DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase I Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase I Report City of Murrieta Jefferson Avenue Apartment Project INITIAL STUDY APPENDIX 3 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT JEFFERSON AVENUE APARTMENT PROJECT Assessor’s Parcel Number 949-220-048 City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California For Submittal to: Planning Department City of Murrieta 1 Town Square Murrieta, CA 92562 Prepared for: Tom Dodson and Associates 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92405 Prepared by: CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator May 22, 2020 CRM TECH Contract No. 3535 Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Jefferson Avenue Apartments Project, Assessor’s Parcel No. 949-220-048, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator Deirdre Encarnación, Archaeologist/Report Writer Terri Jacquemain, Historian/Architectural Historian Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director Consulting Firm: CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 (909) 824-6400 Date: May 22, 2020 For Submittal to: Planning Department City of Murrieta 1 Town Square Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 461-6061 Prepared for: Tom Dodson Tom Dodson and Associates 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92405 (909) 882-3612 Project Size: Approximately 9.18 acres USGS Quadrangle: Murrieta, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (a portion of the Rancho Temecula land grant in T7S R3W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian) Keywords: Temecula Valley, southwestern Riverside County; Phase I cultural resources survey; Site 33-005785(CA-RIV-5517H): barbed-wire fence line; Site 33-005787 (CA-RIV-5519H): concrete and stone “cooler” building; no “historical resources” under CEQA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Between August 2019 and May 2020, at the request of Tom Dodson and Associates, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 9.18 acres of mostly vacant land in the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study, Assessor’s Parcel No. 949-220-048, is located on the northeastern side of Jefferson Avenue between Los Alamos Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, in a portion of the Rancho Temecula land grant lying within T7S R3W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed Jefferson Avenue Apartments Project, which entails the construction of a 160-unit apartment complex with seven two- to three-story residential buildings, a leasing office, a club house, a gym, 21 garages, 180 outdoor parking spaces, recreational facilities, and associated infrastructure improvements. The City of Murrieta, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City of Murrieta with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, consulted with Native American and local community representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. The results of the records search indicate that two historic-period sites, 33-005785 (CA-RIV- 5517H) and 33-005787 (CA-RIV-5519H), were previously recorded in the project area, and the field survey confirmed their continued presence. Site 33-005785 consists of a barbed-wire fence line of unknown age, while Site 33-005787 represents a concrete-and-stone “cooler” building constructed by a family of early settlers and local ranchers, the Rails, in 1936. Neither of these sites, however, appears to meet any of the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. As such, neither of them qualifies as a “historical resource” for CEQA-compliance purposes, although the 84-year-old cooler building at Site 33-005787 retains some local historical interest to the community. No other potential “historical resources” were identified within the project area. Based on the research results summarized above, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Murrieta a finding of No Impact regarding “historical resources.” No further cultural resources investigation will be necessary under CEQA provisions unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, in the interest of preserving the community’s historical heritage whenever possible, further consultation with the Murrieta Valley Historical Society is recommended to explore the possibility for the society to salvage the cooler building at 33-005787. If buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. i TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 6 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 7 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Consultation with Local Community Representatives ..................................................................... 8 Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 9 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 9 Previous Cultural Resources Studies in the Vicinity ........................................................................ 9 Historical Background of the Project Area ..................................................................................... 11 Potential “Historical Resources identified ...................................................................................... 12 Site 33-005785 ............................................................................................................................ 13 Site 33-005787 ............................................................................................................................ 13 Local Community Input .................................................................................................................. 15 Native American Input .................................................................................................................... 15 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Definition of “Historical Resources” .............................................................................................. 16 Significance Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 16 Site 33-005785 ............................................................................................................................ 16 Site 33-005787 ............................................................................................................................ 17 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 17 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 21 APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ........................................... 26 APPENDIX 3: CHRIS Record Forms ................................................................................................ 37 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project vicinity.....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Palm Springs
    2020 PROVIDER AND PHARMACY DIRECTORY Riverside County Golden State Medicare Health Plan HMO Plan Provider Directory This directory is current as of 1/16/2020. This directory provides a list of Golden State Medicare Health Plan’s current network providers. This directory is for Riverside County. To access Golden State Medicare Health Plan’s online provider directory, you can visit www.GSMHP.com. For any questions about the information contained in this directory, please call our Member Service Department at 877-541-4111, 8am to 8pm Monday through Friday TTY/TDD users should call 711. Golden State Medicare Health Plan is an HMO with a Medicare contract. Enrollment in Golden State Medicare Health Plan depends on contract renewal. The Provider and Pharmacy Network may change at any time. You will receive notice when necessary. This document may be available in an alternate format such as Braille, large print, or audio. We strongly suggest that you review our current Provider/Pharmacy Directory to see if your pharmacy is still in our network. 1 2020 PROVIDER AND PHARMACY DIRECTORY - Riverside County Table of Contents 131 – Introduction...................................................................................................................5 What is the service area for Golden State Medicare Health Plan?.......................................................... 7 How do you find Golden State Medicare Health Plan providers in your area?.................................. 8 131 – List of Network Providers..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Empire Fact Sheet SIMPLIFYING FEDERAL STUDENT AID: Grants, Loans, & Repayment Plans
    Inland Empire Fact Sheet SIMPLIFYING FEDERAL STUDENT AID: Grants, Loans, & Repayment Plans November 2016 Join the conversation at #KeepCollegeAff ordable INTRODUCTION The need for a college education has never been greater. Degrees at all levels, from vocational certificates to Master’s degrees, allow individuals to enjoy greater economic and social success. In fact, individuals with a bachelor’s degree will earn over $1.3 million more over their lifetimes than someone with only a high school diploma. For first-generation, low income and minority students, access to college opportunity yields a pathway to increased economic stability and prosperity for future generations. The jobs of the future require college credentials. By 2020, 65% of all jobs across the United States will require some type of college credential. The same holds true for the State of California: 68% of all jobs by 2020 will require future workers to have college credentials. Educational credentials needed For jobs of the future 12% 11% Master's Degree or Higher 24% 23% Bachelor's Degree Some College, Associate's, 32% 33% or Vocational Credential High School Diploma or Less 33% 34% College Credential Required California U.S. Unless immediate action is taken, and current trends persist, California will be short 2.4 million college educated workers to meet workforce demands. To succeed in this new economy, California must ensure that more of its residents are on track to enter college and graduate with a degree or credential. Keeping college affordable is key to meeting California’s economic demands and ensuring opportunity to a better future for the state’s residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Economic Profile Temecula
    COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PROFILE for TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared in conjunction with the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Incorporated December 1, 1989, Temecula is located 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 487 miles south Location of San Francisco and 55 miles north of San Diego. 1980 1990 2000 2010 Economic Growth Population-County 633,166 1,170,413 1,545,387 2,189,6411 Taxable Sales-County $3,274,017 $9,522,631 $16,979,449 $22,227,8772 and Trends Population-City 8,324 27,09957,716 100,0971 Taxable Sales-City N/A $119,900 $1,411,051 $2,055,8472 Housing Units-City N/A 9,130 18,293 31,7811 Median Household Income-City N/A $44,270 $59,516 $77,8503 School Enrollment K-12 N/A 7,595 17,449 30,1834 1. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Housing count refl ects occupied dwellings. 2. California State Board of Equalization, calendar year 2009. Add 000. 3. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey. 4. California Department of Education, 2010. Enrollment count is for 2009-10. AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RAIN HUMIDITY Climate Period Min. Mean Max. Inches 4 a.m. Noon 4 p.m. January 46.0 61.0 69.9 1.35 55 40 55 April 51.7 62.0 72.2 0.75 60 30 50 July 62.5 73.4 84.2 0.05 45 40 35 October 52.4 64.3 76.2 0.46 50 30 40 Year 57.2 64.7 73.4 10.44 52 40 45 Transportation RAIL: None.
    [Show full text]
  • Usibwc Selects 12 Citizens Forum Board Members to Serve 2-Year Term; Public Meeting Set for July 25 in Yuma
    International Boundary and Water Commission United States Section For immediate release July 11, 2018 USIBWC SELECTS 12 CITIZENS FORUM BOARD MEMBERS TO SERVE 2-YEAR TERM; PUBLIC MEETING SET FOR JULY 25 IN YUMA The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) has appointed 12 board members to serve on the Colorado River Citizens Forum (CRCF) Board. The first public meeting with the new board will take place Wednesday, July 25, 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at the Yuma County Development Services, 2351 West 26th Street, Yuma, Arizona. The Colorado River Citizens Forum was established to facilitate the exchange of information between the USIBWC and the community about Commission projects and related activities in Yuma County, Arizona and Imperial County, California. The new board members are: Jim Buster: Southwest Resource Strategies Tom Davis: Yuma County Water Users Assoc. Matt Dessert: Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Bruce Kuhn: Imperial Irrigation District P. Brian McNeece: Imperial County Historical Society Juan Leal Rubio: Yuma County Phil Rosentrater: Salton Sea Authority Frank Ruiz: Audubon Society Meghan Scott: Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition Jay Simonton: City of Yuma, Director of Utilities Roberta (Bobbi) Stevenson-McDermott: Yuma Natural Resource Conservation District Mark William White (Willie White): Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe The board will also include Anna Morales, Area Operations Manager for the USIBWC’s Yuma Field Office. Board members will serve as volunteers for a two-year term. USIBWC Public Affairs Officer Lori Kuczmanski will provide an overview of the history of the International Boundary and Water Commission, from its early days surveying and marking the U.S.- Mexico border, to its growing role in water management, based on the Convention of 1906 and the 1944 Water Treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Southern Emigrant Trail
    THE SOUTHERN EMIGRANT TRAIL BY PHIL BRIGANDI Southernthe Emigrant Trail FALL 2010 1 PHIL BRIGANDI he Southern Emigrant Trail has a long and interesting history. In its heyday, it was the major overland route in and out of Southern T California, and it played a part in every era of California history for more than a century. Its most famous era was the Next came the squeeze through Box Canyon, and the period from the start of the Mexican War, through easy pull across Blair Valley—now a popular camping the California Gold Rush, and on to the days of the spot in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Butterfield stage. But unlike many other early over- The long grade up the San Felipe Valley to War- land trails, the Southern Emigrant Trail survived ners Pass (today’s Teofulio Summit) finally brought the coming of the railroad, and was still being used travelers out of the desert. At Warners Ranch, the to cross the California desert well into the twentieth main trail divided, with one branch heading off to century. San Diego, and the other continuing on through The trail has been known by a variety of differ- Temecula and Isaac Williams’ Rancho del Chino on ent names over the years. In Mexican times it was its way to Los Angeles. the Sonora Road. Later it was the Gila Trail, the First to follow the trail were the Indians, who Fort Yuma Road, or simply the Southern Route. It probably followed animal trails to find the water- first came to be known as the Emigrant Road, or ing places along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • A HISTORY of YUMA, ARIZONA , 1540-1920 by Frank D
    A history of Yuma, Arizona, 1540-1920 Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Robertson, Frank Delbert, 1900- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 03:02:13 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551109 A HISTORY OF YUMA, ARIZONA , 1540-1920 by Frank D. Robertson A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate College University of Arizona 1 9 4 2 4 ^ 2/ 3 / TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page INTRODUCTION........................... i I. THE COMING OF THE WHITE MAN AND THE YUMA INDIANS........................ 1 Early Explorers and Missionaries-- Alarcon-- Di'az— Onate— Kino— G-arces- -Missions Established— The Yuma Massacre— Missions Destroyed--The Yuma Indian Tribes--Cocopas— Yumas— Mohaves— Indian Legends— Social and Economic Conditions— Tribal War II. TRAPPERS AND FORTY-NINERS.............. 26 Fur Trappers--Pattie and Son— Saint Vrain— Pauline Weaver— Trails to the Southwest--The Old Yuma Trail— First Colorado River Ferry— Glanton Murder — California Militia at the Junction — Fort Yuma— The Oatman Massacre-- Return of Olive Oatman III. YUMA IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD 1854-1875.• 48 The Poston Survey— Description in 1859— Three Settlements at the Junction--Yuma Town Site Registered in San Diego County Records— California Officials Collect Taxes in Yuma— Cattle Drives through Yuma — Stage and Mail through Yuma— Lynching in Arizona City— Flood of 1862— Coming of Contreras Family— Several Business Houses Established — A Catholic Church Built— Freighting Out of Yuma— Elementary School— Miss Post— First Legal Execution--The Territorial Penitentiary— The Settled Community 14 < 4 u u Chapter Page IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 OVERVIEW The Murrieta General Plan is a document required by California law that provides a foundation for City policies and actions. It guides both the physical development of Murrieta and the provision of public infrastructure and services. This General Plan places particular emphasis on economic development and keeps Murrieta in front of current policy topics, including sustainability and health. It is rooted in ten community priorities that were developed through an extensive community involvement process. 1.2 ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN TOPICS California law requires each city and county to have an adopted General Plan. State law specifies that each jurisdiction’s General Plan address seven “elements,” or topics: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. Cities are also allowed to include additional elements on matters of particular importance within that community. The Murrieta General Plan includes the following chapters: Introduction: Purpose and contents of the General Plan, its relationship to California law, background on Murrieta, the planning process that was followed for the General Plan Update, and the community priorities that shaped the General Plan goals and policies. Vision: Context for the General Plan, including major policy initiatives behind the General Plan Update. Land Use Element: Growth, development, redevelopment, conservation, and preservation. Parameters and desired locations for land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, civic/institutional, parks, and open space are mapped and described. Economic Development Element: Strength and diversity of the economy, jobs, retail, and revenue for public services. 1-1 Circulation Element: Transportation systems within the City that provide for automobile, truck, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Citizens Forum Yuma County Development Services, Aldrich Hall Yuma, AZ 85364 January 22, 2020 *Tentative Meeting Notes
    Colorado River Citizens Forum Yuma County Development Services, Aldrich Hall Yuma, AZ 85364 January 22, 2020 *Tentative Meeting Notes Board Members in attendance: Meghan Scott, Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition Matt Dessert, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Tom Davis, Yuma County Water Users Association Jim Buster, Southwest Resource Strategies Phil Rosentrater, Salton Sea Authority Brian McNeece, retired Professor Frank Ruiz, Audubon Society Mark William White, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe Roberta (Bobbi) Stevenson-McDermott, Yuma Natural Resource Conservation District Member, Arizona Association of Conservation Districts Board Member USIBWC Staff in attendance: Anna Morales, Area Operations Manager, USIBWC, Yuma, Arizona 28 Members of the public in attendance Welcoming and Introduction Remarks: At 4:00 p.m. Citizens Forum Co-Chair Anna Morales convened the meeting by welcoming the group and provided a brief description of the meeting agenda items. Board members and audience briefly introduced themselves. Presentation One: The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program-Reducing Downstream Damages by Millions of Dollars; Don A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Mr. Barnett provided an overview of the Colorado river Basin Salinity Control Program. The Colorado River is more than 1,450 miles long (2330 km), drains 246,000 square-miles (1/12 of the continental US), has an annual flow of about 16 M acre-feet, had an annual salt load of 9-10 million tons. The Colorado River supplies water to 40 million people in the United States and 1.5 million acre-feet is delivered to Mexico annually. Nearly 5.5 million acres in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Palomar
    A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF PALOMAR CROSSINGS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-090 +64.63 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF MENIFEE RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USGS ROMOLAND, CALIFORNIA QUADRANGLE, 7.5’ SERIES By Jean A. Keller, Ph.D. Cultural Resources Consultant 1042 N. El Camino Real, Suite B-244 Encinitas, California 92024 Prepared For: March 2018 Optimus Building Corporation 12040 East Florence Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Palomar Crossings CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Topography and Geology 7 Biology 11 Climate 11 Discussion 11 CULTURAL SETTING Prehistory 13 Ethnography 14 History 19 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Research 27 Fieldwork 27 RESULTS Research 29 Fieldwork 36 RECOMMENDATIONS 37 CONSULTANT CERTIFICATION 38 REFERENCES 39 APPENDIX Records Search Results Sacred Lands File Search Results Tribal Responses to Project Scoping Letters i Palomar Crossings LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Proposed Palomar Crossings, Specific Plan Amendment 2010-090. 5 2. Location of Palomar Crossings, Specific Plan Amendment 2010-090 6 in the City of Menifee, western Riverside County. 3. Location of the study area relative to western Riverside County. 8 4. Aerial views of the subject property. 9 5. Views of the subject property. 10 6. Ethnographic location of the study area. 15 7. Location of the subject property in Romola Farms. 26 8. Location of the structure within the boundaries of Palomar Crossings, circa 1897. 34 9. Approximate location of the historic-period structure within the boundaries of 34 Palomar Crossings. 10. Structures within the boundaries of the subject property in 1939 and 1951, 35 missing in 1976.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Anza Reservoir No. 2 (Project No
    Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Anza Reservoir No. 2 (Project No. D1574) Prepared for: Krieger and Stewart, Inc. Consulting Engineers 3602 University Avenue Riverside, California 92501 For Submittal to: Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, California 92590 Prepared by: K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc. Environmental Engineering 43575 Vista Del Mar Temecula, California 92590-4314 (951) 699-2082 FAX: (951) 699-2087 Email: [email protected] January 2012 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Anza Reservoir No. 2 (Project No. D1547) Rancho California Water District Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ES-1 Project Description ES-1 Project Summary ES-1 Project Schedule ES-1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ES-3 Areas of Controversy ES-7 Issues to be Resolved ES-7 Document Availability and Contact Personnel ES-7 1 Introduction 1-1 Introduction 1-1 Project Summary 1-1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance 1-3 Purposes of an Initial Study 1-3 Contents of an Initial Study 1-4 Intended Uses of the Initial Study 1-4 Lead Agency Decision-Making Process 1-5 Approvals for which this Initial Study will be Used 1-5 2 Project Description 2-1 Project Description 2-1 Soils Storage/Disposal Site 2-1 Construction Equipment 2-1 Project Schedule 2-5 3 Environmental Setting 3-1 Introduction 3-1 Aesthetics 3-1 Agricultural and Forest Resources 3-1 Air Quality 3-1 Climate 3-1 Regional Air Quality 3-3 Air Pollutants 3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-8 Ambient Air Quality Data 3-9 Emissions Inventory 3-11 Regulatory Setting 3-11 Biological Resources 3-15 Introduction 3-15 Environmental Setting 3-16 Regulatory Setting 3-20 Cultural Resources 3-25 Prehistory 3-25 Ethnography 3-26 K.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ROMOLAND USGS 7.5-Min
    PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE MENIFEE TRACT 37400 PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA (ROMOLAND U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute quadrangle, Township 5 South / Range 3 West Section 16 SBBM) Assssor’s Parcel Numbers 331-080-005-7, 331-080-009-12, 331-080-018-21, 331-080-024, 331-080-025, 331-080-027, and 331-080-028 Prepared on Behalf of: The Garrett Group, LLC, Miriam Rodriguez Two Betterworld Circle, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590 951-801-1857 Prepared for: The City of Menifee Planning Department 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Prepared by: Sue A. Wade Heritage Resources P.O. Box 8 Ramona, CA 92065 760-445-3502 September 12, 2018 (Field Survey 12/27/2017) Heritage Resources Project Number 17010 Keywords: 46.9 Acres, Negative Results MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the methods and results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Menifee Tract 37400 property. The project property consists of 46.9 acres located in Perris Valley, southeast of the community of Romoland and north of the community of Sun City, in the City of Menifee. The project is a Tentative Tract Map (No. 37400) proposal to the City of Menifee for residential development. The proposal is by The Garrett Group, Two Better World Circle, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590. Proposed site improvements will include 174 single-family residential buildings, a 1.23-acre centrally located park, a water quality basin, and associated surface improvements. Development of the project will most likely include minimal cuts and fills of up to a few feet based on existing topography of the site (GeoTek 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines
    Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines Prepared for: The City of Carlsbad, California Prepared by: ECORP Consulting, Inc. with contributions from Cogstone Resource Management September 2017 Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Guidelines CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose and Need for Guidelines................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Organization ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Definitions of Resources .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Types ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Cultural Association .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Time Period .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Regulatory Context ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Local
    [Show full text]