HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIR Ch 05_04_CUL
5. Environmental Analysis
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include places, object, settlements, which reflect group or individual religious,
archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities. Such resources provide information on scientific
progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology or other human advancements. This section of the EIR
evaluates the potential for implementation of the General Plan Update to impact cultural resources in the City
of San Bernardino and its Sphere of Influence (SOl). The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the
following information:
. Archaeological Survey for the Arrowhead Springs Project, San Bernardino County, California, SWCA
Environmental Consultants, January 2005.
. Historic Resources Report Arrowhead Springs Hotel San Bernardino, CA (Administrative Draft), San
Buenaventura Research Associates, February 16, 2005.
A complete copy of these studies is included in Volume III, Appendix C, Cultural Resources.
Current website information and pertinent documents from the City of San Bernardino and other appropriate
agencies were also used in preparation of this section. These include:
. People of the Pines. January 2005, prepared by the San Manual Band of Mission Indians.
5.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Background
~
Federal and State Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the National Register of Historic Places and
coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the Nation's historic and archeological
resources. The National Register includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are
significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture.
Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.
Section 106 Review refers to the Federal review process designed to ensure that historic properties are
considered during Federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, an independent Federal agency, administers the review process, with assistance from State
Historic Preservation Offices.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources
and sites which are on public [federal] lands and Indian lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a Federal law passed in 1990 that
provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such
as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants,
and culturally affiliated Indian tribes.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-1
5. Environmental Analysis
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies
and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. In addition, cultural and
paleontological resources are recognized as a non-renewable resource and therefore receive protection
pursuant to CEQA.
California Public Resources Code
. California Public Resources Code 5020-5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory
Committee as the State Historical Resources Commission. The Commission oversees the
administration of the California Register of Historical Resources, and is responsible for the
designation of State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of Interest.
. California Public Resources Code 5079-5079.65 defines the functions and duties of the Office of
Historic Preservation (OHP). The OHP is responsible for the administration of federally and state
mandated historic preservation programs in California and the California Heritage Fund.
. California Public Resources Code 5097.9.-5097.998 provides protection to Native American historical
and cultural resources, and sacred sites and identifies the powers and duties ofthe Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC). It also requires notification of discoveries of Native American human
remains, descendants and provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated
grave goods.
California Senate Bil/18
Existing law provides limited protection for Native American prehistoric, archeological, cultural, spiritual, and
ceremonial places. These places may include sanctified cemeteries, religious, ceremonial sites, shrines,
burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, archaeological or historic sites, Native American rock art inscriptions, or
features of Native American historic, cultural, and sacred sites.
Senate Bill 18, signed into law in September 2004, requires cities and counties to notify and consult with
California Native American Tribe(s) about proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of
protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places ("cultural places"). It requires establishment of a Native American
Traditional Tribal Cultural Site (TTCS) Register, which would list all Native American sites deemed by the
NAHC to be sacred to local tribes. SB 18 provides a new definition of TICS requiring a traditional association
of the site with Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies or the site must be
shown to actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies.
Previously a site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and
ceremonial activities.
SB 18 institutes as new process which would require a city or county to consult with the NAHC and any
appropriate Native American tribe for the purpose of preserving relevant TTCSs prior to the adoption,
revision, amendment, or update of a city's or county's general plan or specific plan. As of March 1, 2005,
cities and counties must send their general plan and specific plan proposals to those California Native
American Tribes that are on the NAHC's contact list and have traditional lands located within the city or
county's jurisdiction. To help local officials meet these new obligations, SB 18 requires the Governor's Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend its General Plan Guidelines to include advice to local government
on how to consult with California Native American Tribes.
Developed in cooperation with the NAHC, the OPR guidelines include advice for consulting with California
Native American Tribes for:
. The preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to cultural places;
. Procedures for identifying through the NAHC the appropriate California Native American tribes;
Page 5.4-2 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
. Procedures for continuing to protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific
identity, location, character, and use of cultural places; and
. Procedures to facilitate voluntary landowner participation to preserve and protect the specific
identity, location character, and use of cultural places [GC s65040.2(g)].
Also under SB 18, a new process requires the Lead Agency on a project covered by CEQA to ask the NAHC
whether the proposed project is within a 5-mile radius of a TTCS. The NAHC would have 30 days to inform
the Lead Agency if the proposed project is within proximity to a TTCS and another 45 days to determine
whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TICS. If the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties
agree upon the mitigation measures necessary for the proposed project, it would be included in the project's
EIR. If both the City and the tribe agree that adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be take,
then neither party is obligated to take action.
5.4.1.1
San Bernardino General Plan
Prehistory
Archaeological data and correlations with ethnographic data have resulted in the determination of the
following chronology for Southern California prehistoric times:
. Early Man Horizon: This period, pre-dating 6,000 B.C., is characterized by the presence of large
projectile points and scrapers, suggesting reliance on hunting rather than gathering.
. Milling Stone Horizon: This period, from 6,000 B.C. to 1,000 B.C., is characterized by the presence
of hand stones, milling stones, choppers and scraper planes; tools associated with seed gathering
and shell fish processing with limited hunting activities; and evidence of a major shift in the
exploitation of natural resources.
~
. Intermediate Horizon: This period, from 1,000 B.C. to AD. 750, reflects the transitional period
between the Milling Stone and Late Prehistoric Horizons. Little is known of this time period, but
evidence suggests interactions with outside groups and a shift in material culture reflecting this
contact.
. Late Prehistoric Period: This period, from AD. 750 to European contact, is characterized by the
presence of small projectile points; use of the bow and arrow; steatite containers and trade items;
asphaltum; cremations; grave goods; mortars and pestles; and bedrock mortars.
Historic Development of San Bernardino
The first inhabitants of San Bernardino valley were Native Americans who may have settled along the Santa
Ana River as early as 8000 BC. Natives living in the valley when the Spanish military and missionary parties
arrived were Uto-Aztecan, Takic speakers, possibly including group's known as Serrano, Luiseno and
Gabrielino. Later, a Mountain Cahuilla group was brought to the valley by the local Spanish family to work
their rancho. The only local Native American community in existence at present is the San Manuel Indian
Reservation on the northern city boundary.
The first documented Spanish settlement within San Bernardino valley was established in 1810. The site of
this settlement was dedicated as the Rancho de San Bernardino of Mission San Gabriel. In 1819 second
Rancho de San Bernardino was established at a site known as the Guachama rancheria, located a few miles
east of the possible original settlement in what is now the City of Loma Linda. Two years later, in 1821, a
branch of Mission San Gabriel was established within the present boundaries of the City of Redlands. From
this branch mission, the development of agriculture within the valley began. Water was transported via a ten-
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-3
5. Environmental Analysis
mile ditch from Mill Creek to irrigate olive trees and vineyards. With the transition of political power from
Spanish authority to Mexican control in 1822, attitudes toward land ownership and use underwent a major
shift.
From the period of initial settlement in 1810 to 1839, sole control over lands in the valley was in the hands of
the church. Around 1840, following the establishment of the Mexican republic, large grants of private land
(ranchos) by the acting governor to three brothers of the prominent Lugo and Diego Sepulveda families
signaled a change in private control, and the beginnings of large scale ranching and agriculture in the valley.
The Lugos sold a large portion of the San Bernardino Rancho to a group of 800 Mormons (Church of the
Later Day Saints).
In 1854 San Bernardino became incorporated as a city. This occurred one year after the County of San
Bernardino was split from the Counties of San Diego and Los Angeles. Its population consisted of
approximately 1,200 inhabitants, 75 percent of whom were Mormon. Over the next few years, the character
of the City reflected the values of its chief inhabitants; but in 1857, Mormons from across the country were
recalled to Utah. Unsettled and unclaimed property of approximately 8,000 acres was purchased and
subdivided.
The agricultural character of the valley, established during the Mexican and Mormon periods, continued to
dominate the local economy; however, with continued development of the timber and mineral resources of
the mountains and desert, the character of the City slowly emerged as a regional commercial center.
With the completion of rail connections between the desert and Los Angeles in 1887 by the Santa Fe
Railroad, San Bernardino soon developed into a railhead boomtown. Commercial enterprises dominated the
urban landscape, with emphasis upon service and retail establishment, while industrial enterprises
supported agricultural development.
The commercial core of the City of San Bernardino grew slowly to the east, west, and north. Downtown
businesses included hotels, restaurants, saloons, retail shops, and small service-oriented businesses.
Property to the south appears to have remained primarily agricultural. To the west ofthe core, transportation
related industries developed around the Santa Fe rail yard. To the north and east of the core, relatively small
agricultural farms and ranches dominated. Service industries slowly intermingled with the eastern farms,
while farms to the north developed into the primary residential district of the City. See Figure 5.4-1, Historical
Patterns of Development.
Urban land use expansion continued outward from the downtown core, reflecting the basic patterns
established in the late nineteenth century. Residential growth in the twentieth century continued to expand
into the rural agricultural zone, with redevelopment of earlier residential areas also occurring. Commercial
establishments continually replaced one another, slowly expanding into residential districts. Service and light
manufacturing industries continued an association with the transportation corridors, relying initially upon
easy access to rail and wagon roads, and later upon paved highways. With the arrival of air transportation,
commercial fields were established in rural agricultural areas, and combined with the industrial pattern for
easy access to rail lines, set the stage for the establishment of local military facilities during World War II.
Page 5.4-4 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
1
1.__-
j
Historical Patterns o/Development
in San Bernardino 1860 - 1935
":
\\\"
en
II 1 I J. f[j.. ~~I--j. I~ JZlJ:;1" t~
l"-~~_~{~T-l "',--'" - , ... t-- ,
~ II "'1 1.1 BlVd'
.1 r-Te- . _1= III I II I I-f ~l <
\ l~. . .,,~ )). w:~ L,L L I L-;I;cd .::l:-::I IT ri ~~.
1.[::."= "'I~( I 1 !w~_ ""'I"'.~ ./.J IL.,- 1..1.
h, ~u I ~ ~ 1- I
-:-, . ......~....~~J:+--l _]ij::~._~:::- i l I'll :-1-1 ~Ji
, . : i:: i . -I Highlan --A~ .I
-i _ ~~ Ii :~;=~:.~ +I.,~.." ~ ']1"
. E,:L; : I' J ,-:J ,~ =::=. _ .. ... ....- . ~~1
,- . T~,J-T I ..::;:::::: -=" -- I. ,-,- J--t' II
h ./ 'I! I.i.... I... .,:. ~ ....:. : I
')1 ~~i 11_1__ ~t. 'r _ ~..... (- 'l ~ ' I, ~T Ii:) 'LL~- '
- J~f~L:L--:. J ~;:-, .rl-::.0; 9thstl IJL L.
," .. II 1- II ;
_1---; })'j.:+;:.::: H 'i I~ 'T"" ,....._ ..1 ,- - " ... ":,',:.'1.........""."1 r
/ ~ 1 . [I !;l.l:l L, . ....1 ~ ""'T.j' i r- - ..L....
"'1':::.. ...... I I---~rf h~tIT si.... i...
1\0 I I 66 FdoT, j .:: .:. .. ...:;ti1;h I:: t1d- Sl C....J
-=L!: II 1],_".-.-
1 ~.... , ." I.......
.T'I\~~- \ IS- · I-~! ~ \--- ~'-- '1 :....,
r'" ., . i Wi't I. ~ ~I,. c-----t.. .,.' .- I
- ii, i;i-~~: II \ w It i 00' _.~ Mill St' ,-- -" ~-
........ - I ~I\j ,/ ~ ~~14J, ,T
U'i \
)
-
""
. I
( I=:r..:::..r
_ I i :~='I\~
,--- :
f- -
I I
~
1860 - 1870
1870 - 1880
1880 - 1900
1900 1920
1920 - 1935
City Boundary
.. : Sphere of Influence
NOT TO SCALE
[']
San Bernardino General Pia" Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
The Planning Center · Figure 5.4-1
5. Environmental Analysis
This page left intentionally blank.
Page 5.4-6 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Historical Resources
Historic resources are defined as buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts of significance in history,
archaeology, architecture and culture. These resources include intact structures of any type that are 50 years
or more of age. These resources are sometimes called the "built environment" and can include, in addition to
houses, other structures such as irrigation works, and engineering features. Historic resources are preserved
because they provide a link to a region's past as well as a frame of reference for a community. Often these
sites are a source of pride for a City.
The San Bernardino area contains a considerable variety of historic residential architecture, including
California and Craftsman Bungalows, Spanish Colonial Revival and Victorian, among others. A Historic
Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report, completed in 1991 to evaluate residential and commercial
districts of potential historic district merit. The Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report is
contained in five volumes and available at City Hall.
The intent of the historic survey was to identify general concentrations of historic structures, defined as
buildings constructed prior to 1941, which have maintained their architectural integrity. Concentrations of
pre-1941 homes were found to exist throughout the surveyed area. The overall quality of these historic
neighborhoods varied widely. Several of the areas surveyed were of potential historic district merit,
containing a cohesive collection of pre-1941 buildings of similar history and architectural identity. Although
not adopted, the potential historic districts identified consist of four residential and two commercial districts
and range in size from two blocks to over one square mile. In addition to concentrated districts, San
Bernardino contains individual structures located throughout the planning area which are historically
significant. The 1988 City of San Bernardino General Plan EIR Technical Background Report, available at the
City of San Bernardino, provides descriptions of those designated historic landmarks in the City, which
include one listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), eleven California Points of Historical
Interest (CPHI) and one State of California Historic Structure (CHS). These landmarks are listed below. In
addition, 31 structures are identified therein which have potential for cultural significance.
~
National Reqister of Historic Places
. San Bernardino Post Office (NRHP-L-85-136)
California Historical Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest
. Santa Fe Railroad Station Building (CPHI-53)
. Anderson Building (CPHI-90)
. Heritage House (CPHI-102)
. Sturges Auditorium (CPHI-100)
. California Theater (CPHI-103)
. St. Bernardine of Siena Catholic Church (CPHI-106)
. Home of Eternity Cemetery of Congregation Emanuel (CPHI-44)
. Pioneer Cemetery (CPHI-24)
. Rudolf Hack Residence and West Twin Creek Water Company Flume (CPHI-104)
. Home of Neighborly Service (CPHI-88)
. Courthouse Clock
State Historic Structures
. Patton State Hospital Residence (#1 and #2) (CHS-2369-1)
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4- 7
5. Environmental Analysis
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources are the physical remains of past human activities and can be either prehistoric or
historic in origin. Archaeological sites are locations that contain significant evidence of human activity.
Generally a site is defined by a significant accumulation or presence of one or more of the following: food
remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tools, concentrations or alignments of stones, modification
of rock surfaces, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, or human skeletal remains. Archaeological
sites are often located along creek areas, ridgelines, and vistas.
Areas of high archaeological sensitivity within San Bernardino are found in Figure 5.4-2 below. The
archeological sensitivity figure contains areas of know resources or reasonably could contain resources and
which had demonstrable surface integrity as of November 1987. The City's center has been identified as an
Urban Archaeological District based on it being the center of the area's history of cultural development.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in
geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and
its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources; vertebrate and invertebrate paleontological
resources. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically
sedimentary formations. Paleontological sites are those areas that show evidence of pre-human activity.
Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. While
the sites are important indications, it is the geologic formations that are the most important since they may
contain important fossils. Potentially sensitive areas for the presence of paleontological resources are based
on the underlying geologic formation. Fossil remains may occur throughout the City of San Bernardino,
although the evenness of their distribution is not known. The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the
rock type exposed at the surface in a given area.
Native American History
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Descendents of the Serrano Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians roamed a territory that
spanned the San Bernardino Mountains and valley and adjoining desert lands. The origin of the name, San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians, is the result of Yuhaviatam engagement with colonizing European and
American powers. The term Mission Indians originated from the 21 missions established by Spanish settlers
along California's coast from 1769 to 1823, from San Diego to San Francisco. In their native language, they
call themselves Yuhaviatam, or People of the Pines. After first contact, Spanish soldiers soon invaded the
Serrano villages, removing the people from their ancient homelands and placing them into the mission
system where many died from new diseases and the changes in their diet.
By the mid-1800s sweeping change was brought to California and the United States with the passage of the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and the California Gold Rush of 1849. New settlers came to California,
radically changing the Serrano lands with their ranching, farming, and logging. In 1866, unrest came to the
area as militia forces from San Bernardino killed Serrano men, women, and children in a 32-day campaign.
Yuhaviatam tribal leader Santos Manuel safely led the remaining Yuhaviatam from their ancient homelands in
the mountains to the valley floor.
In 1891 with passage of the Act for Relief for Mission Indians the San Manuel reservation was established
and recognized as a sovereign nation with the right of self-government. The San Manuel reservation was
Page 5.4-8 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Archaeological Sensitivities
~
Area of Concern for Archaeological Resources
c=J Urban Archaeological District. Historical
Archaeological Resources of 19th Century San Bernardino
: City Boundary
'-----, Sphere ofInfluence
NOT TO SCALE
~
Source: Envicom Corporation
San Bernardino Geneml Plan Update andAJJociatl!d Specific Plans EIR
The Planning Center · Figure 5.4-2
5. Environmental Analysis
This page left intentionally blank.
Page 5.4-10 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
named for a great tribal leader, Santos Manuel, and henceforth the tribe was recognized as the San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians. The reservation originally consisted of 657 acres of steep foothills of the San
Bernardino Mountains, to near the top of Mount McKinley. Today it consists of just over 800 acres of mostly
mountainous land and is located in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountain region, just north of the City
of Highland. Few people still speak the Serrano language, and few ancestral rituals survive. Some continue
to sing traditional Bird Songs on special social occasions. Approximately 85 Serrano people currently live on
the San Manuel Reservation. Many of the 1,000 or so residents who live on or near the Morongo Reservation
and near the Soboba Reservation are also of Serrano descent.
In the mid-1980s, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians invested in a high-stakes bingo operation. The
San Manuel Indian Bingo gaming facility was expanded in 1994. In December 2000, the San Manuel Bottled
Water Group was founded as part of a federal charter granted to the Tribe to allow tribal business
diversification. Encompassing gaming and other enterprises, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians is one
of the largest employers in the Inland Empire area and employs over 2,000 people.
Tribal government consists of two governing bodies: a seven-member elected Tribal Council which acts as
the Business Committee and a General Council. The Tribal Council is responsible for enforcing by-laws,
establishing policies, protecting business interests and preserving the sovereignty of the tribe.
5.4.1.2
Arrowhead Springs
Historic Background
General Historical Context
People traveling between the Colorado River and coastal settlements used the Mojave Trail, located west of
the current study area, for hundreds of years. Although the Mojave Trail was one of the first trails used by
early explorers, it was all but abandoned when the gentler Cajon Pass area became known.
~
As previously mentioned a Mormon colony was established in the 1850s in San Bernardino. Almost
immediately, Waterman Canyon and Mill Creek were used as logging areas. The mills were small and
simple, usually operated by a crew consisting of three to four people. The mills were lucrative and were a
primary source of income for the San Bernardino colony. The Mormons maintained control of the mills until
they were recalled to Salt Lake Valley in 1857. At that time, many of the mills shut down, while some were
sold at a considerably low price. During the 1860s, lumbering in the San Bernardino Mountains stagnated.
Only two operations existed throughout most of this period.
There were incidents of hostility due to the continued influx of settlers and lumbering operations. Most
notably, the "Battle of Indian Hill" occurred near the present day Lake Arrowhead. Several hundred shots
were exchanged, two settlers and six Native Americans were killed, and several people were wounded.
Despite this incident and others like it, lumbering continued in the Western San Bernardino Mountains.
Between 1865 and 1895, lumbering reached its peak although most mills were still fairly small operations
employing less than 20 men. While there were a large number of mills in the area, they were not all lucrative.
The Brookings Lumber Company was a highly mechanized lumbering operation from 1899 to 1912. Its
exploitation of the resources was intense and by the time the company ceased operations, over 3000 acres
were almost denuded of vegetation. The company also built an extensive system of railroads in the
Arrowhead Lake area extending to all of the company's major logging areas.
Development History
David Noble Smith, an Ohioan in California on a prospecting trip, was the first American to take note of the
natural hot springs at the base of Arrowhead in 1851. On this trip, he reputedly vowed to return to the spot to
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-11
5. Environmental Analysis
establish an infirmary, and he ultimately did so in 1863. Smith cleared a road from Waterman Canyon to the
spa and constructed the first spa building-a "long shack" according to some accounts-which he opened
to the public. The following year, Smith built additional bathing rooms and reservoirs to collect the hot water
and opened his "Hot Springs Hygienic Infirmary" for the treatment of consumption. Water from the springs
was used in treating tuberculosis. He continued to run the operation for two decades but was forced to lease
the property to new owners in 1883. He continued to live nearby until his death in 1885 and is buried on the
property where a monument currently stands.
Under new ownership some structures were razed and others improved and expanded. After the existing
structure burned to the ground in 1885, a new hotel was built near the springs in 1886. Due to booming
tourism spawned by the arrival of the transcontinental railroad in 1883, the owners were able to triple the size
ofthe hotel over the course ofthe next three years. In 1887, the Arrowhead and Waterman Railway Company
was formed to provide rail service from San Bernardino, however the tracks were only laid as far as Patton
and the hotel was reached via stage upon arrival at the Arrowhead Station of the Santa Fe Railroad's "Belt
Line." Between 1886 and 1894 there were successive owners but the hotel maintained its reputation as a first
class resort. Unfortunately the hotel burned in 1895 and the Arrowhead and Waterman Railroad failed in the
same year leaving the rail extension to the hotel incomplete. The property remained vacant for the next
decade.
A new era for the hotel property began in 1904 with the buyout of the property from its Los Angeles owners
by a local San Bernardino businessman, Seth Marshall. Marshall and his investors expanded their holdings
in the area to almost 1 ,800 acres by purchasing the estate of former California Governor Waterman and then
constructed another hotel in 1905 that opened for business in 1906. In 1907 The Valley Traction System with
Marshall as an investor completed rail service to Arrowhead Springs after buying the rights to the defunct
Arrowhead and Waterman Railroad. Seven daily trips were provided to the resort. The company was then
sold to the Pacific Electric Railway Company, Southern California's well-known "Red Car" line, which
provided scheduled passenger service to Arrowhead Springs until 1932. Marshal established a bottling plant
was in the hotel's basement shortly after the hotel opened, utilizing water from Arrowhead Springs. In 1917,
the bottling plant was moved to Los Angeles and although the owner sold his interest in the hotel, he kept his
rights to the water. In the early 1920s the property was leased by the Veterans Bureau as a rehabilitation
hospital for World War I soldiers but returned to Marshall and his investors in 1924. A massive remodeling of
the facilities took place prior to reopening to the public in 1925. Varying expansion plans were announced in
1929 and over the next 5-6 years but few of those plans came to fruition except for the construction of some
bungalows that were noted in the Los Angeles Times in 1935 as being used by Hollywood stars and writers
as offices while vacationing. In 1938 a an aggressive brush fire swept through the hillsides above San
Bernardino, destroying the Arrowhead Springs Hotel and many other buildings on the property and the
property was subsequently sold to Hollywood investors.
In 1939, construction began on a new hotel and the Arrowhead Springs Corporation was founded whose
directors included: Joseph M. Schenck, Jay Paley (President), Darryl Zanuck (Vice President), Edgar J.
Mannix, William Goetz (Vice President), Constance Bennett, Lou Anger, J.B. Anger, Claudette Colbert, AI
Jolson, and J.B. Codd (Secretary-Treasurer), well known Hollywood residents. Many important designers
and architects of that era were known to be involved with the project. For more detail see Appendix C,
Volume II. During the gala grand opening many stars made an appearance but despite all the publicity and
involvement of celebrities, the hotel failed, closing in the spring of 1941. The hotel open again later that year
under new ownership but was soon put into serviced of the country's new war time effort first hosting fund
raising events and then as a naval convalescent hospital after purchase by the United States Navy in 1944. In
1946 the Navy returned the hotel to private ownership and after renovation it reopened in 1948, but despite
much publicity the hotel never regained its prewar luster.
Over the course of the 1950s, the property entered into a period of constant flux, with various planned
improvements, temporary closures and many purchase options on the table every few years including a
Page 5.4-12 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
1951 purchase by famed hotelier Conrad Hilton. Numerous renovations took place during this time but the
hotel closed permanently in 1959 and after a period of vacancy was sold to William Bright of Campus
Crusade for Christ International in 1962. Campus Crusade used the hotel as a religious retreat and as a
resort and conference center but vacated the property as a headquarters in 1991.
Historic Resources
San Buenaventura Research Associates (SBRA) prepared a Historic Resources Report on the Arrowhead
Springs Hotel to determine NRHP and CRHP eligibility of the complex. The Arrowhead Springs Hotel
complex is registered as a County Point of Historic Interest (CA-SBR-2268). The following Table 5.4-1
Potential Historic Resources summarizes the potential historical resources that currently exist on the project
site and Figure 5.4-3, Arrowhead Springs Buildings, Structures and Object Locations, illustrates the location
of many of these resources.
Table 5.4-1
Potential Historic Resources
Building No. Name Historic Period Date of Construction
1 Hotel/Steam Caves * 1939-1955 1939
2 Pool, Cabanas, Tennis Courts* 1939-1955 1939
3 Bungalow 1 * 1904-1938 c.1929
4a Bungalow 3* 1904-1938 c. 1936;c. 1939
4b Bungalow 4* 1904-1938 c.1936
4c Bungalow 5* 1904-1938 c.1936
4d Bungalow 6* 1904-1938 c.1936
5 Bungalow 7* 1904-1938 c.1936
6 Bungalow 8* 1904-1938 c.1936
7 Bungalow 9* 1904-1938 c.1936
8 Bungalow 10* 1904-1938;1938-1955 c. 1929,c. 1940
9 Mud Baths * 1904-1938 ? Before 1931
10 Garage (Hill Auditorium) 1939-1955 c.1939
11 Hacienda 1939-1955 Uncertain
12 Smith Memorial* 1863-1883;1883-1895 c.1875-1885
13 Indian Statue* 1904-1938 1924
14 Spring House 1939-1955 c.1945
15 Quonset Huts 1939-1955 c.1945
16 Reservoir* Uncertain Uncertain
17 Springs * Uncertain Uncertain
18 Fountains * 1904-1938 c.1904
19 Terrace and Tennis Courts * 1904-1938 c.1925
20 Arrowhead Pool - 1957
21 Maintenance Buildings - After 1962
22 Chapel - 1969
23 Bungalow 11 - 1982
24 Sierra Room - 1982
25 Outdoor Theater - After 1962
26 Village CompleX/Creekside Lodge - 1968, 1983
27 Canyon View Offices - 1968-1969
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-13
~
5. Environmental Analysis
Table 5.4-1
Potential Historic Resources
Building No. Name Historic Period Date of Construction
28 Lake Vonnette - After 1962
29 Sewer Plant - After 1962
- Landscape Elements * Various Various
- Miscellaneous Features * Various Various
*Eligible elements for listing on the NRHP and CRHP.
The majority of buildings in Table 5.4-1, Potential Historic Resources, and Figure 5.4-3, Arrowhead Springs
Buildings, Structures, and Object Locations, above were less than 50 years of age at the time of the Historic
Resources Report, and consequently were not subject to further eligibility evaluation. Buildings at least 50
years of age, or those previously determined to be eligible for preservation were evaluated in detail in the
Historic Resources Report (Volume III, Appendix C). Buildings determined to be eligible are briefly described
as follows with map reference number noted:
Arrowhead Springs Hotel (#1): The hotel building is roughly an "X" in plan and consists of a central mass
six stories in height flanked by one, two and four-story wings projecting at obtuse angles, opening towards
the north and south. The central mass is stepped and terminates in a truncated hipped roof topped by
cresting. The wings feature flat, parapeted roofs. The building is constructed of poured-in-place concrete.
The hotel building features two prominent elevations, northern and southern. The northern elevation is
characterized by a neoclassical two-story main entrance centered on the elevation. Projecting to the east of
the northern elevation is the one-story theater wing. The southern elevation of the hotel features two, four-
story guest room wings projecting at an obtuse from the building's six-story central mass. The Steam Caves
are located near the bottom of the West Fork of Hot Water Canyon, immediately to the west of the hotel, and
are accessed by means of an elevator. They consist of semicircular flagstone masonry walls constructed on
benches on the canyon sides. Concrete tunnels extend into the hillside.
Ground was broken for the construction of the hotel in January, 1939 and it was opened to the public the
following December. The building was designed by the important Los Angeles architects Gordon Kaufmann
and Paul Williams. The interiors of the hotel, including the pillared lobby and ornate dining areas and bar, as
well as many of the furnishings, were designed by Dorothy Draper and Company of New York. Known
alterations to the hotel include the enclosure of the semicircular portico on the southern end of the lobby to
create a cocktail lounge in 1951. Other renovations to the interior also occurred during the early 1950s, the
precise extent of which is not currently known. The Steam Caves area has been considerably impacted by
brush fires, which have destroyed the frame portions of this feature.
Pool and Cabanas (#2): The pool area consists of a large concrete swimming pool flanked by two cabana
buildings. The brick and frame cabanas, located on the east and west sides of the pool, feature a center
locker room pavilion flanked by cabana rooms opening towards the pool. Above and to the north ofthe pool
is a terrace and stairway. Tennis courts are located nearby to the east. The pool area was constructed in
1939, along with the hotel. The only known alterations are the removal of three diving boards, including a
stylish concrete high-dive, from the southern end of the pool.
Bungalow 1 (#3): This one-story wood-frame residence is roughly a U-plan enclosing a large terrace
opening towards the south and features stucco-clad walls and a Spanish tile roof. This building was probably
constructed circa 1929, in connection with the plans for expansion of the hotel facilities announced for that
year. The designer of the building is not known. It appears to be essentially unaltered.
Page 5.4-14 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Buildings} Structures and Object Locations
Source: American Development Group/
San Buenaventura Research Associates
~
NOT TO SCALE
EJ
I
9
/19
San Bernardino General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
The Planning Center · Figure 5.4-3
5. Environmental Analysis
This page left intentionally blank.
Page 5.4-16 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Bungalows 3, 4, 5, and 6 (#4a, 4b, 4c, 4d): These one-story, stucco-clad, wood-frame residences are
irregular in plan and feature gable roofs covered with Spanish tile. Windows are mainly steel casements.
They are similar in design, and were probably all constructed circa 1936 in connection with the announced
intention to build six new bungalows that year. The designer is not known. They are mainly unaltered, with
the notable exception of the later enclosure of the south-facing sun rooms to create kitchens, and a variety of
small room additions. These alterations probably occurred when they were converted from hotel rooms to
full-time residences during the 1960s or 1970s. Bungalow NO.3 appears to have been moved to its current
site from its original location, roughly 100 feet to the northwest, probably when the existing access road on
the north side of the hotel was constructed in 1939.
Bungalow 7 (#5): This one-story, stucco-clad, wood-frame residence is irregular in plan and features aside-
facing gable roof covered with Spanish tile. It was probably constructed circa 1936, as one of the six
bungalows scheduled for construction that year. The designer is unknown. Apparent alterations included the
enclosure of porches and sun rooms on the southern elevation, evidently prior to 1950, and the likely
conversion of an attached two-car garage to living space, probably during the 1960s or 1970s. The 1950
Sanborn Map of the property labels this building as the" Pike Bungalow." The historical associations of this
name are not currently known, but this reference suggests that this building was utilized as a residence for a
hotel employee, rather than as guest quarters.
Bungalow 8 (#6): This one-story, stucco-clad, wood-frame residence is irregular in plan and features a
side-facing gable roof covered with Spanish tile. Windows are mainly steel casements. It was probably
constructed circa 1936, as one of the six bungalows scheduled for construction that year. The designer is
unknown. Apparent alterations included the enclosure of a porch on the southern elevation, evidently prior to
1950. The 1950 Sanborn Map of the property labels this building as the "Martin Bungalow." The historical
associations of this name are not currently known, but this reference suggests that this building was utilized
as a residence for a hotel employee, rather than as guest quarters.
~
Bungalow 9 (#7): This one-story, stucco-clad, wood-frame residence is irregular in plan and features a hip
roof covered with Spanish tile. It was probably constructed circa 1936, as one of the six bungalows
scheduled for construction that year. The designer is unknown. Apparent alterations included the enclosure
of a porch on the southern elevation to create a kitchen, evidently during the 1960s or 1970s. The 1950
Sanborn Map of the property labels this building as the" Fichett Bungalow." The historical associations of
this name are not currently known, but this reference suggests that this building was utilized as a residence
for a hotel employee, rather than as guest quarters.
Bungalow 10 (#8): This one-story, stucco-clad, wood-frame residence in an H-plan features intersecting
hip roofs covered with Spanish tile and a landscaped entry courtyard featuring a Mexican tiled, octagonal
fountain on the northern side. It was probably constructed circa 1929, in connection with the plans for
expansion of the hotel facilities announced for that year. Architectural evidence, primarily on the interior,
suggests it was remodeled circa 1940. The original designer of the building is not known, but the alterations
may have been designed by Paul Williams or Gordon Kaufmann, the architects for the 1939 hotel. Apparent
alterations afterwards included the enclosure of a porch on the southern elevation, probably after 1950. The
1950 Sanborn Map ofthe property labels this building as the "Schenck Bungalow," suggesting it was used
by 20th Century Fox chairman Joseph M. Schenck, one of the principal investors in the 1939 hotel, rather
than as guest quarters.
Mud Baths (#9): The mud baths are composed of several structures. Most prominent of these is a shallow,
rectangular basin with a concrete floor and mortared stone walls supported by shallow buttresses. Within the
basin are a number of stone columns, which presumably supported catwalks, which are no longer extant.
The function of these facilities was to heat therapeutic muds with hot spring water. After 1939, these muds
were transported into the hotel, where they filled concrete treatment tubs used by the guests. The date of this
feature could not be definitively determined. Hot mud baths were located in this approximate location at least
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-17
5. Environmental Analysis
as early as 1894, and similar features are pictured in early hotel literature, so it could conceivably date in
whole or part from either the 1888-1895 or the 1904-1938 hotel periods.
Garage (Hill Auditorium) (#10): This one-story wood-frame building with a truss roof covered with rolled
roofing is rectangular in plan. Two large wing walls project from the western elevation, forming a forecourt
covered by an attached wood-frame pergola. The first garages known to have been constructed at the
Arrowhead Springs Hotel were built circa 1925, near the beginning of the automobile era at the hotel. These
buildings, which were probably wood-frame construction and located on or near the present garage building
site, were probably lost in the 1938 fire. The present building was probably constructed in 1939 to replace it.
The designer is unknown. The building was apparently converted to an auditorium use in 1958 and altered
again in 1990, at which time the forecourt was presumably added.
Hacienda (#11): This one-story, stucco-clad, wood-frame residence building is constructed in roughly an L-
plan. It cannot be definitely shown to have existed at its current location prior to 1950, although the
architectural and historical evidence suggests an earlier date of construction. It was likely to have been
constructed by combining a number of buildings salvaged from other locations. During the U.S. Navy's
occupation of the hotel (1944-46), this building was used as officer's quarters. Clearly discernible recent
alterations include the replacement of many windows with modern aluminum sliders.
Smith Memorial (#12): This small cemetery consists of a marble obelisk on a granite base surrounded by
three head-stones. This is the burial site of David Noble Smith (1831-85), the founder of Smith's I nfirmary and
the first to construct a spa on the site of Arrowhead Springs. Also buried here are his daughter Mary Amaret
Smith (1878-1881) and a friend, Frank B. Stebbins (1845-1875). The date the cemetery was established is
not known, but it may be presumed that it began with the death of Stebbins in 1875 and the marker erected
shortly after David Smith's death in 1885. The shaft of the obelisk has apparently been broken at least twice
and repaired.
Indian Statue (#13): This 13-foot-high statue of an American Indian is cast of concrete and rests on a
concrete block platform. The sculptor was J.L. Root, about whom nothing is presently known. Originally
designed to be integrated into a stone archway spanning the roadway at the entrance to the hotel grounds in
1924, it was moved to its current location in 1976.
Spring House (#14): This one-story, wood-frame, stucco-clad building features a flat roof and a small
covered entry porch supported by wood posts on the northern elevation. The windows are wood frame. The
date of construction for this building is uncertain, but based on the architectural evidence it was likely
constructed by the U.S. Navy during its use of the property, 1944-46. It was probably constructed roughly
300 feet to the north of its present location and moved to its current site after 1950. It appears to be
moderately altered, with the enclosure of window and door openings, and possibly stucco over original
wood cladding.
Quonset Huts (#15): This is a grouping of five small corrugated steel buildings organized in an attached,
sawtooth pattern. Their date of construction is uncertain, but based on the architectural evidence, they were
likely constructed by the by the U.S. Navy during its use of the property, 1944-46. They were probably
constructed roughly 300 feet to the south of their present locations as detached buildings and moved to the
current site after 1950. The doorways on the southern elevations appear to be somewhat altered, and the
buildings have been sprayed with a texture coating material.
Reservoir (#16): This water storage structure is rectangular in plan and covered with a wood-frame side-
facing gable roof. The date of construction is uncertain, but this site has been the location of the hotel's
domestic water supply storage since at least 1931. The current improvements probably date from 1939.
Page 5.4-18 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Landscape Elements and Miscellaneous Features
Although the most prominent feature of the Arrowhead Springs property is the 1939 hotel, the property
should be understood as an evolving historical landscape, the product of approximately 140 years of
historical use. The large number of buildings, structures and objects distributed throughout the property
makes the creation of a complete accounting of these features at this level of investigation problematic.
Further, given the limited historical documentation currently available, particularly from the earlier periods of
habitation and use, dates of construction for many of these features are difficult to establish confidently.
These features include landscape elements, fountains, springs, water features, tennis courts, Arrowhead
pool now filled with soil, and landscape elements.
A substantial number of additional features, potentially built during historic periods, are located throughout
the property. These features include walls, roads, gutters and small buildings. Due to the size, terrain and
overgrown nature of the property, not all of these buildings and structures could be readily cataloged and
dated, or in some cases, observed. Therefore, the existence of some should be regarded as unverified. In
particular, a small passenger shelter is known to have existed until at least recently in the vicinity of the
terminus of the Arrowhead Springs Pacific Electric line. This structure could not be located in field surveys,
but if it remains, would probably represent the last artifact from the rail line which provided access to the
hotel grounds for over 25 years. An outdoor fireplace/bar-b-cue is located west of the pool/tennis courts
feature. It is of indeterminate age and origin.
Eligibility of Arrowhead Springs Historic Resources
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of project impacts on historic resources,
including properties "listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical
Resources [or] included in a local register of historical resources." By definition, the California Register of
Historical Resources also includes all "properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National
Register of Historic Places," and certain specified State Historical Landmarks. The majority of "formal
determinations" of NRHP eligibility occur when properties are evaluated by the State Office of Historic
Preservation in connection with federal environmental review procedures (Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966). Formal determinations of eligibility also occur when properties are
nominated to the NRHP, but are not listed due to owner objection. The criteria for determining eligibility for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have been developed by the National Park Service.
Properties may qualify for NRHP listing if they:
~
A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent
the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
According to the National Register of Historic Places guidelines, the "essential physical features" of a
property must be present for it to convey its significance. Further, in order to qualify for the NRHP, a resource
must retain its integrity, or "the ability of a property to convey its significance."
The seven aspects of integrity are: Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the
place where the historic event occurred); Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property); Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); Materials
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-19
5. Environmental Analysis
(the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular
pattern or configuration to form a historic property); Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); Feeling (a property's expression
of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time), and; Association (the direct link between an
important historic event or person and a historic property).
The relevant aspects of integrity depend upon the National Register criteria applied to a property. For
example, a property nominated under Criterion A (events), would be likely to convey its significance primarily
through integrity of location, setting and association. A property nominated solely under Criterion C (design)
would usually rely primarily upon integrity of design, materials and workmanship. The California Register
procedures include similar language with regard to integrity. The minimum age criterion for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is 50 years.
Properties less than 50 years old may be eligible for listing on the NRHP if they can be regarded as
"exceptional," as defined by the NRHP procedures, or in terms of the CRHR, "if it can be demonstrated that
sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance" [Chapter 11, Title 14, s4842(d)(2)].
Historic resources as defined by CEQA, also includes properties listed in "local registers" of historic
properties. A "local register of historic resources" is broadly defined in s5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources
Code, as "a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local
government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution." Local registers of historic properties come
essentially in two forms: (1) surveys of historic resources conducted by a local agency in accordance with
Office of Historic Preservation procedures and standards, adopted by the local agency and maintained as
current, and (2) landmarks designated under local ordinances or resolutions. These properties are
"presumed to be historically or culturally significant...unless the preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant." (Public Resources Code ss 5024.1 ,
21804.1, 15064.5)
National and California Registers
Significance
The Arrowhead Springs property is eligible for the NRHP and under Criterion A and the CRHR under
Criterion 1 (significant historical events) for its association with the "health seeker" movement, an important
historical and cultural developmental theme in Southern California, which was driven in large part by the
railroad inspired real estate boom of the late 1880s. As an important regional resort, it likewise played an
important role in the physical, social and economic development of the San Bernardino region. During its
most recent historic developmental phase, the 1939-1955 era, the property was closely associated with the
regionally important Southern California entertainment industry, becoming, if only briefly, one the Hollywood
culture's more far-flung outposts.
The property does not appear to be potentially eligible under NRHP Criterion Band CRHR Criterion 2 (lives
of persons significant in our past). Although a number historically significant individuals are associated with
the property, the property does not appear to have played a notable or important role in the lives of these
individuals or is representative of their contributions or accomplishments.
The Arrowhead Springs property is eligible for the NRHP eligible under Criterion C and the CRHR under
Criterion 3 (design and construction), for its association with four master designers: Paul R. Williams, Gordon
B. Kaufmann, Edward Huntsman-Trout and Dorothy Draper. Williams and Kaufmann were among a relatively
small group of Southern California architectural practitioners during the 1920s and 1930s to be closely
identified with the evolution and development of a Southern California regional architectural style. Although
the work of landscape architect Edward Huntsman-Trout is not as fully documented, he is counted among
the pioneers in regional landscape design. When the firm was awarded the commission to design the
interiors of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel, Dorothy Draper and Company of New York was entering a period
Page 5.4-20 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
of considerable notoriety which began with the Hampshire House hotel project in New York City in 1937.
Arrowhead Springs was the firm's first commission in California, and one of only three known in the state.
The other two projects, the Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels in San Francisco, were undertaken during the
1940s. Draper was likely chosen for the Arrowhead Springs project because of her recently-established
reputation as a designer, and because her trademark free-historical style melded particularly well with the
similar approach to historicism characterizing Paul Williams' work during the period. National Register
Criterion D (CRHR 4) refers to archeology, and therefore does not apply to this evaluation.
Eligibility
Buildings, structures and objects contributing to this eligibility are listed and noted with an asterisk (*) in
Table 5.4-1 above. The period of significance for the property begins with David Noble Smith's initial efforts
to develop a spa on the property in 1863, to 1955, fifty years ago as of this writing. All features constructed
during the period of significance, as well as those listed in Table 5.4-1 as "uncertain" and "various" should be
regarded as eligible for purposes of the environmental analysis. Ineligible elements include those which are
currently less than 50 years of age, and those which should be regarded as ineligible due to alterations.
Properties Less Than 50 Years of Age
Properties less than 50 years of age may be eligible if they can be found to be "exceptionaL" While no hard
and fast definition for "exceptional" is provided in the NRHP literature, the special language developed to
support nominating these properties was clearly intended to accommodate properties which demonstrate a
level of importance such that their historical significance can be understood without the passage of time. In
general, according to NRHP literature, eligible "exceptional" properties may include, "resources so fragile
that survivors of any age are unusual. [Exceptionalness] may be a function of the relative age of a
community and its perceptions of old and new. It may be represented by a building or structure whose
developmental or design value is quickly recognized as historically significant by the architectural or
engineering profession [or] it may be reflected in a range of resources for which the community has an
unusually strong associative attachment." None of the subject properties in the study area appear to rise to
the exceptional level.
~
Integrity
The integrity of location for Arrowhead Spring property is intact; two small buildings have apparently been
moved, but only slightly and within their historical settings. The integrity of design of the property is very
good. The historical physical relationships between the individual elements, dominated by the hotel building
but not limited to it, remain intact. The design integrity of some of the individual elements are somewhat
compromised, but mainly without a loss of their essential character-defining features or their spatial
relationships within the property as a whole. The mountainous setting for the property is almost entirely
intact. Few encroachments by recent urban development which characterizes the San Bernardino area are in
evidence on the Arrowhead Springs property. To the extent that the buildings on the property exhibit design
integrity, their integrity of materials and workmanship are also intact. The integrity of feeling and association
of the property is somewhat compromised, given that the property is no longer used for its original purpose.
On a whole, the Arrowhead Springs property appears to possess sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing
on the NRHP and CRHR under criteria A and C, and 1 and 3, respectively.
Native American Historic Resources
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area was historically a boundary region among three Native American
groups known as the Gabrielino, Serrano, and the Cahuilla. Although these groups subsisted primarily
through hunting and gathering, there is some evidence that the Cahuilla practiced limited agriculture. Corn,
beans, squashes, and melons, possibly acquired through contact with the Colorado River cultures, were
planted and harvested. The Gabrielino, Serrano, and Cahuilla all maintained permanent villages and moved
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-21
5. Environmental Analysis
to temporary camps in order to hunt and gather food resources. The permanent camps as well as the
temporary camps were usually situated near water sources.
Locally, Arrowhead Springs was occupied at various times by each of the groups. The Native Americans
considered hot springs sacred and powerful; however, Arrowhead Hot Springs were considered particularly
sacred because of the arrowhead shaped geologic formation pointing to the springs. The Gabrielino refer to
the hot springs as an ancestral campground. The Cahuilla and Serrano refer to this area in many of their
stories. The Cahuilla called the Arrowhead Hot Springs Hutratam and the Gabrielino referred to the place as
Nilrngla.
Archaeological Resources
Areas of concern for archaeological sensitivity within San Bernardino are depicted in Figure 5.4-2. The figure
contains areas of known resources or reasonably could contain resources and which had demonstrable
surface integrity as of November 1987. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Area has been identified as an
"area of concern" for Archaeological Resources based on the area's history of use by various Native
American groups.
A record search of the San Bernardino Information Center located at the San Bernardino County Museum
revealed that eight cultural resources studies, including five overview reports pertaining to the Arrowhead
Springs area. A list of previous studies can be found on page 8 ofthe SWCA report (Volume III, Appendix C).
According to the cultural resources files at the San Bernardino Information center, one prehistoric
archaeological site, nine historic archaeological sites, three "pending" historic archaeological sites, four
historic structures and four (plus) possible historic structures are recorded within the Arrowhead Springs
area. The Arrowhead Springs Hotel complex (CA-SBR-2268) is also registered as a County Point of Historic
Interest.
The Arrowhead Springs property contains 15 previously recorded cultural resources. In January of 2005,
SWCA Environmental Consultants conducted a field inventory to confirm the location of these 15 previously
recorded sites. During the field work, SWCA identified and recorded five additional resources. The
Arrowhead Springs Hotel complex contains multiple known historic features and the possibility that many
remains related to the early historic and prehistoric occupations are still buried. The property manager had
discovered the ruins of a gazebo under 6 meters (approximately 20 feet) offill material indicating that historic
and/or prehistoric remains could still be found in-situ beneath the surface. The following Table 5.4-2 is a
summary of the Arrowhead Springs Archaeological Sites. A detailed description of each site can be found in
SWCA Archaeological Survey located in Volume III, Appendix C.
Site Number Description
CA-SBR-2268 Location of prehistoric and historic village of Nilengla, as well as the historic Arrowhead Springs hotel sites.
Gazebo, once located on the front lawn of the hotel. *
Bathing Area and associated stairs and retaining wall at the bottom of the creek, just west of the hotel. *
Barbeque and historic era trash *
Historic era trash and possible foundation remains *
Mano (A hand-held stone or roller for grinding corn or other grains) *
CA-SBR-6869H Oven/chimney and foundation with an associated historic trash pit.
CA-SBR-6870H Concrete road bridge
CA-SBR-7019H Stone and concrete conduit (gutter) and Holding tanks
CA-SBR-7020H Retaining wall, steps, no foundation of former house site.
CA-SBR-7021 H Possible remains of 1885 Del Rosa Water Company trench
Table 5.4-2
Summary of Arrowhead Springs Archaeological Sites
Page 5.4-22 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Table 5.4-2
Summary of Arrowhead Springs Archaeological Sites
Site Number Description
CA-SBR-7022H Retaining walls of former house, some trash
CA-SBR-7049H Rim of the World Highway
CA-SBR-7702H Eight structural features
CA-SBR-8248H Retaining walls, trash, historic features
CA-SBR-10795H 1940s to 1 060s trash
P1071-21 1890 Stone Ditch tunnel
P1071-27 Adobe house with add-on's
P36-017732 1850-1860 rock and concrete flume
P36-020267 Historic era culvert
*Newly recorded "loci" based on SWCA January 2005 Survey
5.4.2
Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides directions on determining significance of impacts to
archaeological and historical resources. Typically a resource shall be considered "historically significant" if
the resource meets the criteria for listing, including the following:
. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
. Is associated the with lives of persons important in our past;
~
. 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; or
. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or is not included in a local register of historical resources, does
not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource.
The following information excerpted from the most recent update of the CEQA guidelines provides criteria on
how to determine the significance of impacts to cultural resources:
S 15064.5 Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archeological and Historical Resources
(b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Re-sources; or
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-23
5. Environmental Analysis
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section
5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey
meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the
public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of
evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency
for purposes of CEQA.
(3) Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and
Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the
historical resource.
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
C-1
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5
C-2
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
C-3
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
C-4
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
5.4.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A in Volume I, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in
parentheses after the impact statement.
5.4.3.1
San Bernardino General Plan
GP IMPACT 5.4-1:
BUILD-OUT OF THE SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN COULD RESULT IN
THE LOSS OF POTENTIALLY HISTORIC STRUCTURES. [THRESHOLD C-1 J
Impact Analysis: Historians consider the City of San Bernardino, especially areas depicted in Figure 5.4-1,
as being historically significant. Adoption of the General Plan in itself would not directly affect any historical
structures. However, build-out of the General Plan over the long term would allow development and
redevelopment to occur in historically sensitive areas. The General Plan contains goals and policies that
specifically address sensitive historical resources and their protection if they are encountered during any
development activity. The City of San Bernardino adopted a Historic Building Preservation Ordinance in
1989. The ordinance establishes criteria for evaluating demolition permits for buildings 50 years or older in
an effort to preserve structures with historical value. In addition, review and protection are afforded by CEQA
for those projects subject to discretionary action, particularly for historical structures and resources.
Nevertheless, impacts from the build-out of the General Plan could be significant. Therefore, mitigation is
Page 5.4-24 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
recommended to ensure significant impacts to previously identified and unidentified historical resources are
avoided.
GP IMPACT 5.4-2:
BUILD-OUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN COULD IMPACT SENSITIVE ARCHAEO-
LOGICAL RESOURCES, PALEONTOLOCAL RESOURCES, OR A UNIQUE
GEOLOGIC FEATURE. [THRESHOLDS C-2 AND C-3]
Impact Analysis: Archaeologists and ethnologists consider the City of San Bernardino, especially the areas
depicted in Figure 5.4-2 as being archeologically sensitive. Adoption of the General Plan in itself would not
directly affect any archeological or paleontological resources. However, long-term implementation of the
General Plan land use policy could allow development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive
areas. The General Plan contains goals and policies that specifically address sensitive archeological
resources and their protection if they are encountered during any development activity. In addition, review
and protection are afforded by CEQA for those projects subject to discretionary action, particularly for
archeological, paleontological, and unique geologic resources. Nevertheless, impacts from the build-out of
the General Plan could be significant. Therefore, mitigation is recommended to ensure significant impacts to
previously identified and unidentified archeological, paleontological, and unique geologic resources are
avoided.
GP IMPACT 5.4-3:
GRADING ACTIVITIES COULD POTENTIALLY DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS.
[THRESHOLD C-4]
Impact Analysis: Adoption of the General Plan in itself does not involve grading activities and would not
directly disturb any human remains. However, long-term implementation of the General Plan land use policy
could allow development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas thereby disturbing human
remains. Review and protection are afforded by CEQA for those projects subject to discretionary action,
particularly for activities that could potentially disturb human remains. Nevertheless, impacts from the build-
out of the General Plan could be significant. Therefore, mitigation is recommended to reduce the General
Plan update's potential impact to human remains to less than significant.
~
Relevant General Plan Policies and Programs
The following City of San Bernardino General Plan policies and programs related to cultural resources
include:
Policy 11.1.1: Develop a comprehensive historic preservation plan that includes:
. Adoption of a Preservation Ordinance that authorizes the City to designate resources deemed to be
of significance as a City Historical landmark or district.
. Establishment of a Historic Resources Commission that will review and recommend preservation
ordinances, design standards, and historical designations of resources.
. Adoption of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and the standards and
guidelines as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation as design standards for
alterations to historic resources.
. Establishment of a design review process for potential development projects in or adjacent to
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones.
Policy 11.1.2: Maintain and update the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey database files of
historic, architectural, and cultural resources conducted in 1991, and integrate it into the City's ordinance
and environmental review process.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-25
5. Environmental Analysis
Policy 11.1.3: Consider, within the environmental review process, properties that may have become
historically significant since completion of the survey in 1991.
Policy 11.1.4: Compile and maintain an inventory, based on the survey, of the Planning Area's significant
historic, architectural, and cultural resources.
Policy 11.1.5: Continue to adopt historic district and overlay zone ordinances as described in the Historic
Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report. Consider the designation of Historic Districts and Historic
Overlay Zones as described in the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report.
Policy 11.1.6: Consider the need for a comprehensive survey for Downtown as well as establishing priorities
for future intensive-level surveys.
Policy 11.1.7: Require that all City-owned properties containing or adjacent to historic resources be
maintained in a manner that is aesthetically and/or functionally compatible with such resources.
Policy 11.1.8: Continue to develop design standards for commercial areas, similar to those in the Main
Street Overlay District, which promotes the removal of tacked-on facades and inappropriate signage, the
restoration of original facades, and designs that complement the historic pattern.
Policy 11.1.9 Require that an environmental review be conducted on all applications (e.g. grading,
building, and demolition) for resources designated or potentially designated as significant in order to ensure
that these sites are preserved and protected. (LU-1)
Policy 11.2.1: Encourage owners of historic income-producing properties to use the tax benefits provided
by the 1981 Tax Revenue Act or as may be amended.
Policy 11.2.2: Encourage the use of the Historic Building Code in order to provide flexibility in building code
requirements for the rehabilitation of historic buildings.
Policy 11.2.3: Provide for the purchase of facade easements from private property owners; allow private
nonprofit preservation groups to purchase facade easements. A historic easement would include any
easement, restriction, covenant or condition running with the land designed to preserve or maintain the
significant features of such landmarks or buildings.
Policy 11.2.4: Adopt the Mills Act program to allow for a reduction in property taxes for historic properties.
Policy 11.3.1: Promote the formation and maintenance of neighborhood organizations and foster
neighborhood conservation programs, giving special attention to transitional areas.
Policy 11.3.2: Develop brochures to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular tours of historic buildings,
landmarks, neighborhoods and other points of historical interest in the San Bernardino area.
Policy 11.3.3: Cooperate with local historic preservation organizations doing preservation work and serve
as liaison for such groups.
Policy 11.3.4: Encourage the involvement of San Bernardino City Unified School District, private schools,
adult education classes, California State University at San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Museum,
San Bernardino Valley College in preservation programs and activities.
Policy 11.4.1: Encourage the preservation, maintenance, enhancement, and reuse of existing buildings in
redevelopment and commercial areas; the retention and renovation of existing residential buildings; and the
relocation of existing residential buildings when retention on-site is deemed not to be feasible.
Page 5.4-26 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Policy 11.4.2: Consider creating a program to relocate reusable older buildings from or into redevelopment
projects as a means of historic preservation.
Policy 11.4.3: Utilize the Redevelopment Agency as a vehicle for preservation activity. The Agency is
currently empowered to acquire, hold, restore, and resell buildings.
Policy 11.5.1: Complete an inventory of areas of archaeological sensitivity in the planning area.
Policy 11.5.2: Develop mitigation measures for projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas to
protect such locations, remove artifacts, and retain them for educational display.
Policy 11.5.3: Seek to educate the general public about San Bernardino's archaeological heritage through
written brochures, maps, and reference materials.
The City of San Bernardino Historic Depot District Concept Improvement Plan.
5.4.3.2
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included in
Volume II, Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in
parentheses after the impact statement.
AHS IMPACT 5.5-1:
BUILD-OUT OF THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD IMPACT
AN IDENTIFIED HISTORIC RESOURCE. [THRESHOLD C-1 J
Impact Analysis: According to the Arrowhead Specific Plan, "... the hotel will be renovated to its original
splendor in keeping with its 1940-50s Art Deco/Dorothy Dreper [sic] style." The specific approach and the
standards to be utilized in connection with this renovation effort are not spelled out in the Arrowhead Specific
Plan. Further, unlike "rehabilitation" and "preservation," the term "renovation" has no generally understood
definition or meaning within the practice of historic preservation. Consequently, the language within the
Specific Plan is insufficient to conclude that the exterior and interior historic architectural features of the hotel
and Steam Caves would be preserved and missing and/or damaged features restored in an historically
appropriate manner, which may lead to a loss of design integrity for the building.
~
The land use and circulation plans for the project call for the introduction of several new roads and bridges
on the Arrowhead Springs property. The development standards contained within the Specific Plan, although
not final in nature, suggest that existing roads, where utilized, would be widened and reconstructed in
accordance with standard engineered City of San Bernardino cross-sections, resulting in significant
alterations to the existing informal historical character of the roadways which currently lack curbs and in
some instances include stone and concrete gutter systems.
The Specific Plan specifies the construction of numerous additional facilities in connection with the
development of the hotel and a conference center. These plans call for "a new 115-room Annex [to] be
constructed nearby" and "In addition to the existing 10,000 square foot conference facility inside the existing
hotel, a new state-of-the-art 25,000 square foot Conference Center and associated meeting facilities will be
constructed." The location and design of these new facilities are not specified in the Master Plan, but it can
be assumed that they would be located in close proximity to the historic hotel building, and potentially, on a
site that may contain other historic architectural and landscape features, which may lead to a loss of design
and setting integrity for the hotel and design integrity for the property as a whole.
The proposed land use plan would result in the demolition of Bungalows 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, buildings
which contribute to the historical significance of the property. The demolition of an historic property cannot
be seen as conforming with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-27
5. Environmental Analysis
The proposed Specific Plan would also result in the introduction of land uses in close proximity to historic
features, which would substantially alter the existing historic and natural setting of the Arrowhead Springs
property.
The CEQA Guidelines require a project which will have potentially adverse impacts on historic resources to
conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, in order for the
impacts to be mitigated to below significant and adverse levels. As mentioned above, adhering to the
Standards is the only method described within CEQA for reducing project impacts on historic resources to
less than significant levels. However, CEQA also mandates the adoption of feasible mitigation measures
which will reduce adverse impacts, even if the residual impacts after mitigation remain significant. Means
other than the application of the Standards would necessarily be required to achieve this level of mitigation.
In determining what type of additional mitigation measures would reduce impacts to the greatest extent
feasible, best professional practice dictates considering the level of eligibility of the property, as well as by
what means it derives its significance.
AHS IMPACT 5.4-2:
BUILD-OUT OF THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD IMPACT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES, OR A
UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE. [THRESHOLDS C2 AND C-3]
Impact Analysis:
Under CEQA guidelines, 15064.5 (a) (3) (A-D), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at
least one of four criteria related to its association with important events or individuals, its architectural
characteristics and/or its data potential.
Eight of the resources recorded within the project area, CA-SBR-6869H, CA-SBR-6870H, CA-SBR-7021 H,
CA-SBR-7702H, CA-SBR-8248H, CA-SBR-10795H, P1071-27, and P36-020267 had been previously evalu-
ated and were found to be not significant under the CEQA guidelines. A mano (a hand-held stone or roller for
grinding corn or other grains) was discovered during the SWCA field survey. Because it was determined to
be an isolated discovery and it was properly identified, no additional study will be required. Eleven of the
resources, listed in Table 5.4-3 below, retain the potential to yield information important in prehistory or
history ( 15064.5 (a) (3) (D).
Table 5.4-3
Potential "Historical Resource" Archaeological Sites
Site Description
CA-SBR-2268/H including the four loci Hotel CompleX/prehistoric village
. Gazebo
. Bathing Area
. Barbeque and Historic Trash
. Historic Trash/Foundation Remains
CA-SBR-6870H Concrete road bridge
CA-SBR-7019H Holding tanks, gutter
CA-SBR-7020H Retaining wall, steps, no foundation
CA-SBR-7022H Retaining walls, trash
CA-SBR-7049H Rim of the World highway
P1071-21 1890 Stone ditch tunnel
P36-017732 1850-1860 rock and concrete flume
Page 5.4-28 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
Based upon descriptions of prior investigations, it appears that the integrity of some sites may have already
been impacted by recent flooding, wild fires and development activities, such as the Metropolitan Water
District's Inland Feeder Project. Development activities pursuant to the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan,
such as grading and establishment of infrastructure, would result in substantial adverse change, as defined
by Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Although previously unrecorded sites were identified during the fieldwork conducted by SWCA, the investi-
gators noted the presence of other physical constraints such as natural or manmade obstacles that either
hindered or prevented unobscured views of portions ofthe Arrowhead Springs study area resulting in areas
that could not be adequately surveyed. The density of archaeological sites currently recorded in Arrowhead
Springs suggests a strong likelihood that additional sites may exist in the unsurveyed sections. As a portion
of Arrowhead Springs, however, would be dedicated for open space purposes, some of these potential sites
may be located in future open space and would not be subject to site disturbance activities. Nevertheless,
those portions of the Arrowhead Springs area that are proposed for development may contain additional
prehistoric sites which have not been recorded or identified and which may be impacted by site disturbance
activities. If any of these sites are determined to be unique archaeological sites or historical resources, the
project would have a significant effect on those resources.
None of the prior surveys, investigations, and studies conducted in the project area have resulted in the
discovery of paleontological resources. Although no fossil localities currently exist within the project
boundaries, published and unpublished reports of scientifically significant fossil vertebrates from Pleistocene
Older Alluvium do exist around Southern California. Numerous fossil localities in San Bernardino County and
the Inland Empire have been recorded for Pleistocene Older Alluvium that yielded fossils of extinct Ice-Age
mammals, including mammoths, mastodons, ground sloth, dire wolves, short-faced bears, saber-toothed
cats, large and small horses, large and small camels, and bison. Fossil plant remains have also been
recovered from these sediments.
~
Site grading and deeper excavations, especially disturbance activities associated with the new 115-room
hotel annex and conference center may result in the discovery of paleontological resources. This would be a
potentially significant effect. In order to ensure that the project will not have a significant effect as a result of
the inadvertent disturbance of paleontological resources, a mitigation measure has been identified below.
Should paleontologic resources be encountered, the mitigation measure requires an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of paleontological resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures.
Compliance with this measure will reduce this impact to less than significant.
AHS IMPACT 5.4-3:
GRADING ACTIVITIES COULD POTENTIALLY DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS IN
THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. [THRESHOLD C-4]
Impact Analysis: None of the prior surveys, investigations, and studies conducted in the project area has
resulted in the discovery of prehistoric or historic human remains. However, the site does contain the
remains of David Nobel Smith at a marked memorial and the area was also known to be used by Native
American tribes, increasing the likelihood that undiscovered human remains may exist. Site grading and
disturbance activities may result in the discovery of human remains, which would result is a significant
impact. Mitigation measures have been incorporated regarding the monitoring of grading activities and the
handling of human remains. Compliance with the mitigation measures will reduce the impact to human
remains to less than significant.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-29
5. Environmental Analysis
5.4.4 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
. City of San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 15 Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.37 Historic
Building Demolition Ordinance
. City of San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 19 Land Use and Subdivision, Chapter 19 Main Street
Overlay District
. By ordinance, the waiver of fees charged for permits issued for repairs, alterations or additions
related to the preservation or rehabilitation of a qualified historical property
. State Bulletin 18, Traditional Tribal Cultural Places, signed into law in late 2004, places new
requirements within CEQA for developments within or near Traditional Tribal Cultural Places. This Bill
requires establishment of a Native American Traditional Tribal Cultural Site Register (TTCS Register),
which would list all Native American sites deemed to be sacred to local tribes by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Under SB 18, a new process that would require the lead
agency on a project covered by CEQA to ask the NAHC whether the proposed project is within a 5-
mile radius of a TICS. The NAHC would have 45 days to inform the lead agency if the proposed
project is determined to be in proximity to a TTCS and another 75 days to determine whether the
project would have an adverse impact on the TICS. If the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties
agree upon the mitigation measures necessary for the proposed project, it would be included in the
project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If there is no agreement, either the NAHC may
determine lesser mitigations that would be acceptable for inclusion in the EIR or they may ask the
Attorney General to take appropriate legal action against the project proponents.
SB 18 also institutes a new process which would require a city or county to consult with the NAHC
and any appropriate Native American tribe for the purpose of preserving relevant TTCSs prior to the
adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a city's or county's general plan. In addition SB 18
gives a new definition of TICS requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American
traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies or the site must be shown to actually have been
used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies. Previously, the site
was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, I ifeways , and
ceremonial activities.
. H. R 5237, the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, enacted July 10, 1990, states
that any Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of
inalienable communal property that are found on Federal or tribal lands after the date of enactment
would be considered owned or controlled by (in this order) lineal descendants, the tribe on whose
land it was found, the tribe having the closest cultural affiliation with the item, or the tribe which
aboriginally occupied the area.
. The Cahuilla Inter-Tribal Repatriation Committee (CITRC) is a collaborative effort of Cahuilla tribes in
southern California for the purpose of repatriation of objects meeting the criteria of the federal Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. The CITRC provides information to
museums and institutions about the Committee's operations and procedures and assists other tribes
considering the formation of a repatriation project or collaborative committee.
Page 5.4-30 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
5.4.5 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
5.4.5.1 San Bernardino General Plan
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
GP Impact 5.4-1 :
Build-out of the San Bernardino General Plan could result in the loss of potentially
historic structures. (Threshold C 1)
GP Impact 5.4-2:
Build-out of the General Plan could impact sensitive archaeological resources or
paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature. (Thresholds C-2 and C-3)
GP Impact 5.4-3:
Grading activities could potentially disturb human remains.
5.4.5.2
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
AHS Impact 5.4-1
Build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would impact an identified historic
resource (Threshold C-1)
AHS Impact 5.4-2
Build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would impact archaeological,
paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature. (Thresholds C-2 and C3)
AHS Impact 5.4-3
Grading activities could potentially disturb human remains in the Arrowhead
Springs Specific Plan Area. (Threshold C-4)
~
5.4.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
5.4.7 Mitigation Measures
5.4.7.1 San Bernardino General Plan
GP 5.4-1 In areas of documented or inferred historic resource presence, City staff shall
require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of historical resources. On properties where historic structures
or resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan,
including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan,
based on the recommendations of a qualified historical preservation expert.
GP 5.4-2 In areas of documented or inferred archeological and/or paleontological resource
presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide
studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where
resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan,
including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan,
based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert.
GP 5.4-3 In the event ofthe accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Bernardino
County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are prehistoric and that no
investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-31
5. Environmental Analysis
remains to be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission with in 24 hours, and the Native American Heritage
Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely
descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may
make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the
excavation work, for means oftreating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98; or
Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized repre-
sentative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave
goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendation of
the most likely descendant or on the property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbances:
. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most like-
ly descendant or the likely descendant failed to make a recommendation
within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; or
. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommenda-
tion of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
5.4.7.2
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
AHS 5.4-1 A
Prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permit for the modification
or destruction of any historic structure, the project applicant shall submit to the
Director of Development Services written recommendations prepared by a qualified
architectural historian of the measures that shall be implemented to protect each
historic site eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHP. The list includes but is not
limited to the following as shown in Table 5.4-1 and illustrated in Figure 5.4-3.
Hotel/Steam Caves Bungalow 10
Pool, Cabanas, Tennis Courts Mud Baths
Bungalow 1 Smith Memorial
Bungalow 3 Indian Statue
Bungalow 4 Reservoir
Bungalow 5 Springs
Bungalow 6 Fountains
Bungalow 7 Terrace and Tennis Courts
Bungalow 8 Landscape Elements
Bungalow 9 Miscellaneous Features
Modification. Appropriate mitigation measures for "historical resources" could
include preservation of the site through avoidance or capping, incorporation of the
site in greenspace, parks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds, or
a rehabilitation plan in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995) prepared by a qualified
historic preservation professional that would be based to the greatest extent
Page 5.4-32 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
feasible on historical data. A particular focus of the rehabilitation plan should be the
hotel building, including landscaping, interiors, exteriors and furnishings.
Demolition. To the extent eligible sites are not preserved in place, prior to the
issuance of a demolition permit for the demolition of any Historic Structure eligible
for listing on the NRHP and CRHP, including Bungalows 3,7,8,9,10 and 11, the
historian shall conduct a data recovery program which includes:
Comprehensive Survey. A comprehensive inventory of historic features on the
property, including but not limited to buildings, structures, objects, water features,
wall, and landscape materials shall be conducted. To the greatest extent feasible,
the preservation and rehabilitation of historic features on the property shall be
incorporated into the development plan.
Interpretative Plan. The applicant shall be required to produce an historical inter-
pretation plan for the property. This plan shall include a permanent, on-site display
within a public area which will provide historic information about the founding and
history of Arrowhead Springs. Historic and/or contemporary photographs and other
artifacts and materials should be included within the display. Other indoor or
outdoor interpretive displays shall be produced, as appropriate. The precise
content, format, and location and design shall be determined by a qualified historic
preservation professional, and subject to the approval by the City of San
Bernardino.
Documentation. A Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) outline format
narrative description of the property, contemporary and historic photographs, and
other relevant documentation shall be prepared by a historic consultant approved
by the City. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the subject property, the
report shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Community Development
and the Director of Community Services, and an approved original shall be
deposited in the City of San Bernardino Branches of the San Bernardino County
Public Library (or other suitable repository as determined by the Directors of
Community Development and Community Services).
~
AHS 5.4-1 B
The EIR concludes that there are or may be significant historical structures/
resources not currently ascertainable within areas where ground disturbing activity
is proposed by the project. Therefore, prior to issuance of the first preliminary or
precise grading permit for development in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
area, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an
qualified historic preservation professional has been retained by the landowner or
subsequent project applicant, and has conducted a site survey of the development
area at such time as all ground surfaces are visible after current uses are removed.
If any sites are discovered, the historian shall conduct surveys and/or test level
investigations. Testing and evaluation may consist of surface collection and
mapping, limited subsurface excavations, and the appropriate analyses and
research necessary to characterize the artifacts and deposit from which they
originated. Upon completion of the test level investigations, for sites are determined
to be unique a "historical resource" as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5, the following measures shall be undertaken: the historian shall submit its
recommendations to the landowner or subsequent project applicant and the
Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to
protect the site. Appropriate measures could include preservation in place through
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-33
5. Environmental Analysis
planning construction to avoid the historical resource, incorporation into
greenspace, parks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds or
compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
Reconstructing Historic buildings (1995).
. Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the
"historical resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the
recommended field investigations, and makes provisions for adequately
recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the
"historical resource."
. Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with
an emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits
of the research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen
analyses, soil analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating
should be conducted as appropriate.
. Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative.
. Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and
submittal of the research design and final report to the South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate.
. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be
donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of
Community Development where they would be afforded long-term
preservation to allow future scientific study.
AHS 5.4-2A
Prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit, and for any
subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or
subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an archaeologist and/or
paleontologist have been retained by the landowner or subsequent project
applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be present during all grading and other
significant ground disturbing activities. These consultants shall be selected from the
roll of qualified archaeologist and paleontologists maintained by the County of San
Bernardino. Should any archeological/paleontological resources be discovered, the
monitor is authorized to stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and
shall make recommendations to the Director of Development Services on the
measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including
but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance
with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be
"historic resources" at that term is defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recom-
mended to the Director of Development Services. Appropriate mitigation measures
for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the
site in greenspace, parks or open space, or data recovery excavations ofthe finds.
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director
approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological or
archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a
qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development
where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Page 5.4-34 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
AHS 5.4-2B
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the following note shall be placed on
the cover sheet, and discussed at the pre-grade meeting:
a) The paleontologist retained for the project shall immediately evaluate the
fossils which have been discovered to determine if the are significant and,
if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of
mitigation.
b) The paleontologic monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt of
redirect excavation equipment of fossils are found to allow evaluation and
removal ofthem if necessary, the monitor should be equipped to speedily
collect specimens if the are encountered.
c) The monitor, with assistance if necessary, shall collect individual fossils
and/or samples of fossil bearing sediments. If specimens of small animal
species are encountered, the most time and cost efficient method of
recovery is to remove a selected volume of fossil bearing earth from the
grading area and screen wish it off-site.
d) Fossils recovered during the earthmoving or as a result of screen-washing
of sediment samples shall be cleaned and prepared sufficiently to allow
identification. This allows the fossils to be described in a report of findings
and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens prior to storage, thus
reducing storage costs.
~
e) A report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the public agency
responsible for overseeing developments and mitigation of environmental
impacts upon completion of mitigation. This report would minimally include
a statement of the type of paleontological resources found, the methods
and procedures used to recover them, an inventory of the specimens
recovered, and a statement of their scientific significance.
AHS 5.4-2C
The EIR concludes that there are or may be significant archaeological resources
within areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by the project. Therefore,
prior to the first preliminary or precise grading permit for development in the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area, each prehistoric and historic archeo-
logical site (listed below and described in Table 5.4-3) located within the project
grading footprint must be tested and evaluated, following clearing and scraping
activities.
. CA-SBR-2268/H, including the four loci
. CA-SBR-6870H
. CA-SBR-7019H
. CA-SBR-7020H
. CA-SBR-7022H
. CA-SBR-7049H
. P1071-21
. P36-017732
Testing and evaluation may consist of surface collection and mapping, limited
subsurface excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to
characterize the artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-35
5. Environmental Analysis
of the test level investigations, for sites are determined to be unique archaeological
sites or historical resources as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the
following measures shall be undertaken: the archaeologist shall submit its recom-
mendations to, the landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of
Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the
sites. Appropriate measures for unique archaeological resources or historical
resources could include preservation in place through planning construction to
avoid archaeological sites; incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other
open space; covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil
before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site or deeding
the site into a permanent conservation easement. When data recovery through
excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes
provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from
and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any
excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California
Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to
contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of
Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code.
. Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "histori-
cal resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended
field investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the
scientifically consequential information from and about the "historical
resource."
. Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with
an emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits
of the research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen
analyses, soil analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating
should be conducted as appropriate.
. Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative.
. Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and sub-
mittal of the research design and final report to the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate.
. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be
donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of
Community Development where they would be afforded long-term
preservation to allow future scientific study.
AHS 5A-3A
In the event ofthe accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Bernardino
County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are prehistoric and that no
investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the
remains to be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours, and the Native American Heritage
Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely
Page 5.4-36 . The Planning Center
July 2005
5. Environmental Analysis
descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may
make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the
excavation work, for means oftreating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98; or
Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized repre-
sentative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave
goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendation of
the most likely descendant or on the property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbances:
. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendant or the likely descendant failed to make a recommenda-
tion within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; or
. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommenda-
tion of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
AHS 5.4-3B
Upon receipt of an application for a project subject to CEQA and within the City's
jurisdiction, the City of San Bernardino's representative shall consult with the
relevant Tribe(s)' tribal representative(s), as determined by the Native American
Heritage Commission, to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally
sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain
that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, then a cultural resources
assessment prepared by a City-certified archaeologist shall be required. The
findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA
documentation. A copy ofthe report shall be forwarded to the Tribe(s). If mitigation
is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in MM 5.4-3C
shall be followed.
~
AHS 5.4-3C
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for which the CEQA document defines
cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal cultural resources, the project
applicant shall contact the designated Tribe (s), tribal representative to notify them
ofthe grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate
with the City of San Bernardino and the tribal representative(s) to negotiate an
Agreement that addresses the designation, responsibilities, and participation of
tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities;
scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any
cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The
City of San Bernardino shall be the final arbiter of the conditions included in the
Agreement.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR
City of San Bernardino . Page 5.4-37
5. Environmental Analysis
5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.4.8.1 San Bernardino General Plan
The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources
to a level that is less than significant. Therefore no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to
cultural resources have been identified,
5.4.8.2
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
Although the mitigation measures listed above would reduce cultural resource impacts for AHS Impact 5.4-2
and AHS Impact 5.4-3 to a level that is less than significant, the following impact would remain significant
and unavoidable:
AHS Impact 5.4-1 :
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines demolition of a significant historic resource is
determined to be an unavoidable adverse impact.
Page 5.4-38 . The Planning Center
July 2005