Cultural Resources Survey Report for the
Whitewood Development Project
Murrieta, California
Prepared for
Sancerra
2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 1223
Newport Beach, CA 92660-5437
Contact: Adam Smith
Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108-5726
P 619.308.9333
RECON Number 10041-1
May 28, 2024
Nathanial Yerka, Project Archaeologist
Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Authors: Nathanial Yerka and Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA Consulting Firm: RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108-5726
Report Date: May 28, 2024
Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Whitewood Development Project, Murrieta, California
Submitted to: Adam Smith
Sancerra
2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 1223
Newport Beach, CA 92660-5437
USGS Quadrangle Map: 7.5-minute, Murrieta 1979
Keywords: Positive survey, bedrock milling features, isolated lithics
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ iii Management Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 1
1.0 Introduction and Project Description ................................ ................................ ...................... 2
1.1 Area of Potential Effect .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Project Personnel ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6
2.1 Natural Setting .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 Previous Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 12
3.1 Archaeological and Built Environment Resources ................................................................. 12
3.2 Historic Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps ........................................................... 15
3.3 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................................ 16
4.0 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16
5.0 Survey Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 16
5.1 Newly Recorded Resource ............................................................................................................ 17
6.0 Regulatory Framework and Management Recommendations ................................ ....... 17
6.1 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Criteria ......................................................... 19
6.2 California Environmental Quality Act ......................................................................................... 19
6.3 City of Murrieta ................................................................................................................................. 20
6.4 Evaluation of Resources ................................................................................................................. 23
6.5 Management Recommendations ............................................................................................... 24
7.0 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24
FIGURES
1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2: Project Location on USGS Map .................................................................................................................... 4 3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................... 5 4: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 5: Geologic Map of the Project Location ....................................................................................................... 9 TABLE
1: Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of Adjacent Project ........................................... 13 Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
PHOTOGRAPHS
1: Overview of Eastern Portion of Project Area Near Northeastern Project Corner, Looking South .............................................................................................................................................. 18 2: Overview of Western Portion of Project Area, Looking West .......................................................... 18
ATTACHMENT
1: Native American Heritage Commission Correspondence
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS (Under Separate Cover)
1: Records Search Results
2: Newly Recorded Resources
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AMSL above mean sea level
APE Area of Potential Effect
B.P. Before Present
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Murrieta
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
EIC Eastern Information Center
GIS geographic information system
GPS Global Positioning System
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
project Whitewood Development Project
RECON RECON Environmental, Inc.
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WPLT Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
Management Summary
This report details the results of the cultural resources survey for the Whitewood Development Project (project). The Area of Potential Effect (APE) comprises 17.26 acres of land designated by the City of Murrieta (City) for multi-family residential land uses of which 16.64 acres will be developed and 0.62 acre will remain as a coast live oak preservation area as well as three potential cultural reburial sites per request by the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians . The discretionary approval associated with the project includes a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map. The Development Plan Permit establishes the building layout and architecture proposed for the project.
Approval of the Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map would allow for development of the property with 243 multi-family residential dwelling units and an amenity area.
The cultural resources survey was undertaken in accordance with requirements of the City to avoid significant impacts to cultural resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) conducted a pedestrian survey to record and document any cultural resources within the project area. Prior to the survey, a records search with a one-mile radius buffer of the 17.26-acre APE was requested from the Eastern Information Center. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area. RECON contacted the Native American Heritage Commission requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File to identify spiritually significant and/or sacred sites or traditional use areas; the results were positive.
A RECON archaeologist performed the cultural resources survey of the northwestern, northeastern, and southeastern parcels on January 13, 2022, and of the southwestern parcel on September 29, 2022. RECON identified two previously unrecorded cultural resource s (10041-ISO-01 and 10041.1-NDY-01) within the 17.26-acre project area. 10041-ISO-01 is a cultural isolate and is not considered a significant historical resource under City and CEQA guidelines. RECON recommended a Phase 2 testing program for 10041.1-NDY-01, a granite bedrock milling feature with one element , to determine if the resource has subsurface deposits; however, in connection with engaging with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians for the required Tribal consultation, and to discuss the engagement of a Native American monitor during the excavation, the Tribe requested that no Phase 2 excavation be completed as part of the environmental review. Thus, no further investigation of the bedrock milling feature was undertaken . RECON recommends controlled grading surrounding the bedrock milling feature as a mitigation measure during construction to prevent significant impacts to the potentially significant subsurface component of the bedrock milling feature . The controlled grading task will be directed by the archaeological monitor in concert with the Native American monitor. RECON also recommends construction monitoring by archaeological and Native American monitors for all ground disturbing activities in the western half and the ungraded southeast corner of the APE. The possibility of buried significant cultural resources being present within the eastern portion of the APE is considered low because of past development.
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
1.0 Introduction and Project Description
This report details the results of the cultural resources survey of the Whitewood Development Project (project). The proposed project consists of development of 243 multi-family residential homes at a density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre located in the northeastern portion of city of Murrieta, California. The primary goal of the cultural resources survey was to survey the project area and determine (1) if there are previously unrecorded cultural resources present, and if so, document the resources’ locations and what they consist of, and (2) to update conditions of previously recorded cultural resources.
The project consists of approximately 17.26 acres in the northeastern portion of the city of Murrieta.
From a regional perspective, the project area is located 0.26 mile west of the French Valley area of unincorporated Riverside County (Figure 1). Interstate 215 is located 0.6 mile west of the project area.
Specifically, the Area of Potential Effect ( APE) is located east of Whitewood Road, north of Clinton Keith Road. The APE occurs within Section 35 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Murrieta quadrangle (Figure 2). The project area encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 392-330-003, -007, -020, and -021 (Figure 3). The project area contains two existing residences in the eastern half of the site and the western half of the site is undeveloped.
To the west of the APE is an existing residential development. North and east of the project area are several existing homes. South of the project area is undeveloped land designated for multiple-family residential land uses.
1.1 Area of Potential Effect
The APE comprises 17.26 acres of land designated by the City of Murrieta (City) for multi-family residential land uses. The discretionary approval associated with the project includes a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map. The Development Plan Permit establishes the building layout and architecture proposed for the project. Approval of the Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map would allow for development of the property with 243 multi-family residential dwelling units and an amenity area.
The project would provide for the development of 243 multi-family residential homes at a density of
15.1 dwelling units per acre. The project also includes construction of a recreational pool area with a ±900-square-foot restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot, and 65,120 square feet of total common open space areas throughout the project area. The proposed 243 dwelling units comprise 2- and 3-story townhomes. A total of 629 parking spaces would be provided with 10 percent of spaces designated as future electric vehicle spaces. Grading proposed by the project would result in
16.64 acres of disturbances to project area and preservation of the remaining 0.62 acre of sensitive area with coast oak live oaks and 0.35 acre of County of Riverside riparian/riverine features.
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
CAMP PENDLETON
MARINE CO BASE
Lake Skinner
Recr eation Area
Lake Perris State
Rec
Area
Cleveland
National
Forest
Perris
ReservoirLake Mathews
Railroad
Canyon
Reservoir
Lake Elsinore
Vail Lake
S a n J a c i n t o R i v e
r
T e m
e c u l a
C r e e k
Sa n t a
M
a
rg
a
r i t a
R i v e r
T e m e c u l a C r e e k
S
a
n
ta
M
a
rg
ari t a R i v e r
S a n
L u i s
R e y
R
i ve r
C o l o r a d o R i v e r A q u e d u c t
Pauma and
Yuima
Reservation
Pala
Reservation
La Jolla
Reservation
Soboba
Tribal
Lands
Morongo
Tribal
Lands
Morongo
Tribal
Lands
Pechanga
Tribal
Lands
Lakeview
Nuevo
Valle
Vista
Woodcrest
Lakeland
Village
East
Hemet
Fallbrook
Homeland
Murrieta
Hot
Springs
Quail
Valley
Rainbow
Romoland
Sedco
Hills
Sun City
Wildomar
Winchester
UV76
UV74
UV79
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
R I V E R S I D E
C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
Beaumont
Canyon
Lake
Hemet
Lake
Elsinore
Moreno
Valley
Murrieta
Perris
Riverside
San Jacinto
Temecula
CAMP PENDLETON
MARINE CO BASE
Lake Skinner
Recr eation Area
Lake Perris State
Rec
Area
Cleveland
National
Forest
Perris
ReservoirLake Mathews
Railroad
Canyon
Reservoir
Lake Elsinore
Vail Lake
S a n J a c i n t o R i v e
r
T e m
e c u l a
C r e e k
Sa n t a
M
a
rg
a
r i t a
R i v e r
T e m e c u l a C r e e k
S
a
n
ta
M
a
rg
ari t a R i v e r
S a n
L u i s
R e y
R
i ve r
C o l o r a d o R i v e r A q u e d u c t
Pauma and
Yuima
Reservation
Pala
Reservation
La Jolla
Reservation
Soboba
Tribal
Lands
Morongo
Tribal
Lands
Morongo
Tribal
Lands
Pechanga
Tribal
Lands
Lakeview
Nuevo
Valle
Vista
Woodcrest
Lakeland
Village
East
Hemet
Fallbrook
Homeland
Murrieta
Hot
Springs
Quail
Valley
Rainbow
Romoland
Sedco
Hills
Sun City
Wildomar
Winchester
UV76
UV74
UV79
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
R I V E R S I D E
C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
Beaumont
Canyon
Lake
Hemet
Lake
Elsinore
Moreno
Valley
Murrieta
Perris
Riverside
San Jacinto
Temecula
0 5 Miles [
M:\JOBS6\10041\common_gis\MXD\fig1.mxd 1/26/2022 fmm LOS
ANGELES
ORANGE RIVERSIDE
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN DIEGO
MEXICO
Project Locationkj
kj
FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Murrieta quadrangle, 1979, T06S R03W 0 2,000 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS6\10041\common_gis\MXD\fig2_USGS.mxd 9/22/2022 fmm FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
LINDSTRAND AVE
BR
EDA
AVE
SOCORRO ST
MENDHAM ST
MOORFIELD ST
RAVENNA ST
GATINEAU ST
WARE ST
BRUNING ST
W
HITEWOOD
RD
EPPLE
ST
GREENBERG PL
CLINTON KEITH RD
CALLE
PAV
ON
ARE
NOT LN
LINDSTRAND AVE
BR
EDA
AVE
SOCORRO ST
MENDHAM ST
MOORFIELD ST
RAVENNA ST
GATINEAU ST
WARE ST
BRUNING ST
W
HITEWOOD
RD
EPPLE
ST
GREENBERG PL
CLINTON KEITH RD
CALLE
PAV
ON
ARE
NOT LN
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023)
0 300 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS6\10041\common_gis\MXD\fig3_aerial.mxd 07/20/2023 bma Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
This area will preserve 33 mature oak trees. In addition, per the results of Assembly Bill 52 government to government consultation with the Pechanga Tribe of Luiseño Indians, three locations along the northern boundary totaling 1,775 square feet have been identified as the potential cultural reburial sites, should cultural materials be unearthed during construction. Access to the project would be provided by two full access driveways, one located on Arendt Lane, and the other located on Whitewood Road. The project will also construct a ±12-inch off-site sewer line within Arendt Lane continuing easterly within Clinton Keith Road and terminating near the northwest corner of Clinton Keith Road and Menifee Road (Figure 4).
1.2 Project Personnel
Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA, served as principal investigator and co-authored the text for this report. Ms. Zepeda-Herman meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Ms. Zepeda-Herman earned a Master of Arts in Anthropology from San Diego State University and is a Registered Prof essional Archaeologist. She has over 22 years of field experience involving prehistoric resources in the southern California and the Southwest region.
Nathanial Yerka, B.A. served as Field Director and authored the text for this report. Chris Yearyean from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians served as the Native American monitor. Jennifer Gutierrez oversaw copyediting. Frank McDermott and Benjamin Arp managed the geographic information system (GIS) data and performed the GIS data analysis.
2.0 Setting
2.1 Natural Setting
The project area is situated within the northern portion of the city of Murrieta, east of Interstate 215 and west of State Route 79. The 17. 26-acre project area is composed of native, disturbed, and developed land and ranges in elevation between 1,385 feet AMSL in the southeast corner and 1,480 feet AMSL in the northwest corner. The project area contains two existing residences in the eastern half and the western half of the site is undeveloped. To the west of the project area is an existing residential development. Several existing homes are north and east of the project area. South of the project area is undeveloped land designated for multiple-family residential land uses.
The project area lies within the Temecula Valley with the Colorado Desert to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west, and immediately surrounded by the Santa Ana Mountains to the west, San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast, and Santa Rosa Mountains to the southeast. Temecula Valley is a graben rift valley within the Elsinore Trough between the Santa Ana Block (to the west) and the Perris Block (to the east; Engel 1959). Four soil series are mapped within the project area: Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (LaD2) occur in the northwest corner of the project area; Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (CbD2) occur across most of the western half of the project area, as well as along a portion of the north -central project boundary, and the western quarter of the project area; Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CbF2) occur in the central-western portion of the project area; and Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (CaC2) occur in the central-eastern portion of the project area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1971).
M:\JOBS6\10041\arc\graphics\Fig4.afdesign 05/28/24 fmm Map Source: Wilson Mikami Corporation
FIGURE 4
Site Plan
POTENTIAL CULTURAL
REBURIAL SITE
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
The Las Posas soil series consists of moderately deep and well-drained soils that formed in material weathered from basic igneous rocks. These soils occur on mountainous uplands that have slopes of 5 to 50 percent. The Cajalco soil series are well drained and moderately permeable and occur on gently sloping to steep uplands in areas of deeply weathered, basic igneous rocks (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1971).
The majority of the APE is underlain by Cretaceous (Kgb) gabbro consisting of hornblende gabbro.
Small pockets of Cretaceous (Kpvg) monzogranite to granodiorite, locally known as the Paloma Valley Ring Complex, are present in the southeastern corner and al ong the northern boundary (Figure 5; City of Murrieta 2011a; Kennedy and Morton 1975). The monzogranite to granodiorite is a pale gray, massive, medium -grained hypidiomorphic -granular biotite monzogranite and less abundant hornblende -biotite granodiorite f ormer older ring dike (Kennedy and Morton 1975).
Gabbro rock is an intrusive igneous rock that was formed when magma pushed up from the mantle and cooled and does not contain fossils (Deméré and Walsh 2011). Monzogranite and granodiorite are types of igneous rocks, and therefore do not contain fossils.
2.2 Cultural Setting
The following culture chronology for Riverside County is based on a synthesis of existing literature.
This chronology is intended as a general model, which is dynamic and subject to modification as new information is uncovered. The prehistory of western Riverside County has been included as part of the coastal San Diego subregion (Moratto 1984). Consequently, much is made of work completed in San Diego County, to the south of the APE.
2.2.1 Early Holocene (10,000-7,000 B.P .)
The early occupants of the Riverside area are archaeologically represented by a culture pattern known as the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) (Bedwell 1970). The WPLT includes the Playa, San Dieguito, Lake Mojave, and Death Valley I complexes. It is defined by the following:
• Site locations being on or near former pluvial lakeshores or along old streams; • A focus on hunting mammals and collecting and gathering plant materials; • A toolkit including chipped -stone crescents, large flake and core scrapers, choppers, scraper-planes, hammerstones, cores, drills and gravers, and a variety of flakes; • A developed flaked-stone technology with percussion-flaked foliate knives and points, Silver Lake and Lake Mojave points; and
• A lack of ground stone artifacts.
The WPLT people were adapted to a wetter environment before the warmer climate led to the evaporation of the lakes (Moratto 1984).
FIGURE 5
Geologic Map of the Project Location
Image Source: USGS, Preliminary Geologic Map of Murrieta 0 1,000 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS6\10041\common_gis\MXD\fig5_geo.mxd 07/20/2023 bma Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
2.2.2 Middle Holocene (7,000-1,500 B.P .)
The Millingstone Horizon occurs during this time period in western Riverside County. The Millingstone Horizon includes the La Jolla, Pauma, and Sayles complexes (Moratto 1984). The La Jolla Complex was defined from coastal San Diego sites (Rogers 1938, 1945). An apparent inland manifestation of the La Jolla Complex was termed the “Pauma Complex” by D. L. True (1958), who proposed the name to describe assemblages recovered from more than 20 inland sites in northern San Diego County. The La Jolla and Pauma complexes have very similar assemblages and are thought to be different environmental adaptations of th e same culture (True 1958). Archaeological investigations in the Cajon Pass were used to define the type site (SBR -421) for the Sayles Complex (Kowta 1969). Kowta (1969) defined the Sayles Complex as a variant of the Millingstone Horizon from the vicinity of the Cajon Pass.
The Millingstone Horizon assemblages suggest a generalized subsistence focus with an emphasis on hard seeds. This emphasis is indicated by the increased frequency of slab and basin metates and the adoption of a mixed cobble/core -based tool assemblage compo sed primarily of crudely made choppers, scrapers, and cobble hammerstones. The assemblage is typically dominated by crude, cobble-based choppers, scrapers, and flake knives. Scraper-planes are also abundant, which Kowta (1969) suggests were used to process agave and yucca. Projectile points are relatively rare, but late in the period, Elko type points are occasionally seen. Portable basin and slab metates are relatively plentiful, suggesting an economic focus on gathering plant resources. Mortars and pestles appear in the Millingstone Horizon, suggesting the use of acorns. The presence of shell middens distinguishes the La Jolla Complex from the other Millingstone Horizon complexes.
2.2.3 Late Holocene (1,500 B.P . to 1796)
Shoshonean-speaking people from the Colorado River region moved westward into Riverside County (Moratto 1984) during the Late Holocene. Cultures representative of this time are the San Luis Rey Complex in northern San Diego County and western Riverside Cou nty and the Irvine Complex in Orange County (Meighan 1954; Moratto 1984; True et al. 1974). First described by Meighan (1954) and based on excavations at Pala, the San Luis Rey Complex is divided into an early phase, San Luis Rey I, and a later phase, San Luis Rey II. San Luis Rey I sites are associated with bedrock outcrops and often have recognizable midden soils. Features may include cremations and bedrock mortars. The artifact assemblage includes metates, Cottonwood Triangular type projectile points, drills, bifacially flaked knives, bone awls, occasional steatite arrow shaft straighteners, and bone and shell ornaments (True and Waugh 1981). San Luis Rey II sites consist of the same assemblage with the addition of Tizon Brown Ware ceramics, red and black pictographs, cremation remains in urns, and historic materials such as glass beads and metal objects. The projectile points commonly found in San Luis Rey assemblages, Cottonwood Triangular and, less frequently, Desert side-notched forms, are both smaller than earlier types, suggesting the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology into the region.
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
2.2.4 Ethnohistory
The project area was utilized prehistorically by the Luiseño, according to Kroeber (1970) and Bean and Shipek (1978). The Luiseño are Shoshonean or Uto-Aztecan-speaking populations that are found in northern San Diego, southern Orange, and southeastern Riverside counties from the onset of ethnohistoric times through the present day. Historically, the Luiseño social structure was the clan triblet. The triblet was composed of patrilineally related people who were politically and economically autonomous from neighboring triblets. Unlike other Takic -speaking tribes that surround them, the Luiseño do not appear to have been organized into exo gamous moieties (descent groups that married outside one’s birth group ) but may have been loosely divided into mountain -oriented groups and ocean-oriented groups (Bean and Shipek 1978).
The Luiseño lived in units and each unit contained at least one village, which was referred to by the Spanish term rancheria. The Luiseño used terms tch’o’num tcho’mi to refer to ownership of the unit and tchon tcho’mi to refer to collectively used areas of the land and its resources (White 1963:116 and 123). Each rancheria was named and broken into smaller tracts by topographic units with various plant communities and a water source (Sparkman 1908:190). Villages were u sually located in defensible locations in sheltered canyons or coves, or on the sides of slopes in warm thermal zones, near reliable water sources. The rancheria owned territory in a contiguous strip leading from the valley bottom to upland areas. This vertical pattern of rancheria territory f acilitated gathering plant foods through the year (White 1963: 116). The village of Avaxat (Avaa’ax), referring to the cottonwoods of Murrieta Creek, was located near old town Murrieta, and the village of Toatwi was located near Los Alamos and Winchester Road (City of Murrieta 2010).
2.2.5 Historic Period
The Spanish Period in California (1769 –1821) represents a time of European exploration and settlement. Military and religious contingents established the San Diego Presidio and the San Diego Mission in 1769, San Carlos Borroméo de Carmelo (Carmel) in 1770, and San Gabriel Arcángel in 1771.
Mission San Gabriel Arcángel claimed the areas around Riverside, Jurupa, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass. The opening of the mission system created the need to link Alta California with Sonora. Juan Bautista de Anza of Tubac was commissioned to open up a road across the Colorado Desert to San Gabriel and on to Monterey. The first de Anza Expedition took place between 1774 and 1775. Anza stopped in the vicinity of present-day Riverside at an Indian Village along the Santa Ana River southwest of Mount Rubidoux (Hoover et al. 2002).
During the Mexican Period (1821–1848), the missions were secularized, opening vast tracts of former mission lands for private use and settlement. The numerous grants dramatically expanded the rancho system. A total of 16 land grants were established in wha t became Riverside County. The Murrieta area was encompassed by three land grants: Rancho Temecula, San Jacinto Rancho, and Rancho Santa Rosa. The Temecula land grant is the closest to the APE. It was granted in 1845 to Felix Valdez.
After secularization, Pauba, La Laguna, and Little Temecula Rancho were established from the larger Temecula Rancho ( City of Murrieta 2010) . Cattle ranching still dominated the economy and the development of the hide and tallow trade with New England merchant ships increased during the early part of the Mexican Period. The Mexican period ended when Mexico signed the Treaty of Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, concluding the Mexican– American War (1846 –1848; Rolle and Verge 2008). California became a state in 1850.
American influence in the Riverside area began slowly, but the construction of the transcontinental railroad in 1883 spurred a great influx of homesteaders, developers, and speculators. Prior to that, the Butterfield Overland Stage stopped at Willow Springs Station, known as Avaxat to the Native Americans. In 1874, Juan Murrieta brought a flock of 100,000 sheep to the valley after receiving 52,000 acres from his brother Ezekiel Murrieta. Murrieta sold his share of the landholdings to the Temecula Land and Water Company in 1884. The company subdivided the Murrieta portion of the Temecula Rancho. The surrounding areas developed into an agricultural community growing fruit, nuts, grapes, olives, hay, and grains (City of Murrieta 2010).
The Murrieta Hot Springs were a popular in the 1880s for residents in San Diego and Los Angeles counties. The springs had been deeded to the Temecula Land and Water Company by Murrieta. In 1902, the springs were purchased by German Frederick “Fritz” Guenther, who built a resort with a reputation for the springs’ medicinal qualities. The growth boom ended in 1935 when the California Southern Railway stopped running. The city became known for the breeding of fine racehorses in the 1960s. In the late 1980s, a construction boom began again. The city incorporated in 1991 with a population of 24,000 and has continued to grow. As of 2009, the population is estimated to be 100,714 (City of Murrieta 2010).
3.0 Previous Research
3.1 Archaeological and Built Environment Resources
RECON requested cultural resources record s and literature searches of the APE with a one -mile search radius buffer from the Eastern Information Center ( EIC) located at University of California Riverside. The purpose of the archival investigation is to identify previously recorded cultural resources and archaeological investigations present within the project area. Historic USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs were also reviewed to determine changes in the survey area over time. In order to determine paleontological sensitivity, RECON also reviewed a paleontological study of an adjacent project that includ ed a records search with a one -mile radius (Schmidtling and Encarnacion 2021).
RECON contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 10 , 2022, requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File to identify spiritually significant and/or sacred sites or traditional use areas, and to provide a list of local Native American tribes, bands, or individuals who may have concerns about the proposed project. The NAHC responded on March 10, 2022, indicating that their search of the Sacred Lands File was positive. The NAHC suggested contacting the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Attachment 1).
The EIC records search indicated that there have been 97 cultural investigations conducted within one mile of the adjacent project (Confidential Attachment 1). The record search also indicated 53 cultural resources situated within one mile of the adjacent project (Table 1). These cultural resources included 26 prehistoric resources, 6 isolated prehistoric artifacts, 3 multicomponent sites (resources Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
comprising both prehistoric and historic elements), one historic -era isolated artifact, and 12 historic-era sites (see Table 1). The majority of the prehistoric resources include bedrock milling features, 10 resources include lithic scatters, five include ground stone artifacts, and one includes a rock shelter. The multicomponent resources represent bedrock milling features, rock shelters, pictographs, ceramic and lithic scatters with historic rock features or trash scatters. The historic sites consist of a roadway, a well, trash scatters, and single- family residences. None of the previously recorded cultural resources occur within or adjacent to the APE.
Table 1
Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of Adjacent Project Primary
Number
Trinomial
Number Period Site Type Recording Events
P-33-000629 CA-RIV-000629 Prehistoric Bedrock milling,
lithic scatter
1973 (J. Humbert, S. Hammond, C.E.F.U.)
P-33-001364 CA-RIV-001364 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 1976 (Hildebrand, Morin and Waldron, ARU); 1981 (Jean A. Salpas, ARU)
P-33-001375 CA-RIV-001375 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 1976 (Morin, Waldron, Pettus, Hildebrand, ARU); 1981 (Jean A. Salpas, ARU)
P-33-001376 CA-RIV-001376 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 1976 (Morin, Waldron, Pettus and Hildebrand, ARU); 1981 (Jean A. Salpas, ARU)
P-33-001377 CA-RIV-001377 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 1976 (Morin, Waldron, Hildebrand and Pettus, ARU); 1981 (Jean A. Salpas, ARU);
2007 (Koji Tsunoda, Jones and Stokes)
P-33-004104 CA-RIV-004104 Prehistoric Lithic, ground
stone scatter
1990 (C.E. Drover and D.M. Smith, Christopher
Drover 13522 Malena Dr. Tustin, CA 92680)
P-33-006237 -- Historic Single-family
residence
1983 (J. Oxedine, Riv. Co. Hist. Comm.);
1995 (Janet Tearnen, Historic Resources
Consultant)
P-33-007450 -- Historic Single-family
residence
1983 (J. Oxendine, Riverside County Historical
Comm.); 2005 (R. Alter, K. Crawford, S.
Moomjian, Archaeos)
P-33-011238 -- Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2001 (CW Bouscaren, MG Espinoza, and KA Hintzman, LSA Assoc., Inc.)
P-33-012772 -- Prehistoric Isolate: chopper 1980 (C.E. Drover) P-33-012773 -- Prehistoric Isolate: mano 1980 (C.E. Drover) P-33-012774 -- Prehistoric Isolate:
hammerstone
1980 (C.E. Drover)
P-33-013304 CA-RIV-007405 Prehistoric Bedrock milling,
lithic, ground
stone scatter
2004 (Sal Boites, CRM TECH)
P-33-013332 CA-RIV-007424 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2004 (Robert Porter, CRM TECH); 2004 (John J. Eddy, CRM TECH)
P-33-013333 CA-RIV-007425 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2004 (Robert Porter, CRM TECH); 2004 (John J. Eddy, CRM TECH)
P-33-013334 CA-RIV-007426 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2004 (Robert Porter, CRM TECH); 2004 (John J. Eddy, CRM TECH)
P-33-013335 CA-RIV-007427 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2004 (Michael Lozano, CRM TECH) P-33-013363 -- Prehistoric Isolate: mano 2004 (Robert Porter, CRM TECH) P-33-014358 -- Prehistoric Isolate: metate 2004 (Eddy, John J., CRM Tech) P-33-015313 CA-RIV-008082 Historic Trash scatter 2006 (Jones, J.E., M. Knypstra, and J. Meliska, Statistical Research, Inc.); 2012 (Stacie Wilson
and Jill Gibson, AECOM)
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
Table 1
Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of Adjacent Project Primary
Number
Trinomial
Number Period Site Type Recording Events
P-33-015314 CA-RIV-008083 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2006 (Jones, J.E., M. Knypstra, and J. Meliska, Statistical Research, Inc.)
P-33-015315 CA-RIV-008084 Historic Trash scatter 2006 (Jones, J.E., M. Knypstra, and J. Meliska, Statistical Research, Inc.)
P-33-015330 -- Historic Single-family
residence
2006 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM Tech)
P-33-015331 -- Historic Single-family
residence
2006 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM Tech)
P-33-019849 CA-RIV-010098 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 2011 (R. Porter, CRM TECH) P-33-021025 CA-RIV-
010890H
Historic Trash scatter 2012 (AECOM, AECOM); 2013 (B Lichtenstein And K Moslak, Applied Earthworks Inc.)
P-33-021027 CA-RIV-010892 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 2012 (AECOM) P-33-021031 -- Historic Isolate: gas can 2012 (AECOM, AECOM); 2013 (B Lichtenstein And K Moslak, Applied Earthworks Inc.)
P-33-023478 CA-RIV-011571 Prehistoric,
Historic
Bedrock milling,
lithic, ground
stone scatter,
historic rock,
structures
2013 (J. Eddy, M. King, C. Smith, Applied Earth
Works Inc.); 2014 (J. Eddy, Applied Earthworks,
Inc.); 2019
P-33-023479 CA-RIV-011572 Prehistoric Bedrock milling,
lithic, ground
stone scatter
2013 (J. Eddy, M. King, C. Smith, Applied Earth
Works Inc.); 2014 (J. Eddy, N. Hearth, Applied
Earthworks, Inc.); 2016; 2018 (K. Moslak,
Applied Earthworks, Inc.)
P-33-023480 CA-RIV-011573 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2013 (J. Eddy, M. King, C. Smith, Applied Earth Works Inc.); 2014 (J. Eddy, N. Hearth, Applied
Earthworks, Inc.); 2016
P-33-023481 CA-RIV-011574 Prehistoric,
Historic
Bedrock milling,
trash scatter
2013 (J. Eddy, M. King, C. Smith, Applied Earth
Works Inc.); 2015 (Wilson, Stacie And Jill
Gibson, AECOM)
P-33-023482 CA-RIV-011575 Prehistoric Bedrock milling,
lithic, ground
stone scatter
2013 (J. Eddy, M. King, C. Smith, Applied
Earthworks, Inc.); 2014 (J. Eddy, N. Hearth,
Applied Earthworks, Inc.); 2016; 2018 (K.
Moslak, Applied Earthworks Inc.)
P-33-023483 CA-RIV-011576
Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2013 (J. Eddy, M. King, C. Smith, Applied Earth Works Inc); 2014 (J. Eddy, N. Hearth, Applied
Earthworks, Inc.); 2015 (Wilson, Stacie And Jill
Gibson, AECOM); 2016
P-33-023904 CA-RIV-011739 Prehistoric Lithic, ground
stone scatter
2014 (K. Moslak, C, Yearyean, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.); 2018 (K. Moslak, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-33-023906 CA-RIV-011740 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2014 (K. Moslak, C. Yearyean, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.); 2018 (K. Moslak, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.); 2018 (K. Moslak, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-33-023953 -- Historic Roadway 2014 (Josh Smallwood, Applied Earth Works, Inc.); 2015 (Wilson, Stacie and Jill Gibson,
AECOM)
P-33-023971 CA-RIV-011777 Historic Trash scatter 2014 (Andrew R Pigniolo, Laguna Mountain Environmental)
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
Table 1
Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of Adjacent Project Primary
Number
Trinomial
Number Period Site Type Recording Events
P-33-023972 CA-RIV-011778 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 2014 (Andrew R Pigniolo, Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc.)
P-33-023973 -- Prehistoric Isolate: scraper 2014 (Andrew R Pigniolo, Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc.)
P-33-024002 -- Prehistoric Bedrock milling,
rock shelter, lithic
scatter
2014 (Barbara Loren-Webb, Rachel Irish, L&L
Environmental); 2016 (Jillian L. Hahnlen, Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc.)
P-33-024132 CA-RIV-011871 Historic Trash scatter 2015 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA Associates, Inc.) P-33-024168 CA-RIV-011886 Prehistoric,
Historic
Bedrock milling,
pictographs,
hearths. rock
shelter, ceramic,
lithic scatter, trash
scatter
2006; 2006; 2014; 2014; 2015; 2015
P-33-026601 CA-RIV-012509 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2015 (AECOM) P-33-028186 CA-RIV-012714 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2018 (Sal Z. Boites, CRM TECH) P-33-028257 -- Prehistoric Isolate: flake 2016 (K. Moslak, Applied Earthworks, Inc.) P-33-028258 -- Prehistoric Isolate: metate 2016 (K. Moslak, Applied Earthworks, Inc.) P-33-028259 -- Prehistoric Isolate: metate 2016 (K. Moslak, Applied Earthworks, Inc.) P-33-028531 -- Prehistoric Isolate: core 2016 (K. Moslak,, Applied Earthworks, Inc) P-33-028892 -- Prehistoric Isolate: lithic
artifact
2019 (Jillian L. Hahnlen, Brian F Smith &
Associates, Inc.)
P-33-028893 CA-RIV-012942 Historic Trash scatter 2019 (Jillian L. Hahnlen, Brain F. Smith & Associates, Inc.)
P-33-028894 CA-RIV-012943 Prehistoric Bedrock milling 2019 (Jillian L. Hahnlen, Brian F. Smith & Associates, Inc.)
P-33-028895 CA-RIV-012944 Historic Well 2019 (Jillian L. Hahnlen, Brian F. Smith & Associates, Inc.)
3.2 Historic Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps
A review of topographic maps and historic aerial photographs show no disturbance until 1967 with a generally east-west dirt road that splits the western half of the project, takes a southerly dip in the eastern half of the project, then turns north to connect with the current driveway entrance accessed from the current Arendt Lane. A generally north-south dirt road connects with the east-west road in the western portion of the project area. These roads first appear on the 1975 topographic map and a 1978 aeria l photograph. Road grading for the currently marked north -south roads—Rocky Glen Place (located at project center) and Arendt Lane (located along the eastern project boundary) — were constructed by 1978 along with three small, cleared pads within the eastern half of the project.
Construction of the two current dwellings occurred between 1978 and 1996 along with significant grading around the northern dwelling. By 2002, the southwest, northwest, and northeast quarters of the eastern half of the project area received grading. Whitewood Road is constructed between 2002 and 2005 and between 2010 and 2012, improvements to the drainage in the southwest corner occur.
Between 2018 and 2020, portions of the southwest quarter have received vegetation removal or surface grading. The southeast corner of the southeast quarter of the eastern half of the project area Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
has not been graded , as well as the northwestern quarter of the project area (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC 2022).
3.3 Paleontological Resources
A paleontological record search from a nearby project that included the APE did not identify any known paleontological localities (Schmidtling and Encarnacion 2021). As noted above in the settings Section 2.1, the APE is underlain by gabbro and monzogranite, both dating to the Cretaceous period.
Per the paleontological record search study, these geological units have a low paleontological sensitivity because of the high heat involved in the formation of these units (Schmidtling and Encarnacion 2021). According to the County of Riverside paleontological sensitivity map, the APE lies within a low paleontological sensitivity area (County of Riverside 2015). It is unlikely that fossil material will be present within the APE.
4.0 Methods
In order to determine if this project will adversely impact significant cultural resources, background research, review of topographic maps and historic aerial photographs, and an on -foot survey were completed. RECON archaeologist Nathanial Yerka, accompanied by Chris Yearyean from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, conducted a pedestrian survey of the project area on January 13, 2022. The southwestern portion of the project area was surveyed on September 29, 2022 . The primary goal of the pedestrian reco nnaissance investigation was to survey the project area and determine (1) if there are previously unrecorded cultural resources present, and if so, document the resources’ locations and what they consist of, and (2) to update conditions of previously recor ded cultural resources.
The project area was inspected for evidence of archaeological materials such as flaked and ground stone tools or fragments, ceramics, milling features, and human remains. Spacing between the archaeologist and the Native American participant was 15 meters. Photographs and field notes were taken to document the environmental setting and general conditions. The locations of observed resources were recorded using an Apple iPad running ESRI’s ArcGIS Collector application paired with a Trimble R1 sub-meter global positioning system (GPS) unit. RECON used Collector for ArcGIS on a GPS-enabled tablet containing shapefiles and aerial photography to convey real-time location and aid in navigation of the APE.
California Department of Parks and Recreation site forms were completed for all newly recorded cultural resources observed during the survey. Completed California Department of Parks and Recreation site forms will be filed with the EIC (Confidential Attachment 2). A copy of the survey report will also be filed with the EIC.
5.0 Survey Results
One previously unrecorded quartz finishing flake and one previously unrecorded bedrock milling feature were observed within the project area ( 10041-ISO-01 and 10041.1 -NDY-01; Confidential Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
Attachment 2). Ground visibility averaged approximately 20 percent across the non-built portions of the APE. Vegetation was composed of non-native grasses, ornamentals, creosote bush, and general riparian. The eastern portion of the project area exhibits ground disturbance in t he form of roads, house pads and associated improvements, earthen mounds and berms, rock piles and berms, mild terracing, and utility alignments (Photograph 1). The southeast quarter of the eastern half exhibits an ovular cleared roadway that is bisected b y a southwest-northeast roadway. All along these cleared areas are push piles of soil or rock with a fair amount of modern rubbish and construction rubble dumping. The southern project boundary of the eastern portion of the project area is a graded cut slope that meets the north side of Clinton Keith Road. The western portion (Photograph 2) of the project area exhibits ground disturbance in the form of dirt roads, vegetation clearing, utility alignments, fencing, an improved concrete culvert, and the manufactured slope associated with the adjacent eastern side of Whitewood Road. The western portion also exhibits mild modern rubbish and dimensional lumber dumping.
5.1 Newly Recorded Resource
10041.1-NDY-01
The resource is a granite bedrock milling feature exhibiting one milling element. The milling element is a basin measuring 42 x 26 x 2 (depth) centimeters. A 7 -centimeter milling surface collar extends south from the southern side of the basin. The boulder measures 2.54 (east/west) x 1.35 (north/south) meters, with the highpoint on the west side at 0.55 meter. The boulder exhibits numerous cracks and mild exfoliation. Recent brushing and light grading to the south of the feature have disturbed the immediate area. Less than one-foot-high soil berms are present in the cleared area to the south. The site area was until recent ly situated in dense creosote on a gentle north -facing slope. No other cultural material was observed (see Confidential Attachment 2). 10041-ISO-01
The resource is one isolated quartz finishing flake (see Confidential Attachment 2).
6.0 Regulatory Framework and Management
Recommendations
The project is subject to state and City environmental regulations and may be subject to federal regulations if jurisdictional waters/wetlands are identified. The City is the lead for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and regulatio ns. If required, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be the lead for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and National Environmental Policy Act.
P:\10041\Arc\Photos\Photos1&2.docx 01/26/22
PHOTOGRAPH 1
Overview of Eastern Portion of Project Area Near
Northeastern Project Corner, Looking South
PHOTOGRAPH 2
Overview of Western Portion of Project Area, Looking West
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
If the project requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the project would be an undertaking as defined in Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 of the NHPA, as implemented (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A key consideration for management is whether the cultural resources within the APE are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A resource must qualify under one or more criteria in order to be considered eligible for listing.
6.1 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Criteria A cultural resource that qualifies for the NRHP is considered significant in terms of the planning process under the NHPA, National Environmental Policy Act, and other federal mandates. The NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4) provides guidance in determining a cultural resource’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP. This states that the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or, C. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR
60.4).
6.2 California Environmental Quality Act
The regulatory framework and methods for determining impacts on cultural resources include compliance with CEQA requirements as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources. These guidelines require the identification of cultural resources that could be affected by the proposed project, the evaluation of the significance of such resources, an assessment of the proposed project impacts on significant resources, and a development of a research design and data recovery program to avoid or address adverse effects to significant resources. Significant resources, also called historical resources, are those cultural resources (whether prehistoric or historic) that have been evaluated and determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
According to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource includes the following:
1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing on, the California Register of Historical Resources.
2. A resource included in the local register.
3. A resource which an agency determines to be historically significant. Generally, a resource shall be considered to be “historically significant,” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Places (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 4852) including the following:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history or cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or maybe likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
4. The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
A resource must meet one of the above criteria and must have integrity; that is, it must evoke the resource’s period of significance, or, in the case of criterion D, it may be disturbed, but it must retain enough intact and undisturbed deposits to make a meaningful data contribution to regional research issues.
The regulatory framework and methods for determining impacts to paleontological resources include compliance with CEQA requirements as defined in Section 5097.5. Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any paleontological features on public lands (lands under state, county, city district or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public corporation), except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. Public Resources Code Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that result due to development projects.
6.3 City of Murrieta
Cultural resource regulations can be found in the City’s Environmental Impact Report for its General Plan. The City considers archaeological remains, historic buildings, traditional customs, tangible Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
artifacts, historical documents, and public records unique and significant to its identity (City of Murrieta 2011b:5.9-1).
6.3.1 City of Murrieta Historic Development Code
Chapter 16.26, Cultural Resource Preservation, of the City’s Development Code (Municipal Code, Title 16, Article III, Chapter 16.26) is intended to “establish a mechanism by which community resources such as buildings, structures and sites within the City of Murrieta, which are of pre-historic or historic interest or value, or which exhibit special elements of the City's architectural, cultural, or social heritage may be identified, protected, enhanced, perpetuated and used in the interest of the public's health, safety, welfare, and enrichment.” The provisions of Chapter 16.26 are applicable to any cultural or archaeological resource or identified historic preservation area located within the c ity’s boundaries.
6.3.2 Murrieta Municipal Code §16.26.050: Designation Criteria for Cultural Resources, Archaeological Districts, and Historic Districts
Section 16.26.050 of the Development Code allows for an improvement or natural feature to be designated a cultural resource by the City Council, and any individual resource or area within the city may be designated as an archaeological district or historic preservation district by the City Council, if it meets any of the following criteria:
A. Individual Resource Designation
1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City ’s cultural, architectural, aesthetic, social, economic, political, artistic and/or engineering heritage;
2. It is identified with persons, a business use or events significant in local, state or national history;
3. It embodies distinctive characteristics of style, type, period or method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
4. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer or architect; or,
5. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic represents an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
B. Local District Designation
A geographic area may be designated as a local archaeological district or historic preservation district if the City Council, after hearing(s), finds that all of the requirements set forth below are met. Concurrent with the designation of a historic preservation district, design guidelines shall be developed and shall apply to all properties within the historic preservation district.
1. Archaeological District
a. The area is a geographically definable area.
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
b. The area possesses either:
1. A significant concentration or continuity of archaeological resources; or,
2. The area is associated with the prehistory of Murrieta. c. The designation of the geographic area as an archaeological district is reasonable, appropriate, and necessary to protect, promote, and further the goals and purposes of the ordinance codified in this chapter and is not inconsistent with other goals and policies of the City.
2. Historic Preservation District
a. The area is a geographically definable area.
b. The area possesses either:
1. A significant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development; or,
2. The area is associated with an event, person, or period significant or important to Murrieta history.
c. The designation of the geographic area as a historic preservation district is reasonable, appropriate, and necessary to protect, promote, and further the goals and purposes of the ordinance codified in this chapter and is not inconsistent with other goals and policies of the City.
d. Determining Factors: In determining whether to designate a historic preservation district, the following factors shall be considered:
1. District should have integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association; and,
2. The collective value of the buildings and structures in a district taken together may be greater than the value of each individual building or structure (City of Murrieta 2011b:5.9-6-8).
6.3.3 Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Future development projects shall continue to be evaluated for cultural resources by the City of Murrieta through review by the EIC and notification of and consultation with the local tribes for new entitlement projects. The projects shall be evaluated for compliance with the CEQA and where feasible, avoidance of cultural resources. If, following review by the EIC and/or tribal consultation, it is determined that there is a potential for impacts to cultural resources, further cultural resources analysis by a qualified professional(s), as defined in Mitigation Measure CR-2, may be required by the City.
CR-2 In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical, paleontological) resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall cease all earth -disturbing activities within a 100 -foot radius of the area of discovery. If not already retained due to conditions present pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-1, the project proponent shall retain a qualified professional (i.e., archaeologist, historian, architect, paleontologist, Native American Tribal monitor), subject to approval by the City of Murrieta to evaluate the significance of the find and appropriate course of action (refer to Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR-3). If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.
CR-3 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the NAHC. The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains (City of Murrieta 2011b:5.9-24-26).
6.3.4 City of Murrieta Paleontological Resources
Goal CSV7 of the Conservation Element of the City of Murrieta General Plan 2035 (Murrieta 2011 b) states that paleontological resources shall be conserved as a record of the region’s natural history.
Mitigation Measure CR-2 requires a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the significance of a fossil find during excavation and grading activities of future development projects. If avoidance is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines will be followed.
6.4 Evaluation of Resources
10041.1-NDY-01 (bedrock milling feature) is discussed in this section. Cultural isolates are not considered significant historical resources because they generally lack characteristics that would qualify them for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. Similarly, isolates are not considered significant cultural resources under City guidelines. Therefore, 10041 -ISO-01 (isolated flake) is not a historic property under the NRHP or a historical resource under the CRHR or the City’s historic development code. 10041.1-NDY-01 does not qualify under criteria A, B, and C since the bedrock milling feature could not be associated with a significant event or a significant person, and it does not possess a unique construction method. The bedrock milling feature is not associated with any surface artifacts but may possess a subsurface component that may yield additional prehistoric data. RECON recommended a Phase 2 testing program to determine if the resource has subsurface deposits ; however, in connection with engaging with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians for the required Tribal consultation, and to discuss the engagement of a Native American monitor during the excavation, the Tribe requested that no Phase 2 excavation be completed as part of the environmental review. Thus, no further investigation of the bedrock milling feature was undertaken.
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
6.5 Management Recommendations
6.5.1 Cultural Resources
As noted above, a possible subsurface component of the prehistoric cultural resource (10041.1-NDY-01) may possess cultural material that may contribute to local prehistoric data. Because the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians has requested that no Phase 2 excavation be completed as part of the environmental review, RECON recommends controlled grading surrounding the bedrock milling feature as a mitigation measure during construction. Controlled grading consists of systematically grading or peeling away soils in a series of 4 -to-6-inch increments (lifts) with a moderately sized tractor, loader , or other similar piece of construction equipment. The grading equipment will push the increments of soil to the limits of the controlled grading area in order to allow for further inspection by the monitors. This method will prevent significant impacts to the potentially significant subsurface component of the bedrock milling feature. This task will be directed by the archaeological monitor in concert with the Native American monitor.
This resource is also considered a Tribal cultural resource. To address this resource, the City will need to complete A ssembly Bill 52 consultation with the local t ribes to determine mitigation measures they will recommend.
Because there is a potential for unknown buried cultural resources to be exposed during construction activities, RECON recommends construction monitoring by archaeological and Native American monitors for all ground disturbing activities in the western half and the ungraded southeast corner of the APE. The possibility of buried significant cultural resources being present within the eastern portion of the APE is considered low because of past development.
6.5.2 Paleontological Resources
Because the geologic formations underlying the APE have a low paleontological sensitivity, the project will not result in significant change to paleontological resources. No mitigation measures are recommended.
7.0 References
Bean, L., and F. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 550 -563. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institute. Washington, DC.
Bedwell, S. F.
1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area, South Central Oregon.
Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
Deméré, Thomas A. and Stephen L. Walsh
2011 Paleontological Resources: County of San Diego. On file at the Department of Paleontology San Diego Natural History Museum.
Engel, Rene
1959 Geology and Mineral Deposits of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California. California Department of Natural Resources, Bulletin 146, Division of Mines, San Francisco, pp. 50-51.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Douglas E. Kyle, and Ethel G. Rensch 2002 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Sanford.
Kennedy, M.P. and D.M. Morton
1975 Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. Accessed online on September 19, 2022. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/0189/pdf/mur_map.pdf .
Kowta, M.
1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology No. 6. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Kroeber, A. L.
1970 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley.
Meighan, C. W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.
Murrieta, City of
2010 General Plan Update Existing Conditions Background Report. Accessed online on September 22, 2022 at https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/736/Existing- Conditions-Background-Report-PDF.
2011a Geology and Seismic Hazards: Section 5.8 of the General Plan Update. Accessed online on Sept. 19, 2022 at https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/790/05 -08--- Geology-and-Seismic-Hazards-PDF.
2011b Final EIR: Murrieta General Plan 2035: Section 5.9 Cultural Resources. Electronic document. Accessed online on September 22, 2022 at
https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/754/05-09---Cultural-Resources- PDF.
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC
2022 Historic Aerials. http://www.historicaerials.com/. Accessed on March 16, 2022.
Riverside, County of
2015 Cultural and Paleontological Resources: Section 4.9 of the Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Accessed online September 19, 2022 at https://rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/ general_plan_2015/DEIR%20521/04-09_CulturalAndPaleoResrcs.pdf.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1938 Archaeological and Geological Investigations of the Culture Levels in an Old Channel of San Dieguito Valley. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook 37:344-45.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(2):167-198.
Albuquerque.
Rolle, Andrew and Arthur Verge
2008 California: A History. Harlan Davidson, Wheeling, Illinois.
Schmidtling, Ron C. and Deirdre Encarnacion
2021 Paleontological Resources Assessment Report: Assessor’s Parcel Number 900 -030-036.
Unpublished report on file at CRM Tech, Colton. Assessed online on September 19, 2022 at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/280358-1/attachment/h7GSDPy8vgBnvKP3mnx-QmPN Or5D0JNKFqmU2NP41jupvyqoLCcZb4Nn2ZKNvl4SEYvoUKg0fbceSPZT0.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234.
True, D. L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3):255-263.
True, D. L., C. Meighan, and H. Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology No. 11.
True, D. L., and G. Waugh
1981 Archaeological Investigations in Northern San Diego County, California: Frey Creek. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):84-115.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1971 Soil Survey, Western Riverside Area, California. Arnold A. Knecht, Soil Scientist, Soil Conservation Service. November.
White, Raymond
1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194.
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
ATTACHMENT 1
Native American Heritage Commission Correspondence
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Whitewood Development Project
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS
(Under Separate Cover)