DOCSLIB.ORG

Historical Resource Evaluation Report for the Proposed Pipeline Safety and Reliability Project San Diego County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historical Resource Evaluation Report for the Proposed Pipeline Safety and Reliability Project San Diego County, California Historical Resource Evaluation Report for the Proposed Pipeline Safety and Reliability Project San Diego County, California Final, March 2018 Prepared for: Insignia Environmental 28 High Street Palo Alto, California 94301 and SDG&E Environmental Services 8315 Century Park Court, CP21E San Diego, California 92123 Prepared by: Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH Laura Taylor Kung, M.A. and Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A., RPH 20 N. Raymond Ave. Suite 220 Pasadena, CA 91103 (626) 793-7395 ASM Project Number 22520 Historical Resource Evaluation Report for the Proposed Pipeline Safety and Reliability Project San Diego County, California Prepared for: Insignia Environmental 28 High Street Palo Alto, California 94301 and SDG&E Environmental Services 8315 Century Park Court, CP21E San Diego, California 92123 Prepared by: Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH Laura Taylor Kung, M.A. and Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A., RPH ASM Affiliates, Inc. 20 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 220 Pasadena, California 91103 March 2018 PN 22520 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT APE ..................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Direct APE ................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Indirect APE ................................................................................................. 3 1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 3 1.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ................................................... 4 1.3.2 National Register of Historic Places Significance Criteria ............................. 4 1.3.3 California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria .................. 5 1.3.4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ............................................... 6 1.3.5 Integrity ........................................................................................................ 6 1.3.6 San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources ........................... 7 1.3.7 County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) ....................... 8 1.3.8 Criteria for Assessing Visual Effects ............................................................. 8 2.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW .................................................. 13 2.1 POWAY ................................................................................................................13 2.2 ESCONDIDO .......................................................................................................15 2.3 FALLBROOK........................................................................................................16 2.4 TEMECULA .........................................................................................................19 2.5 ROAD DEVELOPMENT HISTORY ......................................................................20 2.5.1 Evolving Demand for Good Roads: 1880s-1915 .........................................21 2.5.2 Laying the Ground Work for a National Roads System: 1916-1921 .............23 2.5.3 Good Roads for Regional Tourism and Commerce in San Diego County: 1900s-1910s ...............................................................................................24 2.5.4 The Golden Age of Highways: 1921-1939 ...................................................24 2.5.5 U.S. Highway Designation: 1920s ...............................................................26 2.5.6 In Pursuit of National Superhighways: 1937-1956 .......................................27 2.6 BRIEF HISTORY OF U.S. HIGHWAY 395 ...........................................................29 3.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 55 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ..........................................................................55 3.2 FIELD METHODS ................................................................................................55 3.2.1 Direct APE .................................................................................................55 3.2.2 Indirect APE ...............................................................................................56 3.3 RESEARCH METHODS ......................................................................................56 4.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTIONS OF SURVEYED PROPERTIES .... 57 4.1 123 W. FELICITA AVENUE ..................................................................................57 4.2 145 W. FELICITA AVENUE ..................................................................................58 4.3 502 W. 11th AVENUE ..........................................................................................59 4.4 509 W. 2nd AVENUE ...........................................................................................59 4.5 510 W. 2nd AVENUE ...........................................................................................59 4.6 733 S. PINE STREET ..........................................................................................59 4.7 443 W. 4th AVENUE ............................................................................................60 HRER Proposed Pipeline Safety and Reliability Project i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 4.8 408 W. LINCOLN AVENUE ..................................................................................60 4.9 47787 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD ......................................................................62 4.10 47980 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD ......................................................................62 4.11 12640 STONE CANYON ROAD ..........................................................................62 4.12 12644 STONE CANYON ROAD ..........................................................................64 4.13 3180 RAINBOW VALLEY BOULEVARD ..............................................................64 4.14 U.S. HIGHWAY 395 .............................................................................................65 5.0 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY ............................................................... 79 5.1 123 W. FELICITA AVENUE ..................................................................................79 5.2 502 W. 11th AVENUE ..........................................................................................81 5.3 733 S. PINE STREET ..........................................................................................83 5.4 443 W. 4th AVENUE ............................................................................................84 5.5 408 W. LINCOLN AVENUE ..................................................................................85 5.6 47787 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD ......................................................................86 5.7 47980 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD ......................................................................87 5.8 12640 STONE CANYON ROAD...........................................................................88 5.9 12644 STONE CANYON ROAD...........................................................................89 5.10 3180 RAINBOW VALLEY BOULEVARD ..............................................................90 5.11 U.S. HIGHWAY 395 .............................................................................................91 5.12 NHPA HISTORIC PROPERTIES .........................................................................93 5.13 CEQA HISTORICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................93 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS/IMPACTS........................................................ 95 6.1 DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................95 6.1.1 NHPA Adverse Effects .................................................................................95 6.1.2 CEQA Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................95 6.2 DIRECT EFFECTS/IMPACTS ..............................................................................95 6.3 INDIRECT EFFECTS/IMPACTS ..........................................................................95 6.4 FINDINGS OF EFFECT/IMPACT .........................................................................95 6.4.1 NHPA Effects ..............................................................................................95 6.4.2 CEQA Impacts ............................................................................................96 7.0 CONDITIONS/MITIGATION ...................................................................... 97 8.0 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 99 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 101 APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 111 APPENDIX A ......................................................................................... Photos and Maps APPENDIX B .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Journal of San Diego History
    Volume 51 Winter/Spring 2005 Numbers 1 and 2 • The Journal of San Diego History The Jour na l of San Diego History SD JouranalCover.indd 1 2/24/06 1:33:24 PM Publication of The Journal of San Diego History has been partially funded by a generous grant from Quest for Truth Foundation of Seattle, Washington, established by the late James G. Scripps; and Peter Janopaul, Anthony Block and their family of companies, working together to preserve San Diego’s history and architectural heritage. Publication of this issue of The Journal of San Diego History has been supported by a grant from “The Journal of San Diego History Fund” of the San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Historical Society is able to share the resources of four museums and its extensive collections with the community through the generous support of the following: City of San Diego Commission for Art and Culture; County of San Diego; foundation and government grants; individual and corporate memberships; corporate sponsorship and donation bequests; sales from museum stores and reproduction prints from the Booth Historical Photograph Archives; admissions; and proceeds from fund-raising events. Articles appearing in The Journal of San Diego History are abstracted and indexed in Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life. The paper in the publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. Front cover: Detail from ©SDHS 1998:40 Anne Bricknell/F. E. Patterson Photograph Collection. Back cover: Fallen statue of Swiss Scientist Louis Agassiz, Stanford University, April 1906.
    [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]
  • 70-21,834- University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor
    70-21,834- KERR III, William Sterling, 1939- THE AVOCADO INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A STUDY OF LOCATION, PERCEPTION, AND PROSPECT. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1970 Geography University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA. GRADUATE COLLEGE THE AVOCADO INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A STUDY OF LOCATION, PERCEPTION, AND PROSPECT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY WILLIAM STERLING KERR III Norman, Oklahoma 1970 THE AVOCADO INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A STUDY OF LOCATION, PERCEPTION, AND PROSPECT APPROVED BY DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT % grateful appreciation goes to Dr. Harry E. Hoy for his constructive criticism of the manuscript and his able guidance and direction during the entire dissertation stage. My thanks are also due to the following scholars for their critical examination of the dissertation: Dr. Arthur H„ Doerr, Dr, Ralph E. Olson and Dr. Gary L, Thompson in geography, and Dr, Arthur J, % e r s in geology. Special thanks to my colleague, James A. Harrison, for his ideas on environmental perception. I also wish to express my thanks to California Agricultural Extension Service employees, especially county farm advisers C, D, Gustafson (San Diego), Robert Burns and B. ¥„ Lee (Ventura), and George Goodall (Santa Barbara), Moreover, I gratefully appreciate the assistance and friendship of Mid-County Calavo Field Representative, Paul Hansen, The field research could not have been completed without the assistance of these five able men. My grateful appreciation also goes to the Planning Section of the California Department of Water Resources, Southern Division, and the staffs of the Bio-Agricultural Library at the University of California at Riverside and the iii University of Oklahoma » I am indebted to the numerous grove owners, county and city planners, avocado processing plant owners and managers, and Calavo executives.
    [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]
  • Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb109nb422 Online items available Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Finding Aid written by Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Documents BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM 1 Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in Cali... Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Finding Aid Written By: Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt. Date Completed: March 2008 © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Documents pertaining to the adjudication of private land claims in California Date (inclusive): circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892 Microfilm: BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM Creators : United States. District Court (California) Extent: Number of containers: 857 Cases. 876 Portfolios. 6 volumes (linear feet: Approximately 75)Microfilm: 200 reels10 digital objects (1494 images) Repository: The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: In 1851 the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1846 – 1879
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2019 How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879 Camille Alexandrite Suárez University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Suárez, Camille Alexandrite, "How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879" (2019). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 3491. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3491 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3491 For more information, please contact [email protected]. How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879 Abstract The construction of California as an American state was a colonial project premised upon Indigenous removal, state-supported land dispossession, the perpetuation of unfree labor systems and legal, race- based discrimination alongside successful Anglo-American settlement. This dissertation, entitled “How the West was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1849 - 1879” argues that the incorporation of California and its diverse peoples into the U.S. depended on processes of colonization that produced and justified an adaptable acialr hierarchy that protected white privilege and supported a racially-exclusive conception of citizenship. In the first section, I trace how the California Constitution and federal and state legislation violated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This legal system empowered Anglo-American migrants seeking territorial, political, and economic control of the region by allowing for the dispossession of Californio and Indigenous communities and legal discrimination against Californio, Indigenous, Black, and Chinese persons.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources
    General Plan Update Section 5.9: Cultural Resources The purpose of this section is to identify cultural and historical resources within the City of Murrieta and Sphere of Influence, and evaluate potential impacts to such resources that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan 2035. Cultural resources relate to archaeological remains, historic buildings, traditional customs, tangible artifacts, historical documents, and public records, which make Murrieta unique or significant. This section is based upon the information contained in the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., January 4, 2010, and included in Appendix I. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, established a national policy of historic preservation, and encourages such preservation. The NHPA established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and provided procedures for the agency to follow if a proposed action affects a property that is included, or that may be eligible for inclusion, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP was developed as a direct result of the NHPA. Section 106 requires that the head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or Federally-assisted undertaking in any state, and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking, shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 3-3 Site Photographs 3.0 Affected Environment
    View looking north in the citrus orchard of the hill and its coastal scrub habitat. Pala Gateway Project: Environmental Assessment SOURCE: EDS 2010 Figure 3-3 Site Photographs 3.0 Affected Environment and annual grasslands greatly reduces wildlife biodiversity and habitat value. However, a variety of wildlife species do occur in these habitats, and many bird species forage in this habitat type. RUDERAL/DEVELOPED Approximately 12.5 acres (14%) of the Study Area (11100, 12000) can be classified as ruderal or developed areas, and consist of disturbed or converted natural habitat that is now either in a weedy and barren (ruderal) state, recently graded, or urbanized with pavement, landscaping, and structure and utility placement. Vegetation within this habitat type consists primarily of nonnative weedy or invasive ruderal species or ornamental plants lacking a consistent community structure. Ornamental species sighted in the Study Area include iceplant (Mesembryanthemum), oleander (Nerium oleander) and palms (Washingtonia and Phoenix). Weedy species sighted include wild oat (Avena fatua), black mustard (Brassica nigra), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), long-beak filaree (Erodium botrys), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), castor bean (Ricinus communis), and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). The disturbed and altered condition of these lands greatly reduces their habitat value and ability to sustain rare plants or diverse wildlife assemblages. However, common, disturbance-tolerant species do occur in these lands. RIPARIAN Approximately 12 acres (13%) of the Study Area’s eastern and southern boundaries consists of riparian habitat; the southern property boundary along the San Luis Rey River corridor is indeterminate. The natural community types are a combination of Southern riparian forest (61300) and specifically, Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest (61330).
    [Show full text]
  • Buy Viagra in London
    Newsletter of the Southwest Chapter of the Oregon-California Trails Association December 2006 Rushing for Gold Via the Southern Contents Overland Route, Part 2 Southern Overland Route (Robinson) . 1 by John W. Robinson Tribute to Jim Holliday . 2 Finding San Simon’s (DeVault) . 3 (Continued from the June 2006 issue of Desert Tracks.) Mapping Trip (Greene) . 5 The Oatman Story: a Talk (McGinty) . 8 Jonathan Trumbull Warner, owner of Warner’s Ranch, Southern Overland Route, part 2 (continued) . 18 was a tall, wiry man with a friendly character. Born History of O.W. Randall . 24 in Connecticut in 1807, he traveled to St. Louis at the Review: Captives and Cousins (Voth) . 25 age of twenty-three. Here he was hired by the trapping From the Editors . 27 partnership of Smith, Jackson, and Sublette and accompanied the partnership’s fi rst caravan to Santa Fe in 1831. After Jedediah Smith’s death the partnership with David Jackson’s trapping party, reaching Los was dissolved. Warner signed on with the new fi rm Angeles in 1831. He remained in Southern California of Jackson, Waldo, and Young and left for California the rest of his long life. Warner became a Mexican citizen and changed his name to Juan José Warner. J. J. Warner, as he was commonly known, became a prominent Los Angeles businessman and ranchero. To his many Californio friends, he was known simply as Juan Largo (Big John). In 1837 he married Anita Gale, daughter of an English sea captain. Warner applied for a land grant titled Valle de San José in 1844, and in December of that year California Governor Manuel Micheltorena issued Warner a grant of “the extent of six square leagues, a little more or less.” Juan Largo and his family moved from Los Angeles to Valle de San José sometime in 1845.
    [Show full text]
  • 010 Will Provide More Exact Information on the Age and Ethnicity of Murrieta Residents
    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]