HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B Cultural Report PackageB
Appendix B
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY
UNIVERSITY PARK MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-190-011 and -032, City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
City of Palm Desert
Development Services Department, Planning Division
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Prepared for:
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Principal
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
October 17, 2022
CRM TECH Contract No. 3920
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: University Park Medical
Center Project, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-190-011 and -032, City
of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Deirdre Encarnación, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: October 17, 2022
For Submittal to: City of Palm Desert
Development Services Department, Planning Division
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 776-6483
Prepared for: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Principal
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
(760) 341-4800
Project Size: Approximately 10.5 acres
USGS Quadrangle: Myoma, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles (Section 33, T4S R6E, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian)
Keywords: Coachella Valley region, western Colorado Desert; no “historical
resources” under CEQA
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between July and October 2022, at the request of Terra Nova Planning and Research,
Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 10.5 acres of
vacant land in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The subject
property of the study encompasses two existing parcels, namely Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 694-190-011 and -032, located on the easterly corner of Gerald Ford Drive
and Technology Drive, in the northeast quarter of Section 33, T4S R6E, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Myoma,
California, 7.5’ quadrangle.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the University Park Medical
Center project, which proposes the construction of a 20,000-square-foot outpatient
surgical center, an 80,0000-square-foot medical office building, paved parking stalls,
and retention basins, along with associated utilities work and infrastructure
improvements. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required
the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis
to determine whether the project would cause substantial adverse changes to any
“historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project
area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological
resources records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted
the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pursued historical background
research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. Throughout the course of the
study, no “historical resources” were encountered within or adjacent to the project area.
Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Palm Desert a finding of No Impact
on “historical resources.” No further cultural resources investigation is recommended
for this project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not
covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during
any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the
discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the
nature and significance of the finds.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4
Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5
Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5
Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5
Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 7
RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 8
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8
Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 8
Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 8
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 9
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 9
Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 9
Native American Participation ........................................................................................................ 12
Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 12
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 13
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 16
APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ........................................... 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area ............................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area .................................................. 4
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies within the scope of the records search ....................... 10
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 ........................................................................ 11
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................. 11
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................. 11
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958 ........................................................................ 11
1
INTRODUCTION
Between July and October 2022, at the request of Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., CRM
TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 10.5 acres of vacant land in the City
of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study
encompasses two existing parcels, namely Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-190-011 and -032,
located on the easterly corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Technology Drive, in the northeast quarter
of Section 33, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian as depicted in the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Myoma, California, 7.5’ quadrangle (Figs. 2, 3).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the University Park Medical Center
project, which proposes the construction of a 20,000-square-foot outpatient surgical center, an
80,0000-square-foot medical office building, paved parking stalls, and retention basins, along with
associated utilities work and infrastructure improvements. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead
agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the
necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause substantial adverse
changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project
area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources
records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted the nearby Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level
field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and conclusion of
the study. Personnel who participated in the study are identified in the appropriate sections, and
their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangle [USGS 1979])
2
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles [USGS 1978; 1981])
3
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area.
4
SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Palm Desert lies in the heart of the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending
desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic
setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of the southern California desert
country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120
degrees Fahrenheit in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is
less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.
Situated on the northern edge of the City, the irregularly shaped project area consists of two parcels
of undeveloped but disturbed land, in an area that is undergoing accelerated residential and
commercial development (Figs. 3, 4). It is bounded by Gerald Ford Drive on the northeast,
Technology Drive on the southeast, College Drive on the southwest, and another vacant lot on the
northwest. Land use in the immediate area is dominated by retail establishments and medical offices,
with residential neighborhoods and gold courses further away in all directions.
The ground surface in the project area has been cleared, graded, and thoroughly disturbed since 2005-
2006 (Google Earth 2005; 2006), leaving little vestige of the native landscape. Currently there are
two retention basins on the property, in the northeast and southeast corners. The terrain is relatively
level, with elevations that range around 160-190 feet above mean sea level and a slight incline to the
northwest. The surface soils are composed mainly of wind-blown fine-grained sand. The scattered
vegetation remaining on the property consists primarily of small desert shrubs and grasses, such as
tumbleweed and brittlebush.
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area. (Photograph taken on August 15, 2022; view to the
northwest)
5
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led
researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural
sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many
archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian
(ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” of hunters and gatherers, who
relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the
region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes”
(ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools,
“cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.).
The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a
decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied
more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time
period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by
continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal
food resources and relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for
food processing were prominent during this time period. The most recent period in Schaefer’s
scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions and
saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern. Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were
associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal
“wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66). It was during this period that brown and
buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region.
The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and
resource procurement; but in times of the lake’s desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer
(1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and
mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the
shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have
recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types,
ornaments, and cremations.
Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors
noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-
19th century. The origin of the name “Cahuilla” is unclear, but may originate from their own word
káwiya, meaning master or boss (Bean 1978). The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by
anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San
Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The
basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and
Bean (1978), based on information provided by such Cahuilla informants as Juan Siva, Francisco
6
Patencio, Katherine Siva Saubel, and Mariano Saubel. The following ethnohistoric discussion is
based primarily on these sources.
The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead,
membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main
divisions of the people, known as moieties. Their moieties were named for the Wildcat, or Tuktum,
and Coyote, or Istam. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other
moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for
purposes of hunting game, and gathering raw materials for food, medicine, ritual, or tool use. They
interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.
Cahuilla subsistence was defined by the surrounding landscape and primarily based on the hunting
and gathering of wild and cultivated foods, exploiting nearly all of the resources available in a highly
developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor,
the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains.
When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented
by the body of fresh water, building elaborate stone fish traps. Once the lake had desiccated, they
relied on the available terrestrial resources. The cooler temperatures and resources available at
higher elevations in the nearby mountains were also taken advantage of.
The Cahuilla diet included seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and
mesquite and screw beans. Medicinal plants such as creosote, California sagebrush, yerba buena and
elderberry were typically cultivated near villages (Bean and Saubel 1972). Common game animals
included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was
present, fish and waterfowl. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, and snares,
as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools included manos and metates,
mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and
scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally sourced material as well as materials procured
through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for
winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for
carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink (ibid.).
As the landscape defined their subsistence practices, the tending and cultivation practices of the
Cahuilla helped shape the landscape. Biological studies have recently found evidence that the fan
palms found in the Coachella Valley and throughout the southeastern California desert
(Washingtonia filifera) may not be relics of palms from a paleo-tropical environment, but instead a
relatively recent addition brought to the area and cultivated by native populations (Anderson 2005).
Cahuilla oral tradition tells of a time before there were palms in the area, and how the people, birds,
and animals enjoyed the palm fruit once it had arrived (Bean and Saubel 1972).
The planting of palms by the Cahuilla is well-documented, as is their enhancement of palm stands
through the practice of controlled burning (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005). Burning palm
stands would increase fruit yield dramatically by eliminating pests such as the palm borer beetle,
date scales, and spider mites (Bean and Saubel 1972). Firing palm stands prevented out-of-control
wildfires by eliminating dead undergrowth before it accumulated to dangerous levels. The Cahuilla
7
also burned stands of chia to produce higher yields, and deergrass to yield straighter, more abundant
stalks for basketry (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005).
Population data prior to European contact is almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from
3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons covering a territory of over 2,400 square miles. During the 19th
century, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably
smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or
Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near
the Coachella Valley, including Morongo, Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine.
There has been a resurgence of traditional ceremonies in recent years, and the language, songs, and
stories are now being taught to the youngest generations.
Historic Context
In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted
European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in
search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians
ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who
traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail,
an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and
known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella
Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day State Route 111.
During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal
southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in
1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).
Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad
stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad and spread further in the 1880s after public land was
opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws
(Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in
the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian
wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and
by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the
region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new
industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread
throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat.
The modern community of Palm Desert is located in the general vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable
water hole on the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail that has since vanished into obscurity (Johnston
1987:120). The community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford, and Phil
Henderson, who organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town (Gunther
1984:373-374). Following the footsteps of Palm Springs and other “cove communities” along
Highway 111, such as Rancho Mirage and La Quinta, Palm Desert soon joined the ranks of winter
resort towns favored by the rich and famous of the era, characterized by country clubs and golf
courses. The Palm Desert post office was established in 1947, and in 1973, after four unsuccessful
attempts, the community was officially incorporated as the 17th city in Riverside County (ibid.:374).
8
More recently, growth has been focused on new residential and commercial development, the latter
concentrated mostly along the city’s most widely used thoroughfares, State Route 111 and Interstate
Highway 10.
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
The historical/archaeological resources records search service for this study was provided by the
Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System.
During the records search, EIC staff examined maps and records on file for previously identified
cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a one-mile radius of the project area.
Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical
Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Historic Landmarks, as well as those
listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or
the California Historical Resources Inventory.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH principal investigator/
historian Bai “Tom” Tang. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in
local and regional history, historical maps of the Palm Desert area, and aerial/satellite photographs of
the project vicinity. Among the maps consulted were U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey
plat maps dated 1856 and USGS topographic maps dated 1904-1979, which are accessible at the
websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS. The aerial and satellite images,
taken between 1972 and 2021, are available at the websites of the Nationwide Environmental Title
Research (NETR) Online, and through the Google Earth software.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On July 13, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands
File. In the meantime, CRM TECH also contacted the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians by electronic mail for information on potential Native American cultural resources in the
project vicinity and to invite tribal participation in the archaeological field survey. In light of AB 52
requirement for future government-to-government consultations to be initiated by the City of Palm
Desert, other Cahuilla tribes in and around the Coachella Valley region were not contacted during
this study.
FIELD SURVEY
On August 15, 2022, CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester carried out the field survey of the
project area with the assistance of Native American monitor Nicole Raslich of the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians. The survey was conducted on foot at an intensive level by walking a
series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way,
9
the ground surface in the project area was systematically and closely examined for any evidence of
human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). Ground visibility
was excellent (80-100%) due to lack of any significant vegetation growth on the property.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed systematically for cultural
resources prior to this study, and no cultural resources had been recorded within or adjacent to its
boundaries. Outside of project boundaries but within the one-mile scope of the records search, EIC
records indicate over 30 previous studies completed between 1978 and 2018 on various tracts of land
and linear features, including an adjacent property to the northeast carried out by CRM TECH in
2013. These past studies identified four historical/archaeological sites and two isolates (i.e.,
localities with less than three artifacts) within the one-mile radius, as listed in Table 1.
One of these known cultural resources was prehistoric in origin. Isolate 33-012698, discovered over
half a mile to the south, consisted of two artifacts, a single Tezon brownware sherd and a granitic
mano fragment. The other five cultural resources dated to the historic period, including the Southern
Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad, the San Cayetano (Bell) Ranch, the site of the Thousand
Palms dry camp and siding, and various refuse items. None of these seven localities were found in
the immediate vicinity of the current project area, the nearest ones being nearly a half-mile away
along the Union Pacific Railroad. With no potential to receive any impact from the project as
proposed, none of these sites or isolates require further consideration during this study.
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search
Resource No. Recorded by Description
33-003439 Arkush 1990; Ashkar et al. 1999 Site of Thousand Palms dry camp and siding
33-005619 Warner 1982 San Cayetano (Bell) Ranch, 1932
33-009498 Various Southern Pacific Railroad
33-012698 Doan and Hogan 1993 Isolate: brownware sherd and granitic mano fragment
33-015432 Eckhardt 2006 Isolate: blue glass insulator
33-024269 Goodwin 2015 Glass fragment scatter
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical sources consulted for this study yielded no evidence of any settlement or development
activities within or adjacent to the project area throughout the historic period (Figs. 6-9). Prior to the
completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877, no human-made features of any kind
were known to be present in the project vicinity (Figs. 6, 7). By the mid-20th century, the extensive
agricultural activities had become evident at the Bar Bell Ranch to the northeast of the project
location, across the Southern Pacific Railroad and U.S. Highway 60/70/99, the forerunner of today’s
Interstate Highway 10 (Figs. 8, 9).
By the early 1970s, scattered residential development began to emerge to the southwest of the
project location, while farming operations continued at least into the mid-1990s, mostly to the north
10
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies within the scope of the records search, listed by EIC file number. Location
of historical/archaeological resources are not shown as a protective measure.
11
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856.
(Source: GLO 1856a; 1856b)
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source:
USGS 1904)
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source:
USGS 1941)
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958.
(Source: USGS 1958)
12
and east (NETR Online 1972-1996). Over the next ten years, the new driving force in regional
growth throughout southern California, urbanization/suburbanization, drastically and rapidly altered
the landscape in and around the project area. The first man-made feature observed in the immediate
vicinity of the project location, Gerald Ford Drive, was in place by 2002 (NETR Online 1996; 2002;
Google Earth 1996; 2002).
Up to that time, the project area largely retained its unaltered desert landscape (NETR Online 2002;
Google Earth 2002). In 2005-2006, most of the project area was leveled and graded, evidently in
preparation of a development project that never materialized, and the retention basins were
subsequently excavated sometime before 2009 (NETR Online 2005; 2009; Google Earth 2005-
2009). Since then, however, no further chances have occurred in the conditions of the property
(NETR Online 2009-2020; Google Earth 2009-2021).
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC states in a letter dated August 24, 2022, that the
Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resource in the project area. Noting that
the absence of specific information would not necessarily preclude the presence of cultural
resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for
further information and provided a referral list of 16 individuals associated with 11 local Native
American groups who may have knowledge of such resources. The NAHC’s reply is attached in
Appendix 2 for reference by the City of Palm Desert in future government-to-government
consultations with the pertinent tribal groups, if necessary.
As noted above, a representative of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians participated in the
archaeological field survey of the project area. However, to date the trade has provided no further
comments regarding potential Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity.
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey of the project area produced completely negative results for potential “historical
resources.” Throughout the course of the survey, no buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or
artifact deposits of prehistoric or historical origin were encountered on the property. As stated
above, the ground surface in the entire project area has been extensively disturbed, while historical
aerial and satellite photographs identify the source of the disturbance primarily as grading and
leveling of the land in 2005-2006. Scattered modern refuse was observed over much of the property,
including building debris such as concrete fragments, asphalt fragments, and broken glass, but none
of the items are of any historical/archaeological interest.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area,
and to assist the City of Palm Desert in determining whether such resources meet the official
definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in
particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited
13
to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or
archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”
More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such
resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically
significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for
the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall
be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A
resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(PRC §5024.1(c))
In summary of the research results presented above, no potential “historical resources” were
previously recorded within the project area, and none were found during the present survey. Neither
the NAHC nor the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians identified any properties of Native
American cultural value in the project vicinity. In addition, no notable cultural features were known
to be present in the project area throughout the historic period, and the ground surface is the entire
project area has been extensively disturbed since the 2005-2006 era. Based on these findings, and in
light of the criteria listed above, the present study concludes that no “historical resources” exist
within the project area.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC
§21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be
impaired.” As stated above, this study has not encountered any “historical resources,” as defined by
CEQA, within the project area. Accordingly, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations
to the City of Palm Desert:
• The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical
resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans
undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
14
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with
the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M. Kat
2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s
Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Malki Museum Press,
Banning, California.
CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and
Assessment Study. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm.
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1856a Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.
1856b Plat map: Township No. 5 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.
Google Earth
1996-2021 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity taken in 1996, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009,
2011-2013, 2015-2019, and 2021. Available through the Google Earth software.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J.D.
Gunther, Riverside.
Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia
Beach, Virginia.
NETR Online
1972-2020 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity taken in 1972, 1984, 1996, 2002, 2005,
2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. http://www.historicaerials.com.
Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave
Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches
and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.
15
Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date
Gardens, Indio.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning,
California, 1972.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901.
1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941.
1958 Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956, field check in
1958.
1978 Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1972, photoinspected
in 1978.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120’x60’, 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised.
1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978.
16
APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California,
Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the
Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside.
1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside.
1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory
System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California
State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit,
Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
17
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors.
1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 “Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level,”
UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood,
Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the
Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer.
1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California.
1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside.
1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside.
1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.
Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College.
1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside.
1984-1998 Project Director, Field Director, Crew Chief, and Archaeological Technician for
various southern California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange
Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural
Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Principal investigator for, author or co-author of, and contributor to numerous cultural resources
management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
18
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo,
California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Field Director, co-author, and contributor to numerous cultural management reports since 2002.
19
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Deirdre Encarnación, M.A.
Education
2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California.
2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, San Diego State University, California; with
honors.
2021 Certificate of Specialization, Kumeyaay Studies, Cuyamaca College, California.
2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California.
2001 Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University.
2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation.
Memberships
Society for California Archaeology; Society for Hawaiian Archaeology; California Native Plant
Society.
20
APPENDIX 2
CORRESPONDENCE WITH
NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES
SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916)373-3710
(916)373-5471 (Fax)
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
Project: University Park Medical Center Project; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-190-011 and -032
(CRM TECH No. 3920)
County: Riverside
USGS Quadrangle Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
Township 4 South Range 6 East SB BM; Section(s): 33
Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH
Contact Person: Nina Gallardo
Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
City: Colton, CA Zip: 92324
Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405
Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Project Description: The primary component of the project is to construct a medical center on
approximately 10.5 acres of land located southwest of the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and
Technology Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-190-011 and -032), in the City of Palm Desert,
Riverside County, California.
July 13, 2022
From: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Heredia, Andreas (TRBL)
Cc: 'Padilla, Lacy (TRBL)'
Subject: Participation in Field Survey for the University Park Medical Center Project; APNs 694-
190-011 and -032 in the City of Palm Desert (CRM TECH No. 3920)
Hello,
I’m writing to inform you that CRM TECH will be conducting a cultural resources study for the
proposed University Park Medical Center Project on APNs 694-190-011 and -032 in the City of
Palm Desert, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3920). Specifically, I am contacting you to see if
the tribe would like to participate in the archaeological field survey for the project. We will contact
you again to begin to set up a specific time and date for the fieldwork. I’m attaching the project area
map and other project information. Please feel free to email back with any questions regarding the
proposed project and possible availability for the field survey.
Thank you for your time and input on this project.
Nina Gallardo
From: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 1:04 PM
To: Heredia, Andreas (TRBL)
Cc: 'Padilla, Lacy (TRBL)'
Subject: Information Request for the Proposed University Park Medical Center Project in the City
of Palm Desert (CRM TECH #3920)
Hello,
I’m writing to inform you that CRM TECH will be conducting a cultural resources study for the
proposed University Park Medical Center Project on APNs 694-190-011 and -032 in the City of
Palm Desert, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3920). We are asking for any information
regarding any Tribal Cultural Resources in or near the project area. I’m attaching the project area
map and other project information. Please feel free to email back with any questions, comments
and/or information regarding the project location. We would appreciate any information that the
tribe may provide for CRM TECH to include in our report.
Thank you for your time and input on this project.
Nina Gallardo
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
August 24, 2022
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
Via Email to: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Re: Proposed University Park Medical Center Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
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
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
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
Reid Milanovich, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
laviles@aguacaliente.net
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
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
hhaines@augustinetribe.com
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
Chairman@cahuilla.net
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
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
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
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 Proposed University Park Medical
Center Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
004982
08/24/2022 11:38 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
8/24/2022
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
admin@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
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
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
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
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Cultural Committee,
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 397 - 0300
Fax: (760) 397-8146
Cultural-
Committee@torresmartinez-
nsn.gov
Cahuilla
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 Proposed University Park Medical
Center Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
004982
08/24/2022 11:38 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
8/24/2022