DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix F Cultural Resources Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix F Cultural Resources Report Appendix F Cultural Resources Technical Report SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN STUDIO CITY CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 3599 NORTH LANKERSHIM BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90068 November 25, 2014 Prepared for Prepared by Los Angeles City Planning Department Sapphos Environmental, Inc. EIR Unit, Mail Stop 395 430 North Halstead Street 200 North Spring Street, Suite 750 Pasadena, California 91107 Los Angeles, California 90012 Jayesh Kumar 2010 North Highland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90068 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Project .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Cultural Resources Technical Report ............................................ 1-1 1.3 Intended Audience .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Confidentiality of Archaeological Site Information ............................................... 1-2 1.5 Scope of the Report ............................................................................................. 1-2 1.6 Sources of Relevant Information .......................................................................... 1-2 1.7 Working Definitions ............................................................................................ 1-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Project Description .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Impact Area ......................................................................................................... 2-2 3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 .............................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 ............ 3-2 3.2 State .................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ....................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources ............................................... 3-3 3.2.3 California Historical Landmarks ............................................................... 3-4 3.2.4 California Points of Historical Interest ...................................................... 3-5 3.2.5 Other State Statutes and Regulations ........................................................ 3-5 3.3 Local ................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.1 Southern California Association of Governments Growth Management Policy No 3.21 ........................................................................................ 3-6 3.3.2 Conservation Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan ..................... 3-6 3.3.3 Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission ....... 3-6 3.3.4 Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan ................................................ 3-7 4.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Resource Inventory Methods .................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Paleontological Resource Assessment Criteria .......................................... 4-1 4.1.3 Categories of Sensitivity ........................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Prehistoric and Historic Resources ....................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1 Record Search and Literature Review ....................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Cultural Resources Site Visit .................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Native American Sacred Sites and Human Remains ............................................. 4-3 4.3.1 Record Search and Literature Review ....................................................... 4-3 Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\2. Table Of Contents.Doc Page i 5.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Paleontological Resources and Geological Resources .......................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Paleontological Resources Characterization ............................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................... 5-2 5.2 Archaeological and Historic Resources ................................................................ 5-3 5.2.1 Prehistoric, Ethnographic, and Historic Contexts ...................................... 5-3 5.2.2 Cultural Resources Characterization ....................................................... 5-12 5.2.3 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 5-16 5.2.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................. 5-16 5.3 Native American Sacred Sites and Human Remains ........................................... 5-17 5.3.1 Resource Characterization ..................................................................... 5-17 5.3.2 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 5-17 5.3.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................. 5-17 5.4 Summary of Results and Recommendations ....................................................... 5-18 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 6-1 TABLES PAGE 5.2.1.1-1 Southern California Coastal Regional Chronology ................................................ 5-4 5.2.2.1-1 Previous Surveys within the Cultural Resources Study Area ............................... 5-13 5.2.2.2-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Located within the Cultural Resources Study Area ........................................................................................ 5-16 FIGURES FOLLOWS PAGE 2.1-1 Topographic Map with USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle Index ................................ 2-1 2.1-2 Local Vicinity Map .............................................................................................. 2-1 4.2.1-1 Records Search Area ............................................................................................ 4-3 5.2.2.1-1 Previously Conducted Investigations within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius .......................................................................................... 5-12 5.2.2.2-1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Area and 1/2-Mile Radius .......................................................................................... 5-15 Single-Family Residence in Studio City Cultural Resources Technical Report November 25, 2014 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1259\1259-011\Documents\Updated CRTR\2. Table Of Contents.Doc Page ii SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) was prepared to determine if the proposed building of a single family house at 3599 Lankershim Boulevard (proposed project) may have a significant impact to cultural resources, thus requiring the consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives in accordance with Section 15064 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.1 The characterization and analysis contained in this report is intended to avoid and minimize potential impacts to cultural resources and relies on information developed from literature reviews; consideration of applicable federal, state, and local statues and guidelines; database searches; and a cultural resources site visit. 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The goal of the project would be to build a residence to accommodate future generations. The location of the residence would be in close proximity (within 5 miles) to the occupants’ work places (City of Los Angeles). The project would provide outdoor living areas, ventilation, exposure to sunlight, desirable city views, appropriate distances from adjacent properties, and a covered, stacked stall, four-car garage. The proposed project would offer a family comfortable living quarters and outdoor living areas within a reasonable distance from the occupants’ work places. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT This CRTR was prepared to characterize the cultural resources that would potentially affect the development of the proposed project. Pursuant to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix G1:Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
    Appendix G1 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Prepared for November 2011 Santa Margarita Water District 26111 Antonio Parkway Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Draft CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Prepared for November 2011 Santa Margarita Water District 26111 Antonio Parkway Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Prepared By: ESA 626 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Project site location: Cadiz, Cadiz Summit, Cadiz Lake NW, Cadiz Lake NE, Calumet Mine, Chubbuck, Milligan, East of Milligan, Danby Lake, Sablon, and Arica Mountains (CA) USGS 7.5’ Topographic Maps T1S R19E, 20E; T1N R18E, 19E; T2N R17E, 18E; 3N R16E, 17E; 4N R15E, 16E; 5N R14E, 15E Principal Investigator: Monica Strauss, M.A. Report Authors: Madeleine Bray, M.A, Candace Ehringer, M.A., Brian S. Marks, Ph.D. Keywords: San Bernardino County, Cadiz, Milligan, Archer, Freda, Chubbuck, Ward, Siam, Saltmarsh, Sablon, Fishel, Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, Parker Cutoff, General George Patton Desert Training Center, Railroad Siding, Archaeological Survey 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Oakland Olympia Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 210324 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery,
    [Show full text]
  • January 2021
    Council Management Support Boy Scouts of America Unit Contacts for Katahdin Area Council #216 - Bangor, ME (Area 1) Through Month of January, 2021 Dist. Unit Commissioners Unit Contacts Recorded in Commissioner Tools *Units Percent Contacted Contacted No. District Name Units Comm Ratio Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 01 Hancock 10 2 5.0 2 2 0.0% 04 Washington 5 999.0 0.0% 05 North Star 17 1 17.0 0.0% 06 Penobscot Valley 28 4 7.0 0.0% 07 Penquis 12 2 6.0 0.0% 09 Waldo 18 999.0 0.0% 216 Council Totals** 90 9 10.0 2 2 0.0% * The Units Contacted column reflects the number of units that have had sufficient contacts recorded year-to-date. In order to show progress, a unit is counted if it has been contacted at least once by January/February, two times by March/April, three times by May/June, four times by July/August, five times by September/October and six times by November/December. For example, a unit that was not contacted until March will not be counted in January or February, but will count in March, if it receives two contacts that month. At the end of the year a unit needs at least six total contacts to be counted. Contacts are counted by the date they are entered into Commissioner Tools, not by the actual date of the contact or visit. Posts are included in 2017 and beyond; however, Exploring only districts may not be included.
    [Show full text]
  • County- Fiscal Year 2018-19 Local Streets and Roads Proposed
    County- Fiscal Year 2018-19 Local Streets and Roads Proposed Project List *The Proposed Project List will be finalized upon the Commission's adoption of the cities and counties eligible for funding August 3, 2018 Est. Project Est. Project Est Useful Est Useful Assembly Senate County Project Type Title Description Location Start Completion Life Min Life Max Districts Districts Colby Street from Hesperian Boulevard to Wagner Street Cornell Street from Dermody Avenue to Wagner Street Doane Street from Dermody Avenue to Vassar Avenue Drew Street from Dermody Avenue to Vassar Avenue Empire Street from Dermody Avenue to Yale Avenue Mills Avenue from Empire Street to Wagner Street Penn Avenue from Empire Street to Wagner Street Pomona Street from Dermody Avenue to Vassar Avenue Rutgers Street from Dermody Avenue to Vassar Avenue Road Maintenance & Alameda County 2019 Slurry Seal Project Construct slurry seal on various roadways Tulsa Street from Dermody Avenue to Mills Avenue 03/2019 12/2019 4 6 20 9, 10 Rehabilitation Vassar Avenue from Empire Street to Cornell Street Wagner Street from Colby Street to Yale Avenue Yale Avenue from Empire Street to Wagner Street Darius Way from Altamont Road to San Leandro City Limit Howe Drive from Darius Way to end Joan Drive from Saturn Drive to Darius Way Luna Avenue from Saturn Drive to Placer Drive Midland Road from Sol Street to Altamont Road Van Avenue from 150th Avenue to Upland Road Via Cordoba from Via Diego to end Via Granada from Lewelling Boulevard to Via Linares Road Maintenance & Alameda County
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Incentives for Historic Preservation in California 2017
    15 ation v Series Series ecreation R Incentives arks & arks P of Historic Preser for Department of Department California Office Office California Technical Assistance Technical Historic Preservation 1725 23rd St, Suite 100 Sacramento CA 95816 PO Box 942896 Sacramento CA 94296-0001 Phone: (916) 445-7000 fax: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] Revised March 2017 www.ohp.parks.ca.gov INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERIES #15 This publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap in its federally-assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, National· Park Service, Box 37127, Washington DC 20013-7127. © 2013 by the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation Sacramento, California All rights reserved 13 September 2013 Preface The programs listed in this document will assist anyone interested in the field of historic preservation to locate funding and incentives available to qualified historic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • When the System Works–The Campo De Cahuenga
    When the System Works–the Campo de Cahuenga Roberta S. Greenwood Abstract Angeles River (Fig. 1). The foundations of an adobe at that location were briefly uncovered by historian J. The adobe in North Hollywood where Andrés Pico and John Frémont signed the document ending the Mexican American War Marshall Miller and a group of high school students hostilities in California had fallen into ruins by 1877. In 1931, ama- in 1931. No notes or artifacts were found, but Miller teurs discovered stone foundations that corresponded to the location on hand-drawn, mid-nineteenth century maps, but left no records labeled the place Campo de Cahuenga, recorded his of their work. As new construction for Los Angeles MetroRail ap- observations, and described the hypothetical foot- proached the location, monitors observed suggestive rocks and floor tiles, and a sequence of expanding excavations revealed the full print and appearance (Miller 1932). He claimed that extent of the very large structure. Historical research disproved most the structure was built by Don Tomás Feliz in 1845, of the local lore about the owner, builder, and age of the adobe, concluding that it was older than had been suggested and associated and this date and ownership have been repeated and with Mission San Fernando. The efforts culminated in total preser- accepted uncritically for 70 years until the recent vation and dedication of an historical park on the National Register of Historic Places. research. Historical Setting The adobe, however, was described in an 1842 land claim document as a mission building already “dilapi- On January 13, 1847, General Andrés Pico and Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • II. Project Description (Metro)
    II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION The purpose of this Section is to identify the primary objectives and project characteristics of the Metro Universal Project (the “Project”). As discussed on the following pages, the Project would involve the construction and operation of new development on sites currently occupied by park & ride and transit bus facilities operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) above the Universal City Metro Red Line station. The Project is proposed to be developed on an approximately 14.34-acre site, which is located in the City of Los Angeles approximately 2 miles north of Hollywood and 10 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles (the “Project Site”). Organization of the Section A. PROJECT LOCATION B. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS a. Project Site i. Sites A & B ii. Site C iii. Site D iv. Site E b. Description of Surrounding Area i. Campo de Cahuenga Historic Site ii. Surrounding Land Uses iii. Surrounding Neighborhoods 2. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS a. Phase 1 i. Sites A and B (1) Proposed Development Metro Universal Project II. Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-1 City of Los Angeles August 2008 (2) Parking and Transit Facilities (a) Metro Bus Transit Plaza (b) Site B Parking Garage (c) Parking to Serve the Project (d) Loading Dock (3) Access and Circulation (4) Site Plan and Design Elements (a) Pedestrian and Retail Facilities (b) Outdoor Dining Patio (c) Potential Land Exchange (d) Communication Facilities (e) Utility Improvements ii. Site C iii. Site D iv. Site E b. Phase 2 i. Sites A and B ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Index
    Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Volume 40, Numbers 3 & 4 Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Index Volumes 1 - 40 (1965 - 2008) Compiled by Daniel F. McCarthy Guest Editor Daniel F. McCarthy Production Editor Rene Brace Publications Committee Bob Brace, Gail Cochlin, Scott Findlay, Megan Galway, Sherri Gust, Sandy Kennedy, Henry Koerper, Mark Roeder, and Kathleen Shada Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly is a publication of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS). PCAS was founded in 1961 by a group of avocational archaeologists dedicated to the study and preser- vation of the anthropological and archaeological history of the original inhabitants of Orange County, California, and adjacent areas. The PCAS Publications Committee invites the submittal of original contributions dealing with the history and prehistory of the area. Although PCAS is especially interested in reports which shed further light on the early inhabitants of Orange County, it is always interested in reports on the wider Pacific Coast region. Information about subscriptions to the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly and the PCAS Newslet- ter is available online at www.pcas.org. Back issues of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly are available. Three Occasional Papers, on Catalina Island, Mexican Majolica, and the Peralta Adobe, have also been published by PCAS. To place an order, receive information about the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, or submit an article for publication, email [email protected] or write: Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, P.O. Box 10926, Costa Mesa, California, 92627. Additional information is available at www.pcas.org. PCAS is not responsible for delivery of publications to subscribers who have not furnished a timely change of address.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Cultural Resources
    Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES As a result of the analysis undertaken in the Initial Study for the Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan (The Master Plan), the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) determined that the proposed project may result in environmental impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, this issue is being carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR. This analysis was undertaken to identify opportunities to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate potential significant impacts to cultural resources and to identify potential alternatives. The analysis of cultural resources consists of a summary of the regulatory framework that guides the decision-making process, a description of the existing conditions at the proposed project area, thresholds for determining if the proposed project would result in significant impacts, anticipated impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative), mitigation measures, and levels of significance after mitigation. The cultural resources at the pro- posed project site were evaluated with regard to a query of the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University Fullerton, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), the Native American Heritage Commis- sion (NAHC), the San Fernando Valley Historical Society Website, and the County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor’s Online Parcel Viewer (Assessor). Published and unpublished literature was reviewed. 3.4.1 Setting 3.4.1.1 Regulatory Setting Federal and state laws and regulations governing historic, archaeological, Native American, and paleontological resources must be followed by the proposed project. Correspondingly, summaries of these laws and regulations are provided hereafter.
    [Show full text]
  • Noho Guidebook
    NoHo THE TRANSIT & WALKING DISTRICTS OF HISTORIC LOS ANGELES FROM LOS ANGELES MAYOR ERIC GARCETTI Dear Friends, On behalf of the City of Los Angeles, it is my pleasure to welcome everyone to Angels Walk NoHo. Thousands of Angelenos and visitors alike have taken Angels Walks in Downtown, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, the Wilshire Corridor, and Hollywood and enhanced their knowledge and appreciation of the diverse architecture, culture, and heritage of Los Angeles. It is now North Hollywood’s turn to be celebrated. There is no better way to come to know and love our great City than by walking its streets and experiencing its neighborhoods firsthand. The Angels Walk program helps to accomplish this for both visitors and locals alike in a safe, fun, and informative way. It will also connect you to convenient public transportation along the way. Angels Walk NoHo will take you through the one-square- mile community where you will see an array of eclectic arts and entertainment centers. NoHo is home to more than 20 professional theatres, diverse art galleries, pub- lic art, and great restaurants. It is also the home of the Television Academy. This Angels Walk Guidebook will show you exactly how to see the very best of NoHo. Thank you for celebrating the unique spirit of this great Los Angeles community. Very truly yours, Eric Garcetti Mayor ANGELS WALK NORTH HOLLYWOOD TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the Walk .......................... 2-3 Getting There ........................................ 4 Using This Guidebook .............................. 5 ANGELS WALK® NORTH HOLLYWOOD SECTION 1 Chandler » Magnolia .............. 6-14 SECTION 2 Magnolia » Otsego .............. 15-19 SECTION 3 Magnolia » Tujunga ............
    [Show full text]
  • NO. ------18-046 DATE March 21, 2018 C.D
    BOARD REPORT NO.------- 18-046 DATE March 21, 2018 C.D. ----'4___ _ ----------~ BOARD OF RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: CAMPO DE CAHUENGA HISTORICAL MUSEUM - AGREEMENT WITH THE CAMPO DE CAHUENGA HISTORICAL MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CAMPO DE CAHUENGA HISTORICAL MUSEUM - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE Ill, SECTION 1(14) [ISSUANCE OF LICENSE AND PERMITS TO USE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE INVOLVING NEGLIGIBLE OR NO EXPANSION OF USE] OF THE CITY CEQA GUIDELINES AP Diaz V. Israel *R. Barajas s. Pina-Cortez IN H. Fujita N. Williams .lJ.,C!.. ' Approved ______ Disapproved ______ Withdrawn ----- RECOMMENDATION($) 1. Approve the proposed Agreement between the City of Los Angeles and Campo de Cahuenga Historical Memorial Association (CDCHMA), attached hereto as Attachment 1, for the operation and maintenance of the Campo de Cahuenga Historical Museum for seven (7) years, as described more fully in the Summary below, subject to the approval of the Mayor, City Council, and City Attorney; 2. Approve the Revised Facility Use Schedule of Rates and Fees (Schedule) for the permitted use of the Campo de Cahuenga Historical Museum (Campo) as described in the Summary of this Report and proposed Agreement; 3. Authorize the Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP) Chief Accounting Employee to continue depositing Cost Recovery Reimbursement fees and permit revenue share proceeds received from the CDCHMA, into Special Account Fund 302, Department 89, Account 89705H, Museum, Museum Support Group; 4. Find that the proposed Agreement is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption (NOE); 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Society for California Archaeology NEWSLETTER
    Society for California Archaeology NEWSLETTER Volume 31, Number 1 March 1997 Madam Felix's Gold The Story of the Madam Felix Mining District Calaveras County, California by Willard P. Fuller, Jr., Judith Marvin, and Julia G. Costello [This article is adapted from a recent publication by The Calaveras County site on the banks of Littlejohn's Creek in Salt Spring Valley, southwestern Historical Society and Foothill Resources, Ltd. -Ed.] Calaveras County. The recovered information is currently being ana­ lyzed at California State University, Fresno; final reports on the archaeo­ Introduction logical investigations are not yet available. The preliminary summary of local prehistory included here is drawn from Chapter 1 of Fuller, Marvin. The comprehensive study of the archaeology and history of the and Costello (1996). Madam Felix mining district was sponsored by Meridian Gold Company, whose open-pit mine, the Royal Mountain King, has removed virtually all Prehistory traces of the district's historic past. The extensive historic research con- ucted as part of this project included reviews of all pertinent and avail­ There is archaeological evidence of human occupation of Salt ble published and unpublished documents, photographs, and maps; in­ Spring Valley perhaps as early as 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. At the Sky­ ~rviews with persons knowledgeable about the district's past were also rocket site, abundant archaeological remains from this period were found recorded, transcribed, and annotated. A comprehensive archaeological buried six feet below the present ground surface. These earliest residents study of the project area was conducted in 1987, identifying the physical of the valley experienced a much wetter and cooler climate than that of evidence of the land's human history.
    [Show full text]
  • IV. Environmental Impact Analysis J. Tribal Cultural Resources
    IV. Environmental Impact Analysis J. Tribal Cultural Resources 1. Introduction This section of the Draft EIR provides an analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources are based on coordination and consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project Site, as well as a Sacred Lands File (SLF) records search conducted by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This section is also based on the Tribal Cultural Resources Report for the Hollywood and Wilcox Project (TCR Report) prepared by Dudek (February 2018) included as Appendix P of this Draft EIR. 2. Environmental Setting a. Regulatory Framework California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of the antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. On September 25, 2014, Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which amended Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.94 and added Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to establish that an analysis of a project's impact on cultural resources include whether the project would impact “tribal cultural resources.” PRC Section 21074 sets forth the following: (a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following: (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
    [Show full text]