoned in 1901, Terra Cotta was
revived in 1906 when the California Fireproof Construction Company built a new plant there to
make ceramic pipes. In 1912, the plant was closed; by 1925, it was closed down, along with most
of the buildings in the town. The clay mine in the town site continued to be operated by
the Pacific Clay Products Company until 1940, when they transferred all their operations to
Alberhill.
PA 2021-13
27
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Research
Prior to commencement of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment field survey, a records
search request was submitted to staff at the Eastern Information Center located at the University
of California, Riverside on October 1, 2021, with the results received on November 16, 2021. The
records search included a review of all site maps, site records, survey reports, and mitigation
reports within a one-mile radius of the study area. The following documents were also reviewed:
National Register of Historic Places, California Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological
Determinations of Eligibility, and California Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties
Directory. In addition to the records search, a request for a Sacred Lands File search was
submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission on October 1, 2021, with the results
received on November 8, 2021. The same day the Sacred Land Files search results were received,
project scoping letters were sent to 15 Tribal representatives listed as being interested in project
development within the City of Lake Elsinore.
Following the requests for records and Sacred Lands File searches, a literature search of available
published references to the study area was undertaken. Reference material included all available
photographs, maps, books, journals, historical newspapers, registers, and directories held in
various repositories. Archival and cartographic research was conducted through the USGS
Historical Map Collection, the General Land Office records currently maintained by the California
Office of the Bureau of Land Management, and a plethora of archival materials held by
Ancestry.com, the California Digital Newspaper Collection, and the California Internet Archives.
Historical aerial photographs contained within the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
conducted by for PA 2021-13 (EnGen 2020) were also consulted. Up until recently, the Riverside
County Archives was closed due to the COVID-19 situation, thus precluding access to original
property-specific ownership information. However, limited information regarding property
ownership and valuation from 1892 to 1926 was available digitally. Documentation for post-1926
was not accessible digitally due to current conservation efforts and scanning of the original
materials. The following maps were consulted:
1885 General Land Office Plat of Township No. 5 South, Range No. 5 West, San Bernardino
Meridian
1901 Elsinore, California 30’ USGS Topographic Map
1942 Lake Elsinore, California 15’ USGS Topographic Map
1953 Lake Elsinore, California 7.5’ USGS Topographic Map
1973 Lake Elsinore, California 7.5’ USGS Topographic Map
1959 Santa Ana, California 1:250,000 USGS Topographic Map
PA 2021-13
28
1979 (photorevised) Santa Ana, California 1:250,000 USGS Topographic Map.
1988 (photorevised) Lake Elsinore, California 7.5’ USGS Topographic Map
1997 Lake Elsinore, California 7.5’ USGS Topographic Map
Fieldwork
Subsequent to the literature, archival, and cartographic research, Dr. Jean Keller conducted a
comprehensive pedestrian field survey of the subject property on October 26, 2021. The survey
was accomplished by traversing the subject property, beginning at the northern property corner,
in parallel transects at 15-meter intervals. The survey proceeded in a generally north-south,
south-north direction following the existing land contours. All of the property was accessible for
survey with the exception of those areas covered by paving (gravel), and numerous scattered
refuse deposits. Due to recent vegetation abatement, ground surface visibility of accessible land
ranged from 50% in areas with remaining ground cover and leaf fall, to 100% throughout most of
the property, resulting in an overall average ground surface visibility of approximately 75%.
PA 2021-13
29
RESULTS
Research
Results of the records search conducted by staff at the Eastern Information Center revealed that
the subject property had been involved in two previous cultural resources studies, although only
one included the entirety of PA 2021-13. A third study, not on file at the Eastern Information
Center, was provided by the project applicant and also covered the entirety of the subject
property. The first cultural resources study, entitled “Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the
Pacific West Outlet Center, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California” (RI-2627), was conducted
in 1989 by RMW Paleo Associates. The study generally encompassed land between Collier
Avenue and Interstate 15, from Nichols Road to Central Avenue, although the exact acreage was
not provided. While the study included the entirety of what is now PA 2021-13, it did not
specifically address anything within its boundaries. No cultural resources were observed within
the subject property during the field survey, but a historical trash dump was recorded
approximately 500 feet to the north and two prehistoric (i.e. Native American) artifacts were
recorded approximately three-quarters of a mile to the northwest. Recommendations included
collection of the surface artifacts; surface sampling and sufficient subsurface excavation of the
trash scatter in order to determine significance under CEQA.
The second cultural resources study was conducted in 2006 by Statistical Research , Inc, and is
entitled “Cultural Resources Assessment of the Valley-Ivyglen Transmission Line Project,
Riverside County, California” (RI-6888). The project route was a 22-mile-long corridor through
the Temescal Valley and across the intervening uplands to Perris Valley. The only portion of the
subject property that was included in this study was the Collier Avenue right-of-way, and no
cultural resources were observed in this limited area.
The third cultural resources study involving the subject property is not on file at the Eastern
Information Center, so it was not included in the records search. Instead, it was provided by the
project applicant, Saddleback Associates. Conducted in 2008 by LSA, the report is entitled,
“Cultural Resource Assessment, Lake Elsinore Auto Complex Project, City of Lake Elsinore,
Riverside County, California.” Unlike the two previous studies, the LSA study was conducted
specifically for the subject property and provided a more detailed discussion of existing
conditions. At the time of the field survey, two of the five parcels included in the study were
developed. One had an existing residence built in 1965, which was not evaluated because it was
less than 50 years old and as such, was not classified as an historical resource. The second parcel
consisted of a large, paved surface enclosed by a chain link fence. The remaining undeveloped
parcels were vacant fields covered with scattered trees and dry grasses, although two small
PA 2021-13
30
concrete-lined drainages, a cinderblock wall, and a section of three-rail wooden fence were also
present. Since no cultural resources were identified, no further investigation or monitoring was
recommended.
The subject property is located within a very well-studied area with 55 cultural resources studies
having been recorded within a one-mile radius. During the course of field surveys for these
studies, 33 cultural resource properties have been recorded. Table 1 lists the assigned primary
numbers and trinomials for each cultural resource property, the recorded cultural resources for
each, and the distance from the North Elsinore Business Park.
Table 1
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the Scope of the Records Search
Primary
Number
(Trinomial)
Description of Recorded Cultural Resources Distance from
Property
(in miles)
P-33-000659
(CA-RIV-659) Temporary special-use (plant processing) site. Consists of
ground stone & chipped stone tools (manos, metate frags.,
hammerstones, scraper planes, side scrapers, flake scrapers,
possible graver) and debitage, scattered over a small alluvial
fan. No midden apparent.
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-003451
(CA-RIV-3451)
Numerous lithic scatters (1 hammerstone, 2 cores, 1 drill, 3
utilized flakes, 2 projectile blanks, 20 spent cores, and
numerous primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes)
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-003832
(CA-RIV-3832) Abandoned historic-period railroad grade (poor condition &
lack of integrity)
0.00 – 0.25
P-33-003858
(CA-RIV-3858) Historic trash scatter; amethyst & amber glass, iron stone
ware, porcelain, Chion shell fragments
0.25 – 0.50
P-33-004110
(CA-RIV-4110)
Probably seasonal habitation site. Fairly dense scatter of
lithic artifacts (2 slab metates fragments, several mano
fragments and hammerstones, some metavolcanic and
metasedimentary lithic materials, small amount of abalone
shell). Test excavation showed some depth to 90 cm.
0.50 – 0.75
P-33-007151 1938 double-gabled bungalow with shiplap siding and
mullioned double -hung windows (30040 Illinois Street)
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-007171 1929 “Aimee’s Castle” Moorish style temple. L-shaped in
plan, with one-story, 94-foot wing and a three-story 48-foot
wing. (17375 Sunnyslope Drive)
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-007175 1910 Vernacular Adobe Bungalow, rectangular in plan with a
composition gable roof, and adobe walls that have been
plastered over (17501 Collier Avenue)
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-011722 Quartzite chopper 0.25 – 0.50
P-33-012660 Felsite core, quartz graver 0.50 – 0.75
PA 2021-13
31
P-33-013802 Apelite unifacial mano 0.50 – 0.75
P-33-013803 Granite unifacial mano 0.50 – 0.75
P-33-015360
(CA-RIV-8116) Historical-period (1950s) refuse scatter comprised of artifacts
(mostly glass bottle fragments) used for target practice.
0.50 – 0.75
P-33-015364
(CA-RIV-8120)
Historical-period (1890s to present) refuse scatter comprised
of 12 artifact concentrations, with 20 surface collection areas
identified during 2017 Phase II Testing; 17 shovel test pits.
STP. Predominantly glass, but also metal, ceramics, and brick.
(55.ni
0.50 – 0.75
P-33-015420
(CA-RIV-8132)
Elsinore Valley Cemetery and Home of Peace Jewish
Cemetery.
0.00 – 0.25
P-33-015793 Oval bifacial granitic mano 0.00 – 0.25
P-33-015794
(CA-RIV-8226)
Concrete foundation with grooves/troughs on the long sides 0.25 – 0.50
P-33- 016218
(CA-RIV-8367)
Three large trees in a row, with light debris scatter of
building and household refuse (artifacts consistent with
1930s t-1950s).
0.25 – 0.50
P-33-016641 Small food processing site with three milling features on two
ground-level granitic bedrock outcrops.
0.25 – 0.50
P-33-016643 Earthen 0.00 – 0.25
P-33-017019 1959 side-gabled bungalow with addition that serves as an
enclosed patio; similar building that is used as a shed (no
address given)
0.00 – 0.25
P-33-017020
(CA-RIV-8861)
Historical-period can scatter, 30 cans over 10’ x 10’ area
(folded seams, no church key, solder top, or corrugated).
0.25 – 0.50
P-33-017021 1950 side-gabled bungalow with multiple additions (no
address given)
0.25 – 0.50
P-33-017022
(CA-RIV-8862) Foundations and landscaping from a house that was
constructed in 1950 (no address given)
0.25 – 0.50
P-33-017023
(CA-RIV-8863) Historical-period debris scatter consisting of cans, ceramics,
and bottle glass. Glass is cobalt, aqua, clear, green, and
brown, with cork, cap, and screw bottle caps. Cans are
aluminum pull top, church key, welded seam, paint and
kerosene cans. Purex bottles from 1950s-1960s
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-017026
(CA-RIV-8865)
Two commercial concrete foundations, with scattered
window glass and brick fragments, as well as a post-1945
brake drum.
0.00 – 0.25
P-33-017027
(CA-RIV-8866) Remains of a building location. Palms, eucalyptus, and other
landscape plants are present. No foundation, but fragments
of brick, ceramic tile, glass, and cut bone. Building recorded
cartographically as being present in 1953.
0.50 – 0.75
P-33-017576 Granitic basin metate with extensive polish. 0.00 – 0.25
PA 2021-13
32
A search of the Sacred Lands File for the subject property was completed on November 4, 2021,
by the Native American Heritage Commission, with results received on November 8. Based on
the provided USGS quadrangle information, the search had negative results. At this time,
responses to the 15 project scoping letters sent to tribes interested in the Lake Elsinore area on
November 8, 2021, have only been received from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Cultural
Resources Department and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation. The
Rincon Band’s letter, received November 9, 2021, stated that the project area is within the
Territory of the Luiseño people and also within Rincon’s specific Area of Historic Interest (AHI).
As such, the Rincon Band is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Embedded
in the Luiseño territory are Rincon’s history, culture, and identity. The City of Lake Elsinore is
considered a Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) and Landscape (TCL) by the Rincon Band, as it is
associated with the Luiseño Creation and contains numerous recorded cultural places and other
Tribal Cultural resources (TCR). The Rincon Band has no knowledge of cultural resources within
the project area, although that does not mean they don’t exist. They recommend that an
archaeological records search be conducted and ask that a copy of the results and a copy of the
Cultural resources Assessment be provided to the Rincon Band. The records search contained
within the current Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment satisfies this request and will be
provided to the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians as part of the AB 52 consultation with the City of
Lake Elsinore. The response from the Juaneño Band, received on November 30, 2021, simply
stated that they yield to the recommendations of Pechanga for this project.
As previously discussed in the History section of this report, the literature search indicates that
the subject property was first claimed by Spain in 1798 when the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia
was founded and all aboriginals living within the mission’s realm of influence became known as
the “Luiseño.” During this period, the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia assumed ownership of the
entire region that is now western Riverside County and northern San Diego County as a cattle
ranch, although records of the Mission San Juan Capistrano show this region as part of their
holdings. On April 11, 1822, Mexico took control of the former Spanish lands and began issuing
P-33-023614
(CA-RIV-11588)
Remnants of a pre-1967 racetrack with concrete risers for
bleachers, a dirt ramp, a walkway on top of the bleachers,
concrete pad, chain link fence, and light poles. ,
0.25 – 0.50
P-33-023880 Single rhyolite biface thinning flake, 30-60 cm in redeposited
soil.
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-024666 Body fragment from a Gordon’s London Dry Gin glass bottle,
pre-1920s.
0.75 – 1.00
P-33-024667 Brown or amber glass bottle fragment from 1885-1920. 0.75 – 1.00
P-33-028017 1943 single-family vernacular residence (22674 Collier
Avenue)
0.50 – 0.75
PA 2021-13
33
land grants to favored individuals. The subject property was originally located within the La
Laguna Rancho, three square leagues granted to Julian Manriquez by Mexican Governor Manuel
Micheltorena on June 7, 1844.
Interestingly, Manriquez’s undisputed ownership of the La Laguna Rancho was to be relatively
short-lived. As the result of its defeat in the Mexican American War (1846-1848), Mexico ceded
the northern one-third of the country to the United States in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo. The immediate result of this act was that Julian Manriquez no longer technically owned
the rancho. All of the ceded land was now considered public land owned by the United States
and once surveyed by the General Land Office, would be available for sale under the 1820 Land
Act, and later, available under the Homestead Act of 1862. Title to some of the public lands was
eventually transferred to the states in which they were located. California became a state in 1850
and the first GLO survey of Township 5 south, Range 5 west occurred in 1854, but the boundaries
of the La Laguna Rancho were not surveyed until 1868 (Fig. 10). At that time, the subject property
was included was included in Lot 44 (La Laguna Rancho). Corrections to the rancho boundaries
were made during two separate surveys in 1880, significantly changing the configuration and
acreage. As a result of these surveys, the subject property was separated from the rancho lands
and appeared as a 12.44-acre parcel of public land (Fig.11 ).
Interestingly, another component of the original text of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
stipulated that the United States would continue to recognize the validity of Mexican land grants.
Although Congress struck out this provision of the treaty during the ratification process, the
United States assured Mexico that it would uphold valid grants and adjudicate land rights
accordingly. In order to comply with the treaty terms for lands in California, the United States
Congress passed “An Act to Ascertain and Settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California”
on March 3, 1851 (aka Grant-Spanish/Mexican, 009 Stat. 0633). This law provided a mechanism
for owners of Mexican land grants to apply for validation and reinstatement of their claims.
Despite the fact that Abel Stearns had sold the La Laguna Rancho to Augustin Machado in 1858,
on September 3, 1872, a Serial Patent (CACAAA 083219) was issued to Abel Stearns by the State
of California for the 13,3337.84 acres of La Laguna Rancho (Fig.12). The patent was issued under
authority of the March 3, 1851:Grant Spanish/Mexican Act (9 Stat. 631), in compliance with the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Ironically, although the patent explicitly stated that the entirety of
Section 36 was included in the patent, 12.44 acres in the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 36 (now the subject
property) was excluded and instead, was part of a Serial Patent for 5446.13 acres of land issued
by the United States to the State of California on November 15, 1875, for use as public land
(CACAAA 07228301).
PA 2021-13
34
Figure 10: General Land Office Plat for Township No. 5 South, Range No. 5 West, 1854-1880,
showing original boundaries of the La Laguna Rancho and subject property.
1868 Lot 44
Subject Property
PA 2021-13
35
Figure 11: Location of the subject property (original 12.44 acres) in relation to the
1880 corrected boundaries of the La Laguna Rancho.
Following completion of the final surveys and compilation of the 1880 plat for Township 5 south,
Range 5 west, public lands were available for sale from the State of California. Between 1880 and
1892, the subject property was located in San Diego County and currently, property ownership
information for that period is not available. Property ownership records for the subject property
were available from the Riverside County Archives for 1892-1926, but later records are currently
being scanned and/or conserved so were not available for research. While these records do not
give a comprehensive history of the property, they do offer interesting insight into its early years.
Table 2 provides an historical summary of land ownership and value for this period of time.
Despite the fact that there are numerous trees within the property boundaries, Trees and Vines
valuations listed in the Riverside County records apply only to agriculture, such as fruit trees and
1868 Boundary
1880 boundary
Subject
Property
PA 2021-13
36
Figure 12: Serial Patent issued to Abel Stearns for the 13,337.84 acres of the La Laguna
Rancho on September 3, 1872.
PA 2021-13
37
Table 2
Historical Property Ownership and Value Summary of PA 2021-13
YEAR OWNER LAND
VALUE
BUILDING
TYPE/VALUE
TREE
VALUE
VINE
VALUE
1892 E.W. Storts - - - -
1893 “ $75 House/$20 - -
1894 “ “ “ - -
1895 “ “ “ - -
1896 “ “ “ - -
1897 “ “ “ - -
1898 “ $70 “ - -
1899 “ $65 “ - -
1900 Rachel Storts, et al “ “ - -
1901 Dora F. Fairelough “ “ - -
1902 Mary C. Bethurum “ “ - -
1903 “ “ $15 - -
1904 “ “ “ - -
1905 “ “ “ - -
1906 “ “ “ - -
1907 “ “ $100 - -
1908 “ “ “ - -
1909 “ “ $125 - -
1910 “ $90 “ - -
1911 “ “ “ - -
1912 “ $200 “ - -
1913 “ $250 “ - -
1914 “ $300 “ - -
1915 “ “ “ - -
1916 “ “ $130 - -
1917 “ “ “ - -
1918 “ “ “ - -
1919 “ “ “ - -
1920 “ $900 “ - -
1921 “ “ “ - -
1922 “ “ “ - -
1923 “ “ “ - -
1924 “ “ $170 - -
1925 “ “ “ - -
1926 “ “ “ - -
PA 2021-13
38
grape vines, so this information does not apply to the trees on the subject property, only to the
lack of agricultural endeavors.
According to records maintained by the Riverside County Archives, the first owner of record for
the subject property was E.W. Storts, who owned the 12.44-acre parcel, of which PA 2021-13
was originally a part, as early as 1892. In 1893, the first year Riverside County property records
were kept, the property was valued at $75 and a house was built, valued at $20. Storts owned
the property, which maintained its value until 1898, until 1899, when he/she apparently died.
Despite intensive research through all available Ancestry.com records, no information could be
found regarding this first property owner. While comprehensive records for individuals during
the late 19th and early 20th centuries are rarely available, to find not a single document pertaining
to this individual was unusual.
In 1900, the subject property ownership transferred to Rachel Storts et al, apparently the heirs
of E.W. Storts. Again, no information could be found about this individual, so it is unknown
whether it was a wife, daughter, niece, etc. The property rapidly changed hands and in 1901, it
was sold to Dora F. Faireclough. At that time, the land was valued at $65 and the house valued
at $20. There is no indication that the new owner occupied the property, since census records
indicate that she lived in Los Angeles at the time of the sale, as well as before and after. The
property was then sold to Dora’s sister, Mary C. Bethurum, who would be the owner until 1926.
Mary C. (Gregory Harness) Bethurum was born on April 30, 1867, in Illinois, to parents John
Gregory and Elizabeth Harness Gregory. On November 19, 1885, she married Madison Emmit
Bethurum in Kentucky and they soon made their way west to Perris, California. In 1900, the
couple lived in Perris, with their six children, ages 1 to 13 of age. At that time, Mary was a
housewife and Madison was a laborer. After purchasing the Storts/Faireclough property from her
sister in 1901, the family moved to the subject property and took up residence in the existing
house. The house was located in the western portion of the 12.44 acre-parcel, in what is now
Lots 2 (389-220-002), so it was not within the boundaries of what is currently the Planning
Application 2021-13 property. The family lived on the property until 1926, with land values
escalating from $75 to $900 and the house increasing in value from $20 in 1893 to $170 in 1926.
Interestingly, the land value tripled from 1919 to 1920, but no reason for this increase has been
discovered. Ultimately, the Bethurums had 12 children, four of whom were still living at home
(as well as a grandson) when the property was sold in 1926.
Madison Bethurum died on January 1, 1925, and it was at that time that Mary decided to sell the
property. After the sale in 1926, she moved to Gardena, California and lived with her sister Dora’s
family, apparently until 1940, when she moved to San Diego and lived at ----G Street. Mary
Bethurum lived in San Diego until passing away on December 8, 1948. She was buried at
Evergreen Memorial Park and Masusoleum in Riverside, California.
PA 2021-13
39
Information about subsequent ownership of the original 12.44-acre parcel and its subdivision
into six lots was not found in available records. However, according to the 2008 Cultural
Resources Assessment, a house was built on Lot 3 in 1965 (LSA 7) and the current Assessor’s
Parcel Map states that the parcel configuration and lot sizes shown is based on data obtained in
August 1973. Consequently, it may be assumed that at least until the mid-1960s, the subject
property remained part of the original +12.44-acre parcel of land under singular ownership.
Despite the fact that property ownership records held at the Riverside County Archives confirm
the existence of a house on the original parcel beginning in 1893 and continuing through 1926,
cartographic sources are conflicting. As shown in Figure 13, no structures appear within the
property boundaries on the 1901 USGS Elsinore map (survey dates 1897-1898) or the 1942
USACOE Lake Elsinore map (1939 aerial photographs). It is not until the 1953 USGS Lake Elsinore
map (1951 aerial photographs) that a structure appears, joined on the 1973 USGS Lake Elsinore
map (1970 aerial photograph) by the house built in Lot 3 of what is now PA 2021-13. Perhaps
even more interesting is that the 1997 USGS Lake Elsinore map (1994 aerial photographs) shows
no structures within either the original property of the current 7.22-acre property (Fig. 14). Aerial
photographs indicate that the original house had been demolished by 1990, but the “new” house
existed until 2019 (EnGen 2020:3).
1901 USGS Elsinore 1942 USACOE Lake Elsinore
Figure 13: Cartographic history of the subject property, 1901 – 1942.
PA 2021-13
40
USGS 1953 Lake Elsinore Quad
USGS 1973 Lake Elsinore Quad
USGS 1997 Lake Elsinore Quad
Figure 14: Cartographic history of the subject property, 1953-1997
PA 2021-13
41
Fieldwork
No cultural resources of prehistoric (Native American) or historical origin were observed within
the property boundaries during the current field survey. Disturbed soil throughout the property
showed uniform texture and color, with no evidence of a subsurface cultural deposit. No bedrock
exists on the property and with excellent ground surface visibility, no lithic materials suitable for
tool production by indigenous peoples were observed.
As previously noted, according to the 2008 Cultural Resources Assessment conducted by LSA, a
single-family residence was built on Lot 3 of PA 2021-13 in 1965, although where this information
was obtained was not stated. The house was demolished between October 2018 and April 2019
according to the EnGen Phase I report (EnGen 2020:3) and since that time, the property has been
vacant. Evidence of occupation was observed throughout the property, including large expanses
of gravel, building materials and debris, an earthen wall, concrete blocks, a tree-lined drive, and
abundant landscaping. A sequence of historical aerial photographs contained within the EnGen
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that trace development of the property from 1938 to
2016 indicates that landscaping associated with the ca. 1893 house on the original +12.44-acre
parcel extended onto the northern area of what is now PA-2021-13. How many of these plants
(if any) currently exist is not readily apparent from either the aerial photographs or the field
survey. A fence extends along portions of the western boundary of PA-2021-13 and what would
have been the eastern boundary of Lots 1 and 2, on which the original house was built. The fence
is made of chain link with a with secondary interior fence constructed of bent rebar and stacked
2” x 4”s (Fig. 15). Although this feature looks “old,” aerial photographs indicate that portions
were not constructed until at least 1978, with a completion date uncertain. Since it was not at
least 50 years of age, the feature was not evaluated as an historical resource.
PA 2021-13
42
RECOMMENDATIONS
No cultural resources of prehistoric (Native American) or historical origin were observed within
the boundaries of Planning Application No 2021-13. No information has been obtained through
Native American consultation that the subject property is culturally or spiritually significant and
no Traditional Cultural Properties that currently serve religious or other community practices are
known to exist within the project area. Results of the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the
Native American Heritage Commission for the subject property were negative. According to the
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the City of Lake Elsinore is considered a Traditional Cultural Place
(TCP) and Landscape (TCL), as it is associated with the Luiseño Creation and contains numerous
recorded cultural places and other Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). They have no knowledge of
cultural resources within the project area encompassed by PA 2021-13 and recommended that
an archaeological records search and cultural resources assessment be conducted, with copies
provided to them. A copy of this Phase I Cultural resources Assessment will be provided to Rincon
by the City of Lake Elsinore as part of the AB 52 process.
Planning Application No. 2021-13 is located within an area of high sensitivity for cultural,
archaeological, and historical resources, with 33 cultural resources properties having been
recorded within a one-mile radius of the subject property. Eleven of these properties are of
Native American origin, four of which represent small temporary sites used for seasonal resource
procurement and processing, while seven are isolated artifacts. The relatively limited size and
number of habitation sites, as well as the number of isolated artifacts, is undoubtedly a product
of long-term historical development of the Lake Elsinore area instead of an accurate indication
of Native American occupation over time. Twenty-two cultural resource properties are of
historical-period origin. Seven are standing structures, ten are deposits and/or isolated artifacts,
and five represent the remains of built features. Development of the Lake Elsinore area and
associated small towns such as Lucerne, Terra Cotta, and North Elsinore, began in the mid-19th
century and the number of historical-era cultural resources recorded within a one-mile radius of
PA 2021-13 reflect this activity.
Although no cultural resources were observed within the boundaries of the subject property, it
was originally part of a +12.44-acre parcel that was continuously occupied for approximately 100
years, beginning with construction of a house in 1893. The parcel was divided into six lots,
probably in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and PA-2021-13 currently encompasses four of the lots
(389-2220-003, 004, 005, 006); the ca-1893 residence occupied Lots 1 and 2. However, aerial
photographs indicate that some landscaping and other features associated with that house
encroached onto lots included in the subject property until relatively recently.
PA 2021-13
43
Despite the fact that no cultural resources were observed within the project boundaries during
the current or previous Phase I field surveys, in consideration of the high cultural, archaeological,
and historical sensitivity of the area in which the project is located, as well as the fact that the
subject property was associated with land continuously occupied for 100 years, it is
recommended that monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of
the North Elsinore Business Park be actively monitored by a Riverside County/City of Lake
Elsinore qualified archaeologist. Although no Tribe requested monitoring, if such a request is
made during the AB 52 process, it is recommended that Tribal monitoring be required in addition
to archaeological monitoring.
Should any cultural resources be discovered during the course of ground-disturbing activities
anywhere on the subject property, said activities should be halted or diverted until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the resources, make a determination of their significance, and
recommend appropriate treatment measures to mitigate impacts to the resource from the project,
if found to be significant. If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during implementation
of the project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbances
shall proceed until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The
NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD
may, with the permission of the landowner, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site
of the discovery of the Native American remains and recommend to the owner or the person
responsible for the excavation work means for treating, with appropriate dignity, the human and
any associated grave goods,
CONSULTANT CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that the attached report is a true and accurate description of the results of the
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment described herein.
Jean A. Keller, Ph.D. Date
Riverside County Certificate No. 232
PA 2021-13
44
REFERENCES
Ancestry.com
1822-1995 U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.
1940-1989 California Death Index, 1940-1989 [database on-line. Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2013.
1600s-current U.S., Find-A-Grave Index, 1600s – current [database on-line]. Provo, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2012.
Bailey, H.P.
1966 Weather of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe
1884-1890 History of California, 7 vols. The History Company, San Francisco,
California.
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,
California; pp. 550-563. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Bean, Walton and James J. Rawls
1983 California: An Interpretive History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene
1933 Font’s Complete Diary. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brunzell, David
1012 Cultural Resources Assessment, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Waite
Street Reservoir and Pipeline Project, Wildomar, Riverside County, California (RI-
09441). Unpublished manuscript on file at the University of California Riverside.
California State Library
1866 – 1898 Great Register of Voters, 1866 – 1898. Sacramento, California.
1866-1910 Great Register of Voters, 1866 - 1910. Sacramento, California.
1900- 1968 Great Register of Voters, 1900 – 1968. Sacramento, California.
PA 2021-13
45
Caughey, J.W.
1948 The California Gold Rush. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Cowan, Robert G.
1956 Ranchos of California. Academy Library Guild, Fresno, California.
Cutter, D.C.
1949 “The Discovery of Gold in California,” in The Mother Lode Country (Centennial
Edition). Geologic Guidebook Along Highway 49, Sierra Gold Belt, California
Division of Mines, Bulletin 141:13-17, San Francisco, California.
Department of Commerce – Bureau of the Census
1900 Twelfth Census of the United States, Schedule 1 - Population
Perris Township, Riverside County, California
June 15 - 16, 1900; J. A. Maxwell, Enumerator
1910 Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910 – Population
Elsinore Township, Riverside County, California
April 22, 1910; Earl E. Crane, Enumerator
1920 Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920 – Population
Elsinore Township, Riverside County, California
January 26 thru 29, 1920; Henry Heppe, Enumerator
1930 Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930 – Population
Gardena Township, Howard Precinct, Los Angeles County, California
April 3, 1930; Ethel B. Jones, Enumerator
1940 Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940 – Population
San Diego Township, San Diego County, California
April 12 – 13, 1940; Eva M (?), Enumerator
Division of Mines
1954 “Geology of Southern California” in Geologic Guide No. 5: Northern Part of the
Peninsular Range Province, Bulletin 170, San Francisco, California.
Dumke, G.S.
1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. The Huntington Library, San
Marino, California.
Elders, W.A.
1971 Geological Excursions in Southern California. University of California, Number 1,
Riverside, California.
PA 2021-13
46
Elliot, Wallace W.
1890 History of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. Wallace W. Elliot & Co.
EnGen
2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project, 7.85 Acres
Northeast of Collier Avenue, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California,
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389-220-003, 004, 005, 006, Project Number:
4526WA1.
2021 Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through
389-220-006). Project Number: 4626GS
Farquhar, F.
1965 History of the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Gabbert, J.R.
1990 Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1880. The Huntington
Library, San Marino, California.
General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior
1854-1880 Plat Map: Township No. 5 South Range No. 5 West, San Bernardino
Meridian. Bureau of Land Management, online database
1854-1880 Land Patent Records, Section 36, Township 5 south, Range 5 west, SBM.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories.
Rubidoux Printing Company, Riverside, California.
Harding, M.
1951 La Jollan Culture. El Museo 1(1), pp. 10-11, 31-38. San Diego, California.
Heizer, Robert F., ed.
1978 Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Holmes, E.W.
1912 History of Riverside County. Historic Record Co., Los Angeles, California.
Hudson, Bennie
1969 The Big Wide Land: Now………and Then. High Country (Winter), pp. 25-34.
Temecula, California.
PA 2021-13
47
Hudson, Tom
1978 “Nature’s Phenomenon, Lake Elsinore,” The High Country Number 45:5.
Temecula, California.
1981 A Thousand Years in the Temecula Valley. Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce, Temecula, California
Kroeber, Alfred L., ed.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Lech, Steve
2004 Along the Old Roads. Self-published. Riverside, California.
Lewis Publishing Company
1890 Illustrated History of Southern California. Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago,
Illinois.
McWilliams, Carey
1945 Southern California Country. Duell, Sloan & Pierce, New York, New York.
Meighan, C. W.
1954 “A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory,” Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 10(2):215-227.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Munz, Phillip A.
1968 A California Flora and Supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Ormsby, William L.
1942 The Butterfield Overland Mail. Lyle H. Wright & Josephine M. Bynum, eds.
The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
Oxendine, Joan
1983 The Luiseño Village During the Late Prehistoric Era. Ph.D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
Patterson, Tom
1964 Landmarks of Riverside and the Stories Behind Them. The Press-Enterprise
Company, Riverside, California.
1966 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. The Press-Enterprise
Company, Riverside, California.
PA 2021-13
48
Principe and Associates
2021 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006.
Riverside County, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder’s Office (Riverside County Archives)
1892 - 1895: Index Map
Assessor Map T5S R5W Sec 36
Property Ownership Resister T5S R5W Sec 36
1896 - 1899: Index Map
Assessor Map T5S R5W Sec 36
Property Ownership Register T5S R5W Sec 36
1899 - 1907: Index Map
Assessor Map T5S R5W Sec 36
Property Ownership Register T4SR3W Sec6
1907 - 1913: Index Map
Assessor Map T5S R5W Sec 36
Property Ownership RegisterT5S R5W Sec36
1913 – 1919: Index Map
Assessor Map T5S R5W Sec 36
Property Ownership Register T5S R5W Sec 36
1920 – 1926: Index Map
Assessor Map T5S R5W Sec 36
Property Ownership Register T4SR3W Sec6
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency
2021 Building and Safety Department Records for APN 389-220-003, 004, 005, 006.
Online database.
Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
1957 The Story of Riverside County. Title Insurance and Trust Company, Los Angeles,
California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent
Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3.
1945 “An Outline of Yuman Prehistory.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167-
198.
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. R.F. Pourade, (ed). San Diego Union Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
Rush, Phillip
1965 Some Old Ranchos and Adobes. Neyenesch Printers, Inc., San Diego, California.
PA 2021-13
49
Sparkman, Phillip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publication American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 8, No. 4. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
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 in 1972.
True, D.L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 20:68-72.
1977 Archaeological Investigations in San Diego County: Preliminary Report on the
Sites SDI-4558, 4562, and 4562A. Report to the California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, California.
True, D.L., C. W. Meighan, and H. Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University
of California Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 11, University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (War Department)
1942 Map: Lake Elsinore, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photos taken in 1939
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1901 Map: Elsinore, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1897-1898
1953 Map: Lake Elsinore, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photos taken in 1951
1959 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); aerial photos taken in 1955
1973 Map: Lake Elsinore, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1953 edition photorevised 1973
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised 1979
1988 Map: (photorevised) Lake Elsinore, Calif. (7.5’, 1: 24,000); aerial photos taken in
1985
1997 Map: (photorevised) Lake Elsinore, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photos
taken in 1994
Wallace, William. J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
1978 Post Pleistocene Archaeology, 9,000 to 2,000 B.C.. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.)
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California; pp. 25-36. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C..
PA 2021-13
50
Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In
Cynthia Irwin-Williams (ed.): Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States;
pp.1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3).
Portales, New Mexico.
Warren, Claude N, D.L. true, and A.A. Eudrey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and
Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles
Archaeological Annual Survey Report, 1960-1961. University of California Press,
Los Angeles, California.
White, R.C.
1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 48, No. 2. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
APPENDIX
Records Search Results
Sacred Lands File Search Results
Tribal Responses to Project Scoping Letters
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-33-000659 CA-RIV-000659 RI-00173, RI-00534,
RI-02351, RI-03376
Site Prehistoric AP01 1973 (S.R. Hammond);
1973 (J. Humbert, S. Hammond,
C.E.F.U.);
1973 (C.E. Drover, E.A. Jackson, Jr.)
P-33-003451 CA-RIV-003451 Site Prehistoric AP02 1988 (C.E. Drover and E.A.
Jackson, Jr.)
P-33-003832 CA-RIV-003832 National Register - 6Y;
Other - 202-5;
Other - 202-4;
Other - The Santa Fe Railroad
grade through the Temescal
Valley;
Other - Santa Fe Railway;
Other - Atchison, Topeka, and
Santa Fe RR;
Other - UCR ARU # 1039 and #
1111
RI-02743, RI-03155,
RI-03175, RI-03882,
RI-04144, RI-04665,
RI-04706, RI-04765,
RI-05056, RI-06624,
RI-08092, RI-08103,
RI-08228, RI-09285,
RI-10186
Site Historic AH07; HP19 1990 (Daniel F. McCarthy,
Archaeological Research Unit, UC
Riverside, CA.);
1990 (K. Swope and D. Peirce,
Archaeological Research Unit, UC
Riverside, CA.);
1995 (Bruce Love, CRM TECH,
Riverside, CA.);
1996 (CRM TECH, CRM TECH);
2001 (Riordan Goodwin, n/a);
2005 (Kristie R. Blevins/ Anna M.
Hoover, L & L Environmental, Inc.);
2006 (John Goodman, Nick
Reseburg, and Windy Jones,
Statistical Research, Inc.);
2006 (J. D. Goodman, Statistical
Research, Inc.);
2011 (Robin D. Hoffman, n/a);
2014 (Daniel Leonard, n/a)
P-33-003858 CA-RIV-003858 RI-02629SiteHistoricAH041989 (Cliff Hopf, Joan Brown, RMW
Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo,
CA.)
P-33-004110 CA-RIV-004110 RI-02629, RI-07666SitePrehistoricAP02; AP04 1990 (Sturm, B. and S. Dibble,
Bradley L. Sturm Archaeological
Consultants);
2007 (Craft, Andrea M. and
Theodore G. Cooley, Jones and
Stokes)
P-33-007151 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Theresa Brochard, Riv. CO.
Historical Comm.)
P-33-007171 Other - "Aimee's Castle"Building Historic HP02 1982 (Theresa Borchard, Riv. CO.
Historical Comm.)
P-33-007175 OHP Property Number - 061144;
Other - Ser No 33-2530-35
RI-07666BuildingHistoricHP02; HP33 1982 ( Meredith, Pat, Riverside
County Historical Commission)
Page 1 of 3 EIC 11/15/2021 2:08:33 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-33-011722 RI-02628Site, Other Prehistoric AP02 1990 (Juanita R. Shinn, RMW Paleo
Associates)
P-33-012660 RI-00422OtherPrehistoricAP021989 (Cliff Hopf - Joan Brown, RMW
Paleo Associates)
P-33-013802 Other - LSA-SDB430-I-1 RI-05321OtherPrehistoricAP162004 (LSA Associates, Inc., LSA
Associates, Inc.)
P-33-013803 Other - LSA-SDB430-I-2 RI-05321OtherPrehistoricAP162004 (LSA Associates, Inc., LSA
Associates, Inc.)
P-33-015360 CA-RIV-008116 RI-06888SiteHistoricAH042006 (John Goodman, Deborah
Cogan, Nick Reseburg, Statistical
Research, Inc.)
P-33-015364 CA-RIV-008120 Other - CA-RIV-08120 RI-06888, RI-10403SiteHistoricAH042006 (S. Bholat, and D. Gleiberman,
CRM Tech);
2017 (Jillian L. Hahnlen)
P-33-015420 CA-RIV-008132 Other - Elsinore Valley Cemetery
and Home of Peace Jewish
Cemetery
RI-06888, RI-08092SiteHistoricHP402006 (Goodman, John, Nick
Reseburg, and Wendy Jones,
Statistical Research, Inc.);
2007 (T. Formica, Applied Earth
Works, Inc.)
P-33-015793 Other - AE-ELS-ISO-1 RI-08092OtherPrehistoricAP162007 (R. Lichtenstein, C. Cisneros,
Applied Earth Works, Inc.)
P-33-015794 CA-RIV-008226 Voided - 33-016642;
Other - AE-ELS-2H;
Other - LE 2
RI-07666, RI-08092,
RI-09378
Site Historic AH02; AH03 2007 (R. Lichtenstein, C. Cisneros,
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.);
2007 (Jean A. Keller, Jea A. Keller
et al. Cultural Consultant);
2007 (Andrea M. Craft, Jones &
Stokes)
P-33-016218 CA-RIV-008367 Other - LEBP-SO-1 RI-07417SiteHistoricAH04; HP39 2007 (O'Neil, Stephen, SWCA
Environmental Consultants)
P-33-016641 Other - LE 1 RI-07666SitePrehistoricAP042007 (Craft, Andrea M., Koji
Tsunoda, Josh D. Patterson, and
Michael M. DeGiovine, Jones and
Stokes);
2007 (Keller, Jean A., N/A)
P-33-016643 Other - LE 3 RI-07666StructureHistoricHP222007 (Craft, Andrea M., Koji
Tsunoda, Josh D. Patterson, and
Michael M. DeGiovine, Jones and
Stokes);
2007 (Keller, Jean A., N/A)
Page 2 of 3 EIC 11/15/2021 2:08:33 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-33-017019 Other - IvyG-03 RI-07666BuildingHistoricHP032007 (Craft, Andrea M. and Joshua
D. Patterson, Jones and Stokes)
P-33-017020 CA-RIV-008861 Other - IvyG-04 RI-07666SiteHistoricAH042007 (Craft, Andrea M. and Joshua
D. Patterson, Jones and Stokes)
P-33-017021 Other - 17575 Baker St.;
Other - IvyG-06
RI-07666BuildingHistoricHP022007 (Craft, Andrea M., Jones and
Stokes)
P-33-017022 CA-RIV-008862 Other - IvyG-08 RI-07666SiteHistoricAH022007 (Craft, Andrea M., Jones and
Stokes)
P-33-017023 CA-RIV-008863 Other - IvyG-09 RI-07666SiteHistoricAH042007 (Craft, Andrea M. and Andrian
Sanchez Moreno, Jones and Stokes)
P-33-017026 CA-RIV-008865 Other - IvyG-13 RI-07666, RI-10800SiteHistoricAH022007 (Craft, Andrea M., Koji
Tsunoda, Michael M. DeGiovine,
and Josh D. Patterson, Jones and
Stokes)
P-33-017027 CA-RIV-008866 Other - IvyG-14 RI-07666, RI-10800SiteHistoricAH042007 (Craft, Andrea M., Koji
Tsunoda, Michael M. DeGiovine,
and Josh D. Patterson, Jones and
Stokes)
P-33-017576 Other - AE-ELS-ISO-2 RI-08092OtherPrehistoricAP162007 (Lichtenstein, R., C. Cisneros,
Applied Earth Works)
P-33-023614 CA-RIV-011588 Other - LSA-SCE1105AB-S-3 RI-09746Structure,
Site
Historic AH02 2013 (Jason A. Miller, Chris Morgan,
LSA Associates)
P-33-023880 Other - SRI-1 Other Prehistoric AP16 2013 (Scott Kremkau, Statistical
Research Inc.)
P-33-024666 Other - Isolate 1006 Other Historic HP39 2015 (A. Elzinga, M. Kay, SWCA
Environmental Consultants)
P-33-024667 Other - Isolate 1007 Other Historic HP39 2015 (A. Elzinga, M. Kay, SWCA
Environmental Consultants)
P-33-028017 Other - 22674 Collier Avenue Building Historic HP02 2016 (Elisa Bechtel, Mlitt LSA
Associates, Inc.)
Page 3 of 3 EIC 11/15/2021 2:08:34 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
RI-00173 1975 Final Report: Mitigation of Archaeological Site
4-Riv-659, Nichols Road, Elsinore
Archaeological Research
Unit, U.C. Riverside
Garth Portillo 33-000659NADB-R - 1080224;
Voided - MF-0162
RI-00420 1978 Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Archaeological Assessment of 33 Acres Near
Elsinore, Riverside County, California
(Tentative Tract Map 11283)
Archaeological Research
Unit, U.C. Riverside
Robert M. LaidlawNADB-R - 1080470;
Voided - MF-0371
RI-01013 1978 Cultural Resources Survey of Two Materials
Sources, Murrieta Creek and the Joe Deleo,
Jr. Property, Riverside County, California
Department of
Transportation, District 8
Stephen R. HammondNADB-R - 1081067;
Voided - MF-0925
RI-01718 1983 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
44 ACRES OF LAND NORTH OF LAKE
ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH UNIT, U.C.
RIVERSIDE
BOUSCAREN, STEPHENNADB-R - 1082044;
Voided - MF-1844
RI-01719 1990 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION, LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA
RECONDAVIS, MCMILLAN and
DAYLE CHEEVER
NADB-R - 1083919;
Voided - MF-1844
RI-01793 1984 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
OF THE PROPOSED LAKE ELSINORE
MANAGEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY MUSEUM
ASSOCIATION
LERCH, MICHAEL K.
and G.A. SMITH
33-002798, 33-006998, 33-007132,
33-007133, 33-007134, 33-007135,
33-011009
NADB-R - 1082145;
Voided - MF-1937
RI-02027 1986 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
EDA GRANT PROJECT AREAS, CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ADVISORY GROUP
BROCK, JAMES 33-013462NADB-R - 1082450;
Voided - MF-2216
RI-02312 1988 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
20 ACRES OF LAND (ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL 347-28-10) LOCATED NEAR LAKE
ELSINORE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH UNIT, U.C.
RIVERSIDE
PARR, ROBERT E.NADB-R - 1082769;
Voided - MF-2513
RI-02351 1987 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
THE BIDDLE PROPERTY FEASIBILITY
STUDY TEMESCAL CANYON, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AUTHOR(S)DROVER, C.E.33-000659NADB-R - 1082818;
Voided - MF-2560
RI-02626 1989 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
THE ELSINORE OUTLET CHANNEL
TRIBUTARIES LOCATED IN THE LAKE
ELSINORE AREA OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH UNIT, U.C.
Riverside
DE MUNCK, VICTORNADB-R - 1083101;
Submitter - UCRARU
#1030;
Voided - MF-2837
Page 1 of 6 EIC 11/15/2021 1:58:14 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
RI-02627 1989 CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECONNAISSANCE FOR THE PACIFIC
WEST OUTLET CENTER, LAKE ELSINORE,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
RMW PALEO BROWN, JOAN C.NADB-R - 1083102;
Voided - MF-2838
RI-02629 1992 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT
CA-RIV-4110 AND CA-RIV-3858, LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATES
STURM, BROADLEY L.33-003858, 33-004110NADB-R - 1084305;
Voided - MF-2838
RI-03311 1990 CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECONNAISSANCE OF PROJECT
NUMBER 533-0769-78, 27 ACRES IN
ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
RMW PALEO EVANS, STUART A.NADB-R - 1083910;
Submitter - 90-1308;
Voided - MF-3542
RI-03376 1989 A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF
THE PROPOSED RANCHO-TEMECULA
EFFLUENT PIPELINE FROM TEMECULA
TO WARM SPRINGS IN THE ELSINORE
VALLEY WITH ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATION OF THE SURFACE
WATER DISCHARGE INTO TEMESCAL
WASH
RECONWADE, SUE A. and
SUSAN M. HECTOR
33-000659, 33-001086, 33-002798,
33-006998, 33-007200
NADB-R - 1084018;
Submitter - R-1768A;
Voided - MF-3617
RI-03723 1993 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
OF THE COLLIER AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE
SURVEYS
KICE, DAVID and
NANCY DESAUTELS
NADB-R - 1084529;
Submitter - 1027;
Voided - MF-4046
RI-04007 1996 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF L.A.
CELLULAR SITE #669.3, ABANDONED
RESERVOIR SITE ON SUNNY SLOPE
AVENUE, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION
ALLEN, KATHLEEN C.NADB-R - 1085057;
Voided - MF-4423
RI-04008 1999 LETTER REPORT: CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT FOR AT&T WIRELESS
SERVICES FACILITY NUMBER C6693,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.DUKE, CURTNADB-R - 1085643;
Voided - MF-4423
RI-04144 1998 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT:
TEMESCAL VALLEY REGIONAL
INTERCEPTOR, SANTA ANA WATERSHED
PROJECT AUTHORITY, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CRM TECHLOVE, BRUCE and BAI
"TOM" TANG
33-000100, 33-000630, 33-001099,
33-003832, 33-004112
NADB-R - 1085336;
Submitter - 324;
Voided - MF-4620
Page 2 of 6 EIC 11/15/2021 1:58:15 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
RI-04403 1993 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF
ROUTE 74 FROM SEVENTH STREET TO
THE I-15 FREEWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CA.
GREENWOOD AND
ASSOCIATES
ROMANI, JOHN 33-000412, 33-000640, 33-000641,
33-000657, 33-000658
NADB-R - 1084390;
Other - RO-91-92;
Voided - MF-4912
RI-04421 1990 Appendix B-Cultural Resources. In: Measure
A Program Project Alternatives Analysis-
Environmental Component, Technical
Appendix Volume I
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.33-000268, 33-000412, 33-000648,
33-000657, 33-000797, 33-001631,
33-002183
NADB-R - 1083650;
Voided - MF-3325
RI-04725 2000 LETTER REPORT: CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT OF THE LAKE ELSINORE
FOREST FIRE STATION RELOCATION IN
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.MCLEAN, DEBORAHNADB-R - 1086087;
Submitter - CDF168
RI-04875 2004 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT
FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE SQUARE
PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
J & R ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
BRADY, JON L. and
JOHN L.R.
WHITEHOUSE
NADB-R - 1086237
RI-05038 2005 LETTER REPORT: EL TORRO ROAD
PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, LAKE
ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.MCKENNA ET AL.NADB-R - 1086400
RI-05321 2004 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT,
CENTRAL AVENUE PARCELS (APNS 377-
120-007 AND -008) CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.GOODWIN, RIORDAN 33-013802, 33-013803NADB-R - 1086684;
Submitter - SDB430
RI-05324 2002 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL HISTORIC
PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT- NEGATIVE
FINDINGS
CALTRANSMCLEAN, DEBORAHNADB-R - 1086687
RI-05529 2005 HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE
REPORT (DISTRICT 8, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, ROUTE 74, K.P. 23.9/R24.4.
P.M.14.82/R15.16)
CALTRANS, District 8, San
Bernardino, CA
TEJADA, BARBARACaltrans - 8- RIV-
74, K.P. 23.9/R24.4.
P.M.14.82/R15.16,
EA 445601;
Caltrans - 8- RIV-
74, K.P. 23.9/R24.4.
P.M.14.82/R15.16,
EA 445601;
NADB-R - 1086892
Page 3 of 6 EIC 11/15/2021 1:58:16 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
RI-05680 2004 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower
Project in Riverside County, California, Site
Name/Number: CA-7294/ Collier
EarthTouch, Inc.Lorna BillatNADB-R - 1087043;
Submitter - CA-7249A
RI-05682 2005 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower
Project(s) in Riverside County, California, Site
Name/Number: CA-8860A/ Elsinore Outlets
EarthTouch, Inc.Erika ThalNADB-R - 1087045;
Submitter - CA-8860A
RI-06866 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Fogarty
Substation, Lake Elsinore Area, Riverside
County, California
Statistical Research, Inc.Lerch, Michael K., Stoll,
Anne Q., and Stanton,
Patrick B.
Submitter - 06-72
RI-06888 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Valley-
Ivyglen Transmission Line Project, Riverside
County, California
Statistical Research, Inc.Lerch, Michael K. and
Gray, Marlesa A.
33-015346, 33-015347, 33-015348,
33-015349, 33-015350, 33-015351,
33-015352, 33-015353, 33-015354,
33-015355, 33-015356, 33-015357,
33-015358, 33-015359, 33-015360,
33-015361, 33-015362, 33-015363,
33-015364, 33-015365, 33-015375,
33-015376, 33-015377, 33-015378,
33-015379, 33-015380, 33-015416,
33-015417, 33-015418, 33-015419,
33-015420, 33-015422, 33-015423,
33-015424, 33-015425, 33-015427
Submitter - 06-63
RI-06964 2006 Archaeological Survey Report, for the,
Increase Curve Radius Project, Lake
Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Cal TransTejada, Barbara S.
RI-06965 2006 Historic Property Survey Report (District 08,
Riverside County, Route 74, K.P 23.9/R24.4,
P.M. R14.8.R15.2, EA No 445601)
Caltrans, District 08, San
Bernardino, CA
Barbara TejadaCaltrans - 08- Riv-
Route 74, K.P
23.9/R24.4, P.M.
R14.8.R15.2, EA No
445601;
Caltrans - 08- Riv-
Route 74, K.P
23.9/R24.4, P.M.
R14.8.R15.2, EA No
445601
RI-06987 2006 Letter Report: Due Diligence Cultural
Resources Assessment Letter Report for
Approximately 4.27-acre Central and Dexter
Project Area, City of Lake Ellsinore, County of
Riverside, California
BonTerra ConsultingGlenn, Brian K.
Page 4 of 6 EIC 11/15/2021 1:58:17 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
RI-07342 2007 Letter Report: Cultural Resources Study for
the Caliber Commercial Project (Crossroads),
City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County,
California
ASM Affiliates, CarlsbadIverson, Dave
RI-07417 2007 Cultural Resources Survey Report for
Elsinore Business Park, Lake Elsinore,
Riverside County, California
SWCA Environmental
Consultants
Underbrink, Susan 33-016218Submitter - SWCA
Project No. 12887-
300, SWCA
RI-07513 2008 Archaeological Survey Report for, the
Southern California Edison Company, O&M-
Overhead to Underground Conversion
Project, on the Lakeland 12kv Circuit, in the
City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County,
California, (WO#6677-7167, AI#P-7146)
Jones & StokesTsunoda, Koji
RI-07664 2005 A CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR
THE CENTRAL SELF STORAGE PROJECT
BRIAN F. SMITHSmith,B.
RI-08053 2008 Letter Report: Cultural Resource Records
Search and Site Visit Results for Royall
Street Communications California
Michael Bradman
Associates, Irvine, California
Michael Bradman
Associates
Submitter - LA3407A
RI-08092 2009 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for
the Arroyo Del Toro Project, Lake Elsinore,
Riverside County, California
Applied Earth Works Inc.Vanessa Mirro and Tracy
Formica
33-003832, 33-015420, 33-015793,
33-015794, 33-017576
RI-08282 2009 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower
Project(s) in Riverside County, California, Site
Number(s)/ Name(s): LA-3408A/ Sunnyside
Water Tank TCNS# 57875
Earth Touch, Inc., Layton,
UT
Carla Allred
RI-08679 2010 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern
California Edison's Pole Replacement Project
Chambers Group, Inc.Jay K. SanderOther - 4500179336;
Other - WO 77-
TD485120
RI-08947 2009 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory,
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Plan
EIR, County of Riverside, California
BonTerra ConsultingPatrick Maxon
RI-09105 2014 Tractor Supply CO. Project (Commercial
Design Review No. 2014-01& Conditional
Use Permit No. 2014-01) Initiak Study For
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014-01
City of Lake Elsinore
RI-09253 2014 Lake Elsinore Walmart Project, City of Lake
Elsinore, Riverside County, California Phase I
Cultural Resources Study
ESAMatthew Gonzalez
Page 5 of 6 EIC 11/15/2021 1:58:19 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
RI-09377 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the
Arroyo del Toro Channel Project, Lake
Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Applied Earth Works, IncRoberta Thomas
RI-09378 2009 Phase II Testing and Evaluation of CA-RIV-
8226H for The Arroyo Del Toro Channel
Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County,
California
Applied Earth Works, Inc.
and Earle Associates
Joan George, Vanessa
Mirro, and David Earle
33-015794
RI-09548 2016 Cultural Resources Assessment Central
Plaza Project Assessor's Parcel Numbers
377-080-014, 031, 032, 033, & 034 City of
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
LSAElisa Bechtel, M Litt, and
Riordan Goodwin
RI-09746 2013 Cultural Resources Survey Report Addendum
Valley-Ivy Glenn 115kV Transmission Line
Project Southern California Edison Riverside
County, California
LSAJason Andrew Miller 33-001652, 33-001655, 33-017890,
33-023612, 33-023613, 33-023614
RI-09788 2015 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources
Assessment for the Nichols Road Quarry
Expansion Project
Brian F. Smith & AssociatesDavid K. Grabski and
Brian F. Smith
RI-10111 2017 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
THIRD STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT
LAKE ELSINORE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
BCRCONSULTINGDAVID BRUNZELLOther - MBI1615
RI-10179 2017 Cultural Resources Inventory for Tige
Watersports Development Project Lake
Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Jay K. SanderJay K. Sander
RI-10371 2018 Cultural Resources Survey for the Honda
Lake Elsinore Project, Cultural Resources
Inventory
HELIX Environmental
Planning, Inc.
Mary Robbins-Wade
RI-10402 2018 A Class III Archaeological Study for the
Nichols Road Quarry Expansion Project
National Historic Preservation Act, Section
106 Compliace
Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc.
Brian F. Smith
RI-10403 2018 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources
Assessment for the Nichols Ranch Specific
Plan Project
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Jillian L. Hahnlen and
Brian F. Smith
33-015364, 33-026830
RI-10809 2018 Cultural Resources Inventory and Survey
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Regional Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade
and Expansion Project
ParsonsMonica Corpuz
Page 6 of 6 EIC 11/15/2021 1:58:21 PM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
November 4, 2021
Jean A. Keller
Cultural Resources Consultant
Via Email to: 4jakeller@gmail.com
Re: Planning Application No. 2021-13 (APN 389-220-003 thru 006) Project, Riverside County
Dear Dr. Keller:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF)
was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The
results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not
indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural
resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources
in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential
adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated;
if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By
contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to
consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of
notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to
ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify
me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email
address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net
Cahuilla
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation -
Belardes
Matias Belardes, Chairperson
32161 Avenida Los Amigos
San Juan Capisttrano, CA, 92675
Phone: (949) 293 - 8522
kaamalam@gmail.com
Juaneno
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation -
Belardes
Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager
4955 Paseo Segovia
Irvine, CA, 92603
Phone: (949) 293 - 8522
kaamalam@gmail.com
Juaneno
La Jolla Band of Luiseno
Indians
Norma Contreras, Chairperson
22000 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
Phone: (760) 742 - 3771
Luiseno
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
sgaughen@palatribe.com
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
Temet Aguilar, Chairperson
P.O. Box 369
Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
Phone: (760) 742 - 1289
Fax: (760) 742-3422
bennaecalac@aol.com
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6306
Fax: (951) 506-9491
pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6000
Fax: (951) 695-1778
epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov
Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Planning Application No. 2021-13
(APN 389-220-003 thru 006) Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2021-
005491
11/04/2021 02:19 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
11/4/2021
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
scottmanfred@yahoo.com
Quechan
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 1051
Fax: (760) 749-5144
bomazzetti@aol.com
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 297 - 2635
crd@rincon-nsn.gov
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
San Luis Rey, Tribal Council
1889 Sunset Drive
Vista, CA, 92081
Phone: (760) 724 - 8505
Fax: (760) 724-2172
cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
1889 Sunset Drive
Vista, CA, 92081
Phone: (760) 724 - 8505
Fax: (760) 724-2172
cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org
Luiseno
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Planning Application No. 2021-13
(APN 389-220-003 thru 006) Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2021-
005491
11/04/2021 02:19 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
11/4/2021
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082
(760) 749-1092 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov
Bo Mazzetti
Chairman
Tishmall Turner
Vice Chair
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
John Constantino
Council Member
Joseph Linton
Council Member
December 9, 2021
Sent via email: 4jakeller@gmail.com
Jean A. Keller, Ph.D.
Cultural Resources Consultant
1042 N. El Camino Real, Suite B-244
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Planning Application No. 2021-13; (Tentative Parcel Map No, 38124 and Industrial Design Review No.
2021-01) APN 389-220-003 thru 006
Dear Dr. Keller,
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “Band”), a federally
recognized Indian Tribe and sovereign government. We have received your notification regarding the above
referenced project and we thank you for the opportunity to provide information pertaining to cultural resources.
The location identified in the transmitted project documents is situated within the Territory of the Luiseño people
and within the Band’s specific Area of Historic Interest (AHI). As such, Rincon is traditionally and culturally
affiliated to the project area.
Embedded in the Luiseño territory are Rincon’s history, culture and identity. The City of Lake Elsinore is
considered a Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) and Landscape (TCL) by the Rincon Band, as it is associated with
the Luiseño Creation and contains numerous recorded cultural places and other Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR).
The Rincon Band has no knowledge of cultural resources within the project area. However, that does not mean that
none exist. We recommend that an archaeological record search be conducted and ask that a copy of the results and
a copy of the Cultural Resources Assessment be provided to the Rincon Band.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at
(760) 749 1092 ext. 323 or via electronic mail at cmadrigal@rincon-nsn.gov. We look forward to working together
to protect and preserve our cultural assets.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Madrigal
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cultural Resources Manager