February 23, 2016 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L · 2017. 2. 23. · February 23, 2016 Rod Bradley BHA, Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92010 Re: Cultural Resources

February 23, 2016

Rod Bradley

BHA, Inc.5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite LCarlsbad, CA 92010

Re: Cultural Resources Study for the Yada Family Farms Subdivision Project,Carlsbad, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Bradley,

This report presents the results of a cultural resources study conducted by ASM Affiliates,Inc. (ASM) for the proposed Yada Family Farms Subdivision Project (Project). The Projectis located in the city of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The Project site isapproximately 5 acres in extent and is located east of Valley Street, between Buena VistaWay and McCauley Lane. The Project is shown in Section 6 of Township 12 South, Range4 West, and in Section 31 of Township 11 South, Range 4 West, in the southwesterncentral portion of the San Luis Rey USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figures 1and 2).

This study was performed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) to determine the presence or absence of potentially significant prehistoric andhistoric resources within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). The City ofCarlsbad is the lead agency for the Project. This cultural resources study consisted of areview of all relevant site records and reports on file with the South Coastal InformationCenter (SCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at SanDiego State University within a 1/2-mile (mi.) search radius, a pedestrian survey of theAPE, and a review of the Sacred Lands File held by the Native American HeritageCommission (NAHC).

No cultural resources were identified within the APE during ASM’s pedestrian survey.One fenced modern residence, located within the future Lot 14, is present and will remainon the property. The Project area was previously in use for agricultural activities, and theremains of four ancillary structures are present: (1) the wooden frame of an abandonedcommercial greenhouse; (2) the remains of a corrugated metal structure; (3) the remains ofa wooden ancillary structure; and (4) the remains of a wooden barn. A review of the historicaerial photographs of the Project area shows that these buildings are less than 50 years old.This report includes the results of the study, as well as a brief historic background sketchfor the area and archaeological recommendations.

Mr. Rod BradleyPage 2 of 21

Cultural Setting

PrehistoryArchaeological fieldwork along the southern California coast has documented a diverserange of human occupation extending from the early Holocene into the Ethnohistoricperiod (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Jones 1992; Moratto 1984). A variety of differentregional chronologies, often with overlapping terminology, have been used in coastalsouthern California, and they vary from region to region (Moratto 1984). Today, theprehistory of San Diego County is generally divided into three major temporal periods:Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric. These time periods are characterized bypatterns in material culture that are thought to represent distinct regional trends in theeconomic and social organization of prehistoric groups. In addition, particular scholarsreferring to specific areas utilize a number of cultural terms synonymously with thesetemporal labels: San Dieguito for Paleo-Indian, La Jolla for Archaic, and San Luis Rey forLate Prehistoric (Meighan 1959; Moriarty 1966; Rogers 1939, 1945; True 1966, Wallace1978; Warren 1964).

Paleo-Indian PeriodThe antiquity of human occupation in the New World has been the subject of considerabledebate over the last few decades. The most widely accepted model currently is that humansfirst entered the western hemisphere between 12,000 and 15,000 years B.P. While there isno firm evidence of human occupation in coastal southern California prior to 12,000 B.P.,dates as early as 23,000 B.P. and even 48,000 B.P. have been reported (Bada et al. 1974;Carter 1980; Rogers 1974). The amino acid racemization technique used to date these siteshas been largely discredited, however, by more recent accelerator radiocarbon dating ofearly human remains along the California coast (Taylor et al. 1985). Despite intense interestand a long history of research, no widely accepted evidence of human occupation of NorthAmerica dating prior to 15,000 B.P. has emerged.

As in most of North America, the earliest recognized period of California prehistory istermed Paleo-Indian. In southern California, this period is usually considered to date fromat least 10,000 B.P. until 8500 to 7200 B.P. (Moratto 1984; Warren et al. 2008), and isrepresented by what is known as the San Dieguito complex (Rogers 1966). Within the localclassificatory system, San Dieguito assemblages are composed almost entirely of flakedstone tools, including scrapers, choppers, and large projectile points (Warren 1987; Warrenet al. 2008).

Archaic PeriodThe Archaic period (also referred to as the Early Milling period) extends back at least 7,200years, possibly to as early as 9000 B.P. (Moratto 1984; Rogers 1966; Warren et al. 2008).Archaic subsistence is generally considered to have differed from Paleo-Indian subsistencein two major ways. First, gathering activities were emphasized over hunting, with shellfishand seed collecting having a high importance. Second, milling technology, frequentlyemploying portable ground stone slabs, was developed. In reality, the implications of thistransition are poorly understood from both an economic and a cultural standpoint (seeWarren et al. 2008 for an excellent review).


Early Archaic occupations in San Diego County are most apparent along the coast and themajor drainage systems that extend inland from the coastal plains (Moratto 1984). CoastalArchaic sites are characterized by cobble tools, basin metates, manos, discoidals, a smallnumber of “Pinto” and “Elko” series dart points, and flexed burials. Together, theseelements typify what is termed the La Jolla complex in San Diego County, which appearsas the early coastal manifestation of a more diversified way of life.

Late Prehistoric Period

Assemblages derived from Late Prehistoric sites in San Diego County differ in many waysfrom those in the Archaic tradition. The occurrence of small, pressure-flaked projectilepoints, the replacement of flexed inhumations with cremations, the introduction ofceramics, and an emphasis on inland plant food collection, processing, and storage(especially acorns) are cultural patterns that were well established by the secondmillennium A.D. The centralized and seasonally permanent residential patterns that hadbegun to emerge during the Archaic period became well established in most areas. Inlandsemisedentary villages appeared along major watercourses in the foothills and in montanevalleys where seasonal exploitation of acorns and piñon nuts was common, resulting inmilling stations on bedrock outcrops. Mortars for acorn processing increased in frequencyrelative to seed-grinding basins.

Ethnohistoric PeriodIn ethnohistoric times, two main cultural groups occupied San Diego County: the Uto-Aztecan-speaking Luiseño in the north and the Kumeyaay, Ipai/Tipai or Diegueño in thesouth. Traditionally, Luiseño territory encompassed an area from roughly Agua Hediondaon the coast, east to Lake Henshaw, north into Riverside County, and west through SanJuan Capistrano to the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925; Rivers 1993). Theregion inhabited by various groups of the Kumeyaay was much larger and probablyextended from Agua Hedionda lagoon eastward into the Imperial Valley and southwardthrough much of northern Baja California (Almstedt 1982; Gifford 1931; Hedges 1975;Luomala 1978; Shipek 1982; Spier 1923).

The term Luiseño is derived from association with the San Luis Rey Mission, on the SanLuis Rey River. The Luiseño people had a fairly rigid social structure and a moderatelyhigh population density (Bean and Shipek 1978). Maximum population estimates atSpanish contact range from 5,000 (Kroeber 1925) to 10,000 (White 1963). With a territoryextending for almost 4,000 km², maximum population density estimates range from 1.25to 2.5 persons per km² (3.3 to 6.7 persons per mi.2). White (1963) estimated that the Luiseñoincluded approximately 50 villages of 200 individuals each, while Oxendine (1983), usingPortolá expedition observations, indicated that village size was closer to 60. Recentresearch with mission records suggests that village size varied significantly in theeighteenth century, with larger villages such as Topome along the Santa Margarita Riverconsisting of multiple clans (Johnson and Crawford 1999).


The Luiseño were divided into several autonomous lineages or kin groups based onpatrilineal descent groups and a patrilocal residential pattern. Each Luiseño lineage wasbased around an autonomous village that held collective ownership over a well-definedterritory for hunting and gathering, and violations of trespass were punished (Bean andShipek 1978). Village territories may have ranged from as small as 10 km² near the coastalong major drainages such as the San Luis Rey River (Oxendine 1983:45) to as large as100 km² elsewhere (White 1963). A variety of shorter-term residential camps (such as foracorn gathering) and specialized localities occurred within each village territory (Oxendine1983; White 1963). There are varied estimates for the length of the annual stay at the mainvillage, and True et al. (1974) have even suggested a seasonal pattern with two permanentbase camps, one in a major valley and another in the mountain region. Leadership includedhereditary chiefs and council members who had specialized knowledge and authority overspecific religious, economic, and warfare issues. Leaders conducted elaborate ceremonies;ritual and ceremonial specialists maintained ceremonial knowledge in secrecy and passedon the knowledge to only one heir (White 1963; Winterrowd and Shipek 1986). Theseleaders and specialists made use of fenced-in ceremonial structures, located in the villagecenter.

Economic activities took place on the community and extended household levels, andvaried significantly between coastal and inland areas (Bean and Shipek 1978:552).Community-wide efforts included fire management for game drives, and systematic use offire to facilitate grasslands and increase yields of key plants and animals. Such burning wasregularly mentioned in early Spanish accounts (Bean and Lawton 1976; Blackburn andAnderson 1993). Acorns, gathered in upland areas, have been considered the mostimportant food source. Seeds from grasses, manzanita, sage, sunflowers, lemonade berry,chia, and other plants were also used, along with various wild greens and fruits. Deer,antelope, small game, and birds were exploited. Coastal marine animals utilized as foodincluded sea mammals, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Near-shore fishing was done fromlight balsa reed or dugout canoes. Some accounts indicate that coastal communitiesexploited local shellfish in the winter (Sparkman 1908; White 1963), and during times ofstress the interior Luiseño traveled to the coast to obtain shellfish, fish, and even some landmammals (White 1963). Bean and Shipek (1978) noted that most inland groups also hadfishing and gathering locations on the coast that they visited annually when the tides werelow or when the inland resources were scarce, typically from January through March.

Rigid gender division of labor did not exist, but women generally collected plant resourcesand men hunted (Bean and Shipek 1978). Houses were dispersed throughout villages.Lowland village houses were conical structures covered with tule bundles, and otherstructures included sweathouses, ceremonial enclosures, ramadas, and acorn granaries.Domestic implements included wooden utensils, baskets, ceramic cooking and storagevessels, and milling tools. Hunting implements included bow and arrow, curved throwingsticks, nets, and snares. Nets and hooks made of shell and bone were used for fishing.

Historic PeriodThe Hispanic era in California’s history includes the Spanish Colonial (1769-1821) andMexican Republic (1821-1846) periods. This era witnessed the transition from a society


dominated by religious and military institutions consisting of missions and presidios to acivilian population residing on large ranchos or in pueblos (Chapman 1925).

On July 20, 1769, Father Juan Crespí arrived in the San Luis Rey River Valley with thePortolá expedition to Monterey. His report back to his superiors declaring it an ideallocation for a mission led to the eventual founding of Mission San Luis Rey de Francia(Pourade 1961:115). The mission was formally dedicated on June 13, 1798. Named forKing Louis IX of France, this mission became known as the “King of Missions” due to itssize and success. At its height, San Luis Rey became one of the most populous andsuccessful of the missions. In 1824, it had an Indian neophyte population of 3,000 and theextensive mission lands supported 1,500 horses, 2,800 sheep, and 22,000 cattle (Pourade1961:139).

The effects of missionization and the introduction of Old World diseases, greatly reducedthe Native American population of southern California. Inland Luiseño groups were notheavily affected by Spanish influence until 1816, when an outpost of the mission wasestablished 32 km further inland at Pala (Sparkman 1908). Most villagers, however,continued to maintain many of their aboriginal customs and simply adopted the agriculturaland animal husbandry practices learned from Spaniards.

Mexico won independence from Spain in 1821, and with it the process of dismantling ofthe mission system began to unfold. The 1833 Secularization Act passed by the MexicanCongress ordered half of all mission lands to be transferred to the Indians, and the otherhalf to remain in trust and managed by an appointed administrator. These orders were neverimplemented due to several factors that conspired to prevent the Indians from regainingtheir patrimony. By 1835, the missions, including Mission San Luis Rey, were secularized.

The subsequent American period (1846 to present) witnessed the development of SanDiego County in various ways. This time period includes the rather rapid dominance overCalifornio culture by Anglo-Victorian (Yankee) culture and the rise of urban centers andrural communities. A Frontier period from 1850 to 1870 saw the region’s transformationfrom a feudal-like society to an aggressive capitalistic economy in which Americanentrepreneurs gained control of most large ranchos and transformed San Diego into amerchant-dominated market town. Between 1870 and 1930, urban developmentestablished the cities of San Diego, National City, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, LaMesa, Oceanside, and Chula Vista, while a rural society based on family-owned farmsorganized by rural school district communities also developed, especially in the northernregion of the county. The Army and Navy took an increased interest in the San Diegoharbor between 1900 and 1940. The Army established coastal defense fortifications at FortRosecrans on Point Loma, and the Navy developed major facilities in the bay (Fredericks1979; Van Wormer and Roth 1985). The 1920s brought a land boom (Robinson 1942) thatstimulated development throughout the city and county, particularly in the Point Loma,Pacific Beach, and Mission Beach areas. Development stalled during the depression yearsof the 1930s, but World War II ushered in a period of growth based on expanding defenseindustries.


The city of Carlsbad was incorporated in 1952, and its zigzagged boundaries extended fromthe Buena Vista Lagoon to present-day Palomar Airport Road. Today, the boundariesextend south from State Route 78 to the southern edge of Batiquitos Lagoon at La CostaAvenue and southeast beyond Rancho Santa Fe Road. The community that became the cityof Carlsbad aligned with county-wide trends of the American Period (1850-present) whenthe northern part of Carlsbad and portions of Oceanside and Vista were part of the 13,311-acre land grant known as Rancho Agua Hedionda. The California Southern Railroadconnecting to the transcontinental line was completed in 1885 but had been constructedthrough the Carlsbad area in 1881. However the community of Carlsbad did not exist untilJohn A. Frazier purchased over 100 acres in present-day downtown Carlsbad from ahomesteader in 1883. The Carlsbad Depot was constructed in 1887. The depot was the onlycommercial building and the center of town at the time, and so it served as a Wells Fargoexpress station, post office, telegraph station, and general store. A real estate depressiontook place across the county in the 1890s.

Carlsbad revived from the 1890s depression in 1914 when the South Coast Land Companypurchased much of the area and negotiated water delivery from the San Luis Rey River.Agricultural use took off after water supplies were secured, and continued for the nextseveral decades. Despite the financial impacts of the Great Depression, Carlsbad’s primaryeconomies remained: tourism and agricultural production, especially avocados. The Armyand Navy Academy moved to Carlsbad in 1936, which also aided in sustaining thecommunity, but the postwar influx made the greatest impact. Both commercial businessesand residential development boomed in the years following World War II across San DiegoCounty and in the city of Carlsbad.

Study Methods

Methods used to assess the presence or absence of cultural resources within the propertyincluded a search of existing records and an intensive field survey. The records search wasconducted at the SCIC on November 29, 2015 (Appendix A). The search included theProject area and a radius of ½ mi. around it. A records search of the Sacred Lands File heldby the NAHC was requested on November 20, 2015 (Appendix B). Historic aerialphotographs, provided by historicaerials.com, of the Project area were examined.

The field survey was conducted on November 23, 2015, by ASM archaeologist KentManchen. Field methods consisted of a pedestrian survey of the APE by the archaeologistin transects spaced at 10-m intervals. The APE was photographed, and all visible soils wereexamined for cultural resources.

Study Results

SCIC Records Search ResultsSixteen cultural resource studies have previously addressed the ½-mi. record search radiussurrounding the APE. Two of the reports, NADB Nos. 1124111 and 1129361, haveaddressed the Project area. Descriptions of the cultural resource studies within the recordssearch radius are provided in Table 1.


Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Reports Addressing the APE and½-Mile Records Search Radius

NADBNo.

Authors Date TitleRelation to the

APE

1120645 Bull, Charles 1979A Test of SDM-W-1172, an

Archaeological Site in Buena WoodsOutside

1120659 Bull, Charles 1978An Archaeological Survey of Buena

Woods 3-4, Carlsbad, CaliforniaOutside

1121698 Polan, H. Keith 1983An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the

Alanda Project, Carlsbad, CaliforniaOutside

1122053Nasland

Engineering1983

Draft Environmental Impact Report:Alanda Project

Outside

1124111 Larry Seeman 1982Draft Environmental Impact Report:

Revised Parks and Recreation Element,Carlsbad, California

Intersect

1124940 Recon 1977Draft Environmental Impact Report for

Buena Woods 3-4Outside

1125018 Cardenas, D. Sean 1985Archaeological Investigation of SDM-W-

143/146: A Unique Coastal LuiseñoOccupation Site in Carlsbad, CA

Outside

1126248 Caltrans 1998Negative Archaeological Survey Report

District 11Outside

1129361Byrd, Brian F. and

Collin O'Neill2002

Archaeological Survey Report for thePhase I Archaeological Survey alongInterstate 5 San Diego County, CA.

Intersect

1129571Guerrero, MonicaC. and Dennis R.

Gallegos2003

City Of Carlsbad Water and Sewer MasterPlans Cultural Resource BackgroundStudy, City Of Carlsbad, California

Outside

1131761 Dominici, Deb 2007Historic Property Survey Report, I-5 North

Coast Widening ProjectOutside

1131880Bonner, Wayne H.and Marnie Aislin-

Kay2008

Cultural Resource Records Search and SiteVisit Results for T-Mobile Facility

Candidate Sd06295u (Carlsbad HighSchool), 3557 Lancer Way, Carlsbad, San

Diego County, California

Outside

1132152 Kyle, Carolyn E. 2009Cultural Resource Survey, Carlsbad High

School, 3557 Lancer Way City of CarlsbadCounty Of San Diego, California

Outside

1133916 Caltrans 2012Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project

Supplemental Draft Environmental ImpactReport/ Environmental Impact Statement

Outside

1134495 Caltrans 2013

Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor ProjectFinal Environmental Impact Report/

Environmental Impact Statement AndSection 4(f) Evaluation

Outside

1134615 Caltrans 2013 I-5 North Corridor Project SupplementalOutside


The records search indicated that no cultural resources have been previously recordedwithin the APE. Four cultural resources are located within the ½-mi. search radius of theAPE. Descriptions of the four previously recorded resources within the search radius areprovided in Table 2.

Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the APE and½-Mile Records Search Radius

Designation

Site Type Recorder, DateRelation to the

APEPrimaryNumber

Trinomial

P-37- CA-SDI-

005077 5077Shell Midden,Habitation Site

Hatley and Bull1977

Outside

005213 5213 Habitation Site

Norwood 1977,Wade 1985,

Unknown AuthorUnknown Date

Outside

010746 10746Shell Midden,Habitation Site

Cardenas 1986 Outside

029410 18819 Shell Midden Anderson 2008 Outside

A search of the historic addresses on file at the SCIC identified two previously recordedhistoric addresses within the ½-mi. search radius. None of the historic addresses are locatedwithin the APE. The historic addresses are described in Table 3.

Table 3. Previously Recorded Historic Addresses within the APE and1/2-Mile Records Search Radius

Address City, Zip CodeBuilding Type / Common /

Historic NameRelation to the APE

2565 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, 92008 Residence Outside

1166 Carlsbad VillageDrive

Carlsbad, 92008Government buildings

P-37-029985Outside

NAHC Records Search ResultsA record search of the Sacred Lands File held by the NAHC was requested on November20, 2015. On December 8, 2015 the NAHC responded that the Sacred Lands File recordsearch revealed that one archaeological site, SDI-8797, has been recorded on the San LuisRey USGS Quadrangle and the Tribal Council of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indiansshould be contacted for additional information. SDI-8797 is located approximately 3 mi.to the south of the project area and consists of a prehistoric habitation site, with numerousartifacts, hearths, rock features and burials. SDI-8797 had both Archaic and LatePrehistoric period occupations.

The NAHC also provided a list of 23 Native American tribal entities and individuals fromwhich to gather additional information. ASM sent letters requesting additional information


to these tribal entities and individuals on December 10, 2015. Shasta Gaughen, the TribalHistoric Preservation Officer of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, responded on December15, 2015 that the Project area is beyond the boundaries of their Traditional Use Area;however they request to be kept in the information loop as the project progresses. OnDecember 17, 2015 the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians responded that a KumeyaayCultural Monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities. On December 30, 2015, MerriLopez-Keifer of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians responded that a NativeAmerican monitor should be present for all ground disturbing activities and culturalresource assessment surveys. The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians requests an inperson discussion of the project, and that all reports regarding the project be provided tothem. On January 7, 2016 Joseph Ontiveros of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indiansresponded that a Native American monitor should be present during any grounddisturbance, surveys, or testing associated with the project and that the Soboba Band wishesto defer to the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians. On January 19, 2016 Chris Deversof the Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians responded that a Native American monitor shouldbe present for all ground disturbance. On January 21, 2016, Vincent Whipple of the RinconBand of Luiseno Indians responded that they did not require any further consultation at thistime. To date, no additional responses have been received. All correspondence pertainingto the NAHC is provided in Appendix B.

Survey Conditions and ResultsThe APE is highly disturbed, as most of the property has been used extensively foragriculture (Figure 3). No cultural resources were identified during the archaeologicalsurvey.

The ground surface visibility was good to fair, occasionally obscured by overgrownvegetation, modern trash, and black tarp. The natural landscape of the APE has beenmodified by decades of agricultural use with approximately 50 percent of the groundsurface showing ruts from plowing. The northeast corner of the property has beendeveloped and contains an existing residence that will not be altered as part of this project(Figure 4). The remains of four ancillary structures are present within the APE. Thesestructures are temporary buildings which were previously used to support the agriculturaluse of the Project area.

Structure Remains 1 are the wooden frame of an abandoned commercial greenhouse andare located within the southern half of the APE (shown in Figures 3 and 5). StructureRemains 2 are a corrugated metal structure (Figure 6). Structure Remains 3 are a woodenancillary structure (Figure 7). Structure Remains 4 are a wooden barn (Figures 3 and 5).

The historic aerial photographs show that the Project area was in use for agriculturalpurposes prior to 1938. By 1947, at least one building is present within the Project area.The historic aerial photographs show that Structure Remains 1, Structure Remains 2, andStructure Remains 3 were constructed between 1980 and 1990, as they are not visible onthe 1980 aerial photograph but are visible on the 1990 aerial photograph. Several buildingshave been present within the vicinity of Structure Remains 4, the earliest of which wasconstructed between 1938 and 1947. However, between 1994 and 1997 the footprint of the


building changed shape, showing that the previous ancillary building near StructureRemains 4 was replaced during this time period (Historicaerials.com 2015).

Recommendations

No cultural resources were identified within the APE in the record searches or during thepedestrian field survey. Construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and NativeAmerican monitor is recommended during any pre-construction soil testing and the initialgrading of the APE, due to the presence of cultural resources in the vicinity of the Projectarea. In the event that any previously undetected cultural resources are encountered, allwork should cease in the vicinity of the discovery and a qualified archaeologist should becontacted to evaluate such discoveries and determine if additional archaeological work isneeded.

Should you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call me.

Respectfully submitted,

Shelby G. Castells, M.A., RPASenior Archaeologist

Attachments:Figure 1. Project vicinity.Figure 2. Project location, shown on the USGS 7.5’ topographic San Luis Rey

quad map.Figure 3. Overview of plowed area with Structure Remains 1-greenhouse

frame, Structure Remains 4- wooden barn, and Valley Street inbackground, facing southwest.

Figure 4. Existing house (Lot 14), facing northeast.Figure 5. The remains of a Structure Remains 1-greenhouse frame and

Structure Remains 4-wooden barn, facing northwest.Figure 6. Structure Remains 2 -corrugated metal building, taken from inside

greenhouse frame, facing southwest.Figure 7. Structure Remains 3 -wooden ancillary building facing southeast.

Appendix A SCIC Records Search ConfirmationAppendix B NAHC Correspondence

References Cited

Almstedt, Ruth1982 Kumeyaay and Ipay. In APS/SDG&E Interconnection Native American

Cultural Resources, edited by Clyde Woods, pp. 6-20. Wirth Associates, SanDiego.


Bada, Jeffrey, Roy Schroeder, and George Carter1974 New Evidence for the Antiquity of Man in North America Deduced from

Aspartic Acid Racemization. Science 184:791-793.

Bean, Lowell J., and Harry W. Lawton1976 Some Explanations for the Rise of Cultural Complexity in Native California

with Comments on Proto-Agriculture and Agriculture. In Native Californians:A Theoretical Retrospective, edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas C.Blackburn, pp. 7-30. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.

Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of

North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Blackburn, Thomas C., and Kat Anderson (editors)1993 Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians.

Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

Carter, George1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in the Americas. Texas A&M

University, College Station.

Chapman, Charles1925 A History of California: The Spanish Period. Macmillan Company, New York.

Erlandson, Jon, and Roger H. Colten1991 An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies on the California Coast.

In Hunter Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M.Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 1-10. Perspectives in CaliforniaArchaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, LosAngeles.

Fredericks, Edward1979 The U. S. Navy in San Diego Prior to World War II -- In They Came From the

Sea: A Maritime History of San Diego. Cabrillo Historical Association, SanDiego.

Gifford, Edward W.1931 The Kamia of Imperial Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 98.

Washington, D.C.

Hedges, Ken1975 Notes on the Kumeyaay: A Problem of Identification. Journal of California

Anthropology 2:71-83.


Historicaerials.com2015 Historic aerial photographs of the Project Area at Buena Vista Way. Electronicdocument,

www.historicaerials.com, accessed December 15, 2015.

Johnson, John, and Dinah Crawford1999 Contributions to Luiseño Ethnohistory Based on Mission Register Research.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35:79-102.

Jones, Terry1992 Settlement Trends along the California Coast. In Essays on the Prehistory of

Maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, pp. 1-38. Center forArchaeological Research at Davis No. 10. Davis, California.

Kroeber, A. L.1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin

No. 78. Washington, D.C.

Luomala, Katherine1978 Tipai and Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592-609.

Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant,general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Meighan, Clement1959 California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity

24:289-305.

Moratto, Michael1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Moriarty, James1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with

Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego.Anthropological Journal of Canada 4:20-30.

1976 The Cabrillo National Monument: A Physical and Cultural Overview. Reportprepared for Western Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior.

Oxendine, Joan1983 The Luiseño Village during the Late Prehistoric Period. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Pourade, Richard F.1961 Time of the Bells. Union Tribune, San Diego.


Rivers, Betty1993 The Pendleton Coast District: An Ethnographic and Historical Background. In

The Cultural Resources of the Pendleton Coast District. Report on file atCultural Heritage Section, California Department of Parks and Recreation,Sacramento.

Robinson, W. W.1942 The Southern California Real Estate Boom of the Twenties. Southern

California Quarterly 24(1):23-28.

Rogers, Malcolm J.1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent

Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3.1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167-

198.1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune, San Diego.

Rogers, Spencer L.1974 An Ancient Human Skeleton Found at Del Mar, California. San Diego Museum

Papers No. 7.

Shipek, Florence1982 Kumeyaay Socio-Political Structure. Journal of California and Great Basin

Anthropology 4:296-303.

Sparkman, Phillip Stedman1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in

American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:188-234. Berkeley.

Spier, Leslie1923 Southern Diegueno Customs. University of California Publications in


Taylor, R., L. Payen, C. Prior, P. Slota, R. Gillespie, J. Gowlett, R. Hedges, A. Hull, T.Zabel, D. Donahue, and R. Berger

1985 Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North AmericanHuman Skeletons by C14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older Than11,000 C14 Years B.P. American Antiquity 50:136-140.

True, Delbert1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in

Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.


True, Delbert L., Clement W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California.

University of California Publications in Anthropology No. 11. Berkeley.

Van Wormer, Stephen, and Linda Roth1985 Guns on Point Loma: A History of Fort Rosecrans and the Defense of San

Diego Harbor. In The Military on Point Loma, pp. 1-20. Cabrillo HistoricalAssociation, San Diego.

Wallace, William J.1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by

Robert F. Heizer, pp. 25-36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D.C.

Warren, Claude N.1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, LosAngeles.

1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito – La Jolla:Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 73-85. San DiegoCounty Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.

Warren, Claude, Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer2008 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic

Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties BackgroundStudy, pp. 13-107. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.

White, Raymond C.1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in


Winterrowd, Cathy, and Florence Shipek1986 Ethnographic Investigation: Pala Sand and Gravel Extraction Project. RBR

and Associates, San Diego.


Figure 1. Project vicinity.


Figure 2. Project location, shown on the USGS 7.5’ topographic San Luis Reyquad map.


Figure 3. Overview of plowed area with Structure Remains 1-greenhouse frame.Structure Remains 4- wooden barn, and Valley Street in background, facing

southwest.

Figure 4. Existing house (Lot 14), facing northeast.


Figure 5. The remains of a Structure Remains 1-greenhouse frame and Structure Remains4-wooden barn, facing northwest.

Figure 6. Structure Remains 2 -corrugated metal building, taken from inside greenhouseframe, facing southwest.


Figure 7. Structure Remains 3-wooden ancillary building facing southeast.

Appendix ASCIC Record Search Confirmation

South Coastal Information CenterSan Diego State University5500 Campanile DriveSan Diego, CA 92182-5320Office: (619) [email protected]

Company: ASM Affiliates

Company Representative: Shelby Castells

Date Processed: 11/29/2015

Project Identification: Yada Family Farm

Search Radius: 1/2 mile

Historical Resources: YES

Previous Survey Report Boundaries: YES

Historic Maps: YES

Historic Addresses: YES

Hours: 1RUSH: no

Trinomial and Primary site maps have been reviewed. All sites within the project boundaries and the specified radius of the project area have been plotted. Copies of the site record forms have been included for all recorded sites.

Project boundary maps have been reviewed. National Archaeological Database (NADB) citations for reports within the project boundaries and within the specified radius of the project area have been included.

The historic maps on file at the South Coastal Information Center have been reviewed, and copies have been included.

A map and database of historic properties (formerly Geofinder) has been included.

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEMRECORDS SEARCH

Quads: 1Aerial Photos: 0

Summary of SHRC Approved CHRIS IC Records Search

Elements

Address-Mapped Shapes: yesDigital Database Records: 2

Spatial Features: 21

PDFs: YesPDF Pages: 41

RSID: 0

This is not an invoice. Please pay from the monthly billing statement

Appendix BNAHC Correspondence

November 20, 2015

Ms. Katy Sanchez

California Native American Heritage Commission

1550 Harbor Blvd. Suite 100

West Sacramento, CA

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Sacred Land Search Request for the Yada Family Farm Subdivision Project, City of

Carlsbad, San Diego County, California

Dear Ms. Sanchez,

ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) is conducting a cultural resource survey for Yada Family Farm

Subdivision Project (Project), City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The Project is

located on the San Luis Rey USGS 7.5’ Quad, within Section 31 of Township 11 South, Range 4

West and Section 6 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West (Figure 1). This study is being

undertaken in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Carlsbad

is the lead agency. The Project proposes to subdivide the Project area into 13 lots.

A records search for the project area was conducted by the South Coastal Information Center. I

am writing to inquire if you have registered any cultural resources, traditional cultural properties,

or areas of heritage sensitivity within this proposed project area? Our investigation will include

direct contact with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. We

request that you send a listing of the appropriate individuals to make contact with related to this

Project. Please submit your response to me at our Carlsbad office, listed below. Feel free to call,

write, or e-mail if you have any questions. We appreciate any information you can provide on

this project.

Sincerely,

Shelby Gunderman Castells, M.A., RPA

ASM Affiliates, Inc.

Senior Archaeologist

Attachments: Figure 1. Map of the Project area shown on the USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map.

Native American Heritage Commission

Yada Family Farm Subdivision

Page 2 of 2

Figure 1. Map of the Project area shown on the USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map.

December 10, 2015

Pala Band of Mission Indians

Shasta Gaughen, PhD, THPO

PMB 50, 35008 Temecula Rd.

Pala, CA 92059

Re: Yada Family Farms Subdivision Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California

Dear Ms. Gaughen,

ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) is conducting a cultural resources study for the Yada Family Farms

Subdivision Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Project). The Project is located on

the San Luis Rey USGS 7.5’ Quad, within Section 31 of Township 11 South, Range 4 West and Section 6

of Township 12 South, Range 4 West (Figure 1). The Project is being undertaken in compliance with the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The city of Carlsbad is the lead agency. The Project

proposes to subdivide the Project area into 13 lots.

The record search of the Sacred Lands File identified one site located on the San Luis Rey USGS

Quadrangle, recorded archaeological site CA-SDI-8797. This site is not within the Project area. ASM has

completed a records search at the South Coastal Information Center and a pedestrian survey of the Project

area.

We are contacting you to find out if you are aware of any issues of cultural concern regarding the area

shown on the enclosed map. In particular, we would like to know if you have knowledge of any

Traditional Cultural Properties, Sacred Sites, resource collecting areas, or any other areas of concern of

which you wish us to be aware. We understand the need for confidentiality in these matters.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the proposed project, we will contact you about the best

way to include consideration of those concerns while maintaining confidentiality. You can contact ASM

at the address and telephone number for our Carlsbad office, listed below, or myself at the e-mail address

below. We appreciate any input you may have on this project, and understand that consultation is a

private and ongoing process. Again, any information you provide us will remain confidential.

Sincerely,


[email protected]



Attachments: Figure 1

Yada Family Farms Subdivision

Page 2 of 2

Figure 1. Map of the Project Area.

December 10, 2015

Rincon Band of Mission Indians

Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson

1 West Tribal Road

Valley Center, CA 92082


Dear Mr. Mazzetti,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Pauma and Yuima Reservation

Temet Aguilar, Chairperson

P.O. Box 369, Ext. 303

Pauma Valley, CA 92061


Dear Mr. Aguilar,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians

Tribal Council

1889 Sunset Drive

Vista, CA 92081


Dear Ms. Mojado,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Soboba Band of Mission Indians

Rosemary Morillo, Chairperson

Attn: Carrie Garcia

P.O. Box 487

San Jacinto, CA 92581


Dear Ms. Morillo,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Pechanga Band of Mission Indians

Mark Macarro, Chairperson

P.O. Box 1477

Temecula, CA 92593


Dear Mr. Macarro,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians

Carmen Lucas

P.O. Box 775

Pine Valley, CA 91962


Dear Ms. Lucas,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians

Thomas Rodrigues, Chairperson

22000 Highway 76

Pauma Valley, CA 92061


Dear Mr. Rodrigues,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Inaja Band of Luiseño Indians

Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson

2005 S. Escondido Blvd.

Escondido, CA 92025


Dear Ms. Osuna,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources

P.O. Box 507

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070


Dear Mr. Linton,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

Virgil Perez, Chairperson

P.O. Box 130

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070


Dear Mr. Perez,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Pala Band of Mission Indians

Robert H. Smith, Chairperson

PMB 50, 35008 Temecula Rd.

Pala, CA 92059


Dear Mr. Smith,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office

Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson

4054 Willows Road

Alpine, CA 91901


Dear Mr. Garcia,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Barona Group of the Capitan Grande

Clifford LaChappa, Chairperson

1095 Barona Road

Lakeside, CA 92040


Dear Mr. LaChappa,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation

Cody J. Martinez, Chairperson

1 Kwaaypaay Court

El Cajon, CA 92019


Dear Mr. Martinez,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office

Robert Pinto Sr., Chairperson

4054 Willows Road

Alpine, CA 91901


Dear Mr. Pinto,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians

Anthony R. Pico, Chairperson

P.O.Box 908

Alpine, CA 91903


Dear Mr. Pico,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

La Posta Band of Mission Indians

Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson

8 Crestwood Road

Boulevard, CA 91905


Dear Ms. Parada,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Campo Band of Mission Indians

Ralph Goff, Chairperson

36190 Church Rd., Suite 1

Campo, CA 91906


Dear Mr. Goff,










area.










Sincerely,


[email protected]





Page 2 of 2


December 10, 2015

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation

Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson

P.O. Box 1302

Boulevard, CA 91905


Dear Ms. Santos,









completed a records search

Documents

February 23, 2016 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L · 2017. 2. 23. · February 23, 2016 Rod Bradley BHA, Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92010 Re: Cultural Resources