The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 2023-0014; CARLSBAD VILLAGE MIXED-USE - SB 330; PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY - APRIL 3, 2023; 2023-04-03PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 945-1065 CARLSBAD VILLAGE PROJECT CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APNs 203-320-53, -54, -55, and -56 Submitted to: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared for: GRT Carlsbad Village LLC 2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 420 Santa Monica, California 90403 Prepared by: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 February 27, 2023; Revised April 3, 2023 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– i Archaeological Database Information Author: Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 679-8218 Report Date: February 27, 2023; Revised April 3, 2023 Report Title: Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project (APNs 203-320-53, -54, -55, and -56), City of Carlsbad, California Submitted to: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared for: GRT Carlsbad Village LLC 2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 420 Santa Monica, California 90403 USGS Quadrangle: Section 6, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the USGS San Luis Rey, California topographic quadrangle (7.5-minute) map Key Words: Archaeological survey; City of Carlsbad; USGS San Luis Rey, California topographic quadrangle (7.5-minute); negative survey; monitoring recommended. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ii Table of Contents Page 1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT .............................................................1.0–1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................2.0–1 3.0 PROJECT SETTING ...................................................................................................3.0–1 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..........................................................................3.0–1 3.1.1 Geology .......................................................................................................3.0–1 3.1.2 Soils .............................................................................................................3.0–2 3.1.3 Biology ........................................................................................................3.0–2 3.2 CULTURAL SETTING ........................................................................................3.0–2 3.2.1 The San Dieguito Complex/Paleo Indian ...................................................3.0–2 3.2.2 The La Jolla Complex/Encinitas Tradition/Milling Stone Horizon ............3.0–3 3.2.3 The Late Prehistoric Period........................................................................3.0–4 4.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................4.0–1 4.1 Archaeological Records Search ............................................................................4.0–1 4.2 Field Methodology ................................................................................................4.0–1 4.3 Report Preparation and Recordation .....................................................................4.0–1 4.4 Native American Consutation ...............................................................................4.0–2 4.5 Applicable Regulations .........................................................................................4.0–2 4.5.1 California Enviornmental Quality Act ........................................................4.0–2 5.0 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................5.0–1 5.1 Records Search Results .........................................................................................5.0–1 5.2 Field Investigation .................................................................................................5.0–3 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................6.0–1 7.0 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................7.0–1 8.0 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................8.0–1 Appendices Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results* Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search* *Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– iii List of Figures Page Figure 2.0–1 General Location Map .................................................................................2.0–2 Figure 2.0–2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................2.0–3 Figure 2.0–3 Project Shown on Current Aerial Imagery...................................................2.0–4 List of Plates Page Plate 5.2–1 Overview of the project from the northwest corner of the property, facing south ..................................................................................................5.0–4 Plate 5.2–2 Overview from the southwest corner of the property, facing north .............5.0–5 List of Tables Page Table 5.1–1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within a One-Mile Radius of the Project .................................................................................. 5.0–1 Table 5.1–2 Previous Studies Conducted Within Portions of the Project ..................... 5.0–2 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1.0–1 1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT In response to a request from the applicant, BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), conducted a Phase I archaeological assessment of the 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project in the city of Carlsbad in northern San Diego County, California. The project is located just west of Interstate 5, situated between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Ave, at 945- 1065 Carlsbad Village Drive in the city of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The project includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 203-320-53, -54, -55, and -56 and is situated within Section 6, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as shown on the San Luis Rey, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle (7.5- minute). As designed, existing commercial buildings and paved areas within the project will be removed in order to construct a mixed-use development consisting of multifamily residental units and commercial retail/restaurant properties. The assessment was conducted as part of the environmental clearance required for proposed redevelopment of the subject property. The survey program was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15064.5, and the City of Carlsbad’s cultural resource guidelines to determine the presence of any archaeological resources that may be affected by the proposed project and whether these resources meet the eligibility requirements for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). A records search was reviewed from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University (SDSU) to identify previously discovered cultural resources in the project vicinity. The SCIC records search was negative for the presence of previously recorded cultural resources within the project boundaries. However, the records search indicated that 33 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within one mile of the project. In addition, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to list potentially sacred or ceremonial sites or landforms on or near the project. The NAHC SLF results have not yet been received as of the date of this report (see Appendix C). Senior Field Archaeologist Clarence Hoff conducted the archaeological survey of the project on February 10, 2023, with assistance from Cami Mojado, a San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Native American monitor from Saving Sacred Sites. The subject property is entirely developed, containing a commercial shopping center known as the Carlsbad Village Plaza. A review of historic aerial photographs shows the property originally contained rural residential properties as early as 1938. Around 1964, the property was cleared for the construction of the commercial shopping center, which currently occupies the subject property. No archaeological resources were identified during the current survey; however, it appears the ability to identify archaeological resources within the project is limited by the current commercial development within the property. As such, whether any archaeological resources ever existed within the project prior to the development of the current commercial shopping center is unclear. While the proposed project will not affect any known archaeological resources, based upon Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1.0–2 the project location, records search results, and prior development, there remains the potential for buried resources to be present within the property. The current development within the subject property and surrounding area were constructed prior to CEQA and the implementation of environmental laws necessitating cultural resource studies. Therefore, the level of disturbance to the natural soil beneath the current structures and hardscape is unknown. For these reasons, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative be present for earthmoving activities to facilitate the identification and review of any subsurface cultural resources that may be potentially exposed during grading pursuant to the City’s cultural resource guildelines. If it is determined that the project will not extend into any previously undisturbed native soils or will only intrude into formational soil, the monitoring archaeologist shall have the authority to reduce or suspend the level of monitoring in response to the extent of the proposed redevelopment. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the SCIC at SDSU. All notes and other materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2.0–1 2.0 INTRODUCTION BFSA conducted the Phase I archaeological survey for the 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project in response to a requirement by the City of Carlsbad for the environmental assessment of a proposed development, in conformance with CEQA and the City’s environmental guidelines. The project is located just west of Interstate 5, situated between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue, at 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive in the city of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Figure 2.0–1). The project includes APNs 203-320-53, -54, -55, and -56 and is situated within Section 6, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as shown on the USGS San Luis Rey, California topographic quadrangle (7.5-minute) (Figure 2.0– 2). Currently, the 4.11-acre property is completely developed as a commercial shopping center, called Carlsbad Village Plaza. The existing commercial buildings and paved areas would be removed in order to develop the project (Figure 2.0–3). As designed, the project will include 218 multifamily residential units, as well as approximately 13,800 square feet of commercial retail/restaurant uses and an above-grade parking structure. The decision to request this investigation was based upon cultural resource sensitivity of the locality, as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns, which in the Carlsbad area center around freshwater resources and a food supply. An archaeological records search for the project was conducted at the SCIC at SDSU, which reported that 33 cultural resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the project, none of which are mapped within the project boundaries. The full records search results are discussed in detail in Section 5.1. Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA, directed the cultural resources study for the project, and Senior Field Archaeologist Clarence Hoff completed the pedestrian survey on February 10, 2023, with assistance from Cami Mojado, a San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Native American monitor from Saving Sacred Sites. The survey was conducted by walking transects in approximately five-meter intervals. No evidence of any previously unrecorded resources was identified on the property; however, almost no natural ground was visible given the current commercial development within the property. Based upon the results of the survey and background research for the project, it is recommended that the project be conditioned with archaeological and Native American monitoring of grading pursuant to the guidelines (see Section 6.0). Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA, prepared the technical report, Emily T. Soong prepared the graphics, and Shawna M. Krystek conducted technical editing and report production. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–1 3.0 PROJECT SETTING The project setting consists of the natural physical, geological, and biological contexts within the proposed 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project, as well as the cultural setting of prehistoric human activities in the region. The following sections discuss both the environmental and cultural settings of the subject property, the relationship between the two, and the relevance of that relationship to the current project. 3.1 Environmental Setting 3.1.1 Geology The 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project is situated between Buena Vista Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon within the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Geomorphically, the subject property is situated on an elevated terrace. The project is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 70 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Geologically, the project is mapped by Kennedy and Tan (2007) as old paralic deposits of the late to middle Pleistocene. San Diego County lies in the Peninsular Ranges Geologic Province of southern California. The mountainous zone, which extends from northwest to southeast through the county, ranges to a maximum height of 6,533 AMSL (Beauchamp 1986). Foothills and valleys, which comprise the cismontane region, extend west from the mountains. This region typically receives more rainfall than the mesas and less than the mountainous region. Between the foothills and the coast lies the coastal mesa region, which is cut by several large drainages originating in the mountains and foothills. The coast is characterized by large bays and lagoons, where the major rivers empty into the sea, and mesas, which terminate at the ocean in the form of bluffs (Beauchamp 1986). During the late Holocene, the eastern extent of Agua Hedionda Lagoon was most likely characterized by shallow saltwater marsh and mud flats. However, several millennia ago, the lagoon was considerably deeper and provided different habitat. The lagoon was created as the sea level rose rapidly following the last glacial sequence, filling a deep canyon cut by Hedionda Creek during a long period of lower sea levels. The deeply entrenched lagoon provided a variety of marine food resources (e.g., mollusks, crustaceans, and fishes) used in the subsistence routine of early and middle Holocene La Jolla Complex peoples. Evidence from Batiquitos Lagoon, south of Agua Hedionda, indicates that approximately 3,500 years before the present (YBP), a rapid, cataclysmic sedimentation event occurred that closed the lagoon off to the coast and significantly altered the lagoon environment (Gallegos 1992; Masters et al. 1988; Miller 1966). The event was followed by a stabilization of sea levels and then development of sand bars, sand flats, and mud flats within the lagoons along the central San Diego County coast. The sedimentation process resulted in the decline of mollusk populations, particularly Pectinids, which greatly reduced human activity in the area. Decline in occupancy of the Batiquitos Lagoon area following the siltation event is evidenced by the paucity of sites post-dating 3,500 YBP (Gallegos 1987). Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–2 3.1.2 Soils Soils in the area fall with in the Marina-Chesterton Association, characterized by somewhat excessively drained to moderately well-drained, loamy, coarse sands and fine sandy loams (Bowman et al. 1973). Specifically, the soil within the project is mapped as Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MlC) (NRCS 2019). 3.1.3 Biology The project consists of an already developed commercial property. Vegetation within the project is minimal consisting primarily of commercial landscaping found around the perimeter and within the parking lot islands. The prehistoric biological community was dominated by the coastal sage scrub ecosystem, which included sage shrubs and a variety of grasses and cacti. A diversity of faunal resources was available in the surrounding ecosystem including deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Leporids (Lepus and Sylvilagus), and a variety of waterfowl, rodents, and reptiles. 3.2 Cultural Setting San Diego County has a very rich and extensive record of prehistoric activity. The recognized archaeological time periods include the San Dieguito Complex/Paleo Indian, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, and Late Prehistoric (Luiseño and Kumeyaay) Period. The following subsections provide a discussion of these cultural elements within the region of the current project. 3.2.1 The San Dieguito Complex/Paleo Indian The term “San Dieguito Complex” is a cultural distinction used to describe a group of people that occupied sites in the region between 11,500 and 7,000 YBP and appear to have been related to or were contemporaneous with the Paleo Indian groups in the Great Basin area and the Midwest. Initially believed to have been big game hunters, the San Dieguito are better typified as wide-ranging hunter gatherers. The earliest evidence of the San Dieguito Complex sites is known from San Diego County, the Colorado Desert, and farther north along the California coast. These people abandoned the drying inland lakes of the present California desert and arrived in San Diego County circa 9,000 YBP, as documented at the Harris Site (SDI-149) (Warren 1966), Rancho Park North Site (SDI-4392) (Kaldenberg 1982), and Agua Hedionda sites (SDI-210/UCLJ-M-15 and SDI-10,965/SDM-W-131) (Moriarty 1967; Gallegos and Carrico 1984; Gallegos 1991). A San Dieguito component appears to have been present in the lower strata at the Malago Cove site in Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County (Walker 1951). Although radiocarbon dates were not obtained from these levels, the lack of ground stone tools and presence of crude flaked tools suggests similarities to the San Dieguito Complex. Diagnostic San Dieguito artifacts include finely crafted scraper planes, choppers, scrapers, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and intricate leaf-shaped points (Rogers 1939; Warren 1967). This tool assemblage resembles those of the Western Lithic Co-Tradition (Davis et al. 1969) and the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Bedwell 1970; Moratto 1984). Typical San Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–3 Dieguito sites lack ground stone tools. Tools recovered from San Dieguito Complex sites and the pattern of the site locations indicate that they were a wandering hunting and gathering society (Moriarty 1969; Rogers 1966). Faunal data from the Malago Cove site, which included mollusks, fish, birds, and terrestrial and marine mammals, suggests a diverse and broad-based strategy (Walker 1951). The San Dieguito Complex is the least understood of the cultures that occupied the southern California region. This is primarily due to the fact that San Dieguito sites rarely contain stratigraphic information or datable material. Debate continues as to whether the San Dieguito sites are actually different activity areas of the early Encinitas Tradition peoples (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987), or whether the San Dieguito Complex peoples had a separate origin and culture from the Encinitas Tradition (Hayden 1987; Moriarty 1987; Smith 1987). According to the second scenario, the San Dieguito Complex peoples may have been assimilated into the dominant Encinitas Tradition culture (Kaldenberg 1982; Moriarty 1967). A third possibility is that the San Dieguito Complex gave rise to the Encinitas Tradition (Koerper et al. 1991). The issue of shared or separate origins of the San Dieguito Complex and Encinitas Tradition may be resolved with continued collection of archaeological data and collection of systematic radiocarbon dates. 3.2.2 The La Jolla Complex/Encinitas Tradition/Milling Stone Horizon Between 9,000 and 8,000 YBP, a widespread complex was established in the southern California region, primarily along the coast (Warren and True 1961). The complex is locally known as the La Jolla Complex (Rogers 1939; Moriarty 1966), which is regionally associated with the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968), and shared cultural components with the widespread Milling Stone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The coastal expression of the La Jolla Complex, with a focus on coastal resources and development of deeply stratified shell middens located primarily around bays and lagoons, appeared in the southern California coastal areas, where the older sites associated with the expression are located at Topanga Canyon, Newport Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and some of the Channel Islands. Radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this complex span a period of more than 7,000 years in the region, beginning over 9,000 YBP. The Encinitas Tradition is best recognized for its pattern of large coastal sites characterized by shell middens, grinding tools closely associated with the marine resources of the area, cobble- based tools, and flexed human burials (Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985). While ground stone tools and scrapers are the most recognized tool types, coastal Encinitas Tradition sites also contain numerous utilized flakes, which may have been used to pry open shellfish. Artifact assemblages at coastal sites indicate a subsistence pattern focused on shellfish collection and near-shore fishing, suggesting an incipient maritime adaptation with regional similarities to more northern sites of the same period (Koerper et al. 1986). Other artifacts associated with Encinitas Tradition sites include stone bowls, doughnut stones, discoidals, stone balls, and stone, bone, and shell beads. The coastal lagoons in northwestern San Diego County supported large Milling Stone Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–4 Horizon populations circa 6,000 YBP, as demonstrated by numerous radiocarbon dates from the many sites adjacent to the lagoons. The ensuing millennia were not stable environmentally and by 3,000 YBP, many of the coastal sites in central San Diego County had been abandoned (Gallegos 1987, 1992), which is usually attributed to the sedimentation of coastal lagoons and the resulting deterioration of fish and mollusk habitats, a situation well-documented at Batiquitos Lagoon (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1987). Over a 2,000-year period at Batiquitos Lagoon, dominant mollusk species occurring in archaeological middens shifted from deep-water mollusks (Argopecten sp.) to species tolerant of tidal flat conditions (Chione sp.), indicating water depth and temperature changes (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1987). This situation likely occurred for other small drainages (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, San Marcos, and Escondido creeks) along the central San Diego coast, where low flow rates did not produce sufficient discharge to flush the lagoons they fed (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo lagoons) (Byrd 1998). Drainages along the northern and southern San Diego coastline were larger and flushed the coastal hydrological features they fed, keeping them open to the ocean and allowing for continued human exploitation (Byrd 1998). Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and Sorrento Valley exhibit dates as late as 2,355 YBP (Smith and Moriarty 1985; Carrico and Taylor 1983; Carrico and Gallegos 1988; Gallegos et al. 1989; Smith and Moriarty 1983; WESTEC 1975). San Diego Bay showed continuous occupation until the close of the Milling Stone Horizon (Gallegos et al. 1988). Additionally, data from several drainages in United States Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton indicate a continued occupation of shell midden sites until the close of the period, indicating that coastal sites were not entirely abandoned during this time (Byrd 1998). By 5,000 YBP, an inland expression of the La Jolla Complex, which exhibits influences from the Campbell Tradition from the north, is evident in the archaeological record. These inland Milling Stone Horizon sites have been termed “Pauma Complex” (True 1958; Warren et al. 1961; Meighan 1954). By definition, Pauma Complex sites share a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates); lack mollusk remains; have a greater tool variety including atl- atl dart points, quarry-based tools, and crescentics; and seem to express a more sedentary lifestyle with a subsistence economy based upon the use of a broad variety of terrestrial resources. Although originally viewed as a separate culture from the coastal La Jolla Complex (True 1980), it appears that these inland sites may be part of a subsistence and settlement system used by the coastal peoples. Evidence from the 4S Ranch Project in inland San Diego County suggests that these inland sites may represent seasonal components within an annual subsistence round by La Jolla Complex populations (Raven-Jennings et al.1996). Including both coastal and inland sites of this time period in discussions of the Encinitas Tradition provides a more a complete appraisal of the settlement and subsistence system exhibited by this cultural complex. 3.2.3 The Late Prehistoric Period Approximately 1,300 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Diego County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. The period Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–5 is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor- intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during the period include the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin, and cremation of the dead. The period is divided into two phases, San Luis Rey I and San Luis Rey II, based upon the introduction of pottery (Meighan 1954). Through radiocarbon dating, the introduction of pottery and the initiation of the San Luis Rey II phase began at approximately A.D. 1300. San Luis Rey I is characterized by the use of portable shaped or unshaped slab metates and non-portable bedrock milling features. Manos and pestles may also be shaped or unshaped. Cremations, bone awls, and stone and shell ornaments are also prominent in the material culture. The later San Luis Rey II assemblage is augmented by pottery cooking and storage vessels, cremation urns, and polychrome pictographs. The fluorescence of rock art likely appeared as the result of increased population sizes and increased sedentism (True et al. 1974). Flaked stone dart points are dominated by the Cottonwood Triangular series, but Desert Side-notched, Dos Cabazas Serrated, leaf-shaped, and stemmed styles also occur. Subsistence is thought to have been focused upon the use of acorns, a storable species that allowed for relative sedentism and increased population sizes. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence indicates that the Shoshonean-speaking group that occupied the northern portion of San Diego County was the Luiseño. Along the coast, the Luiseño made use of the marine resources by fishing and collecting mollusks for food. Seasonally available terrestrial resources, including acorns and game, were also sources of nourishment for Luiseño groups. The elaborate kinship and clan systems between the Luiseño and other groups facilitated a wide-reaching trade network that included trade of Obsidian Butte obsidian, resources from the eastern deserts, and steatite from the Channel Islands. When contacted by the Spanish in the sixteenth century, the Luiseño occupied a territory bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Peninsular Range mountains (including Palomar Mountain to the south and Santiago Peak to the north), on the south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and on the north by Aliso Creek in present-day San Juan Capistrano. The Luiseño were a Takic-speaking people more closely related linguistically and ethnographically to the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Cupeño to the north and east than to the Kumeyaay, a Yuman- speaking group, who occupied territory to the south. The Luiseño differed from their neighboring Takic speakers in having an extensive proliferation of social statuses, a system of ruling families that provided ethnic cohesion within the territory, a distinct world view that stemmed from use of the hallucinogen datura, and an elaborate religion that included ritualized sand paintings of the sacred being “Chingichngish” (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The following is a summary of ethnographic data regarding this group. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–6 Subsistence and Settlement The Luiseño occupied sedentary villages, most often located in sheltered areas in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges. Villages were located near water sources to facilitate acorn leaching and in areas that offered thermal and defensive protection. Villages were composed of areas that were both publicly and privately (or family) owned. Publicly owned areas included trails, temporary campsites, hunting areas, and quarry sites. Inland groups had fishing and gathering sites along the coast that were used, particularly from January to March, when inland food resources were scarce. During October and November, most of the village would relocate to mountain oak groves to harvest acorns. For the remainder of the year, the Luiseño remained at village sites, where food resources were within a day’s travel (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The most important food source of the Luiseño was acorns, of which six different species were used (Quercus californica, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus dumosa, Quercus engelmanni, and Quercus wizlizeni). Seeds, particularly of grasses (Gramineae), flowering plants (Compositae), and mints (Labiatae), were also heavily used. Seed-bearing species were encouraged through controlled burns, which were conducted at least every third year, and a variety of other stems, leaves, shoots, bulbs, roots, and fruits were also utilized. Hunting augmented the vegetal diet. Animal species taken included deer (Odocoileus hemionus), rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), hare (Lepus californicus), woodrat (Neotoma sp.), ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), antelope (Antilicapra americana), quail (Callipelpa californica and Oreortyx pictus), duck (Anatidae), freshwater fish from mountain streams, and marine mammals, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks, particularly abalone (Haliotis sp.), from the coast. A variety of snakes, small birds, and rodents were also taken (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Social Organization Social groups within the Luiseño nation consisted of patrilineal families or clans, which were politically and economically autonomous. Several clans comprised a religious party, or nota, which was headed by a chief who organized religious ceremonies and controlled economics and warfare. The chief had assistants who specialized in particular aspects of ceremonial or environmental knowledge and who, with the chief, were part of a cultic social group with special access to supernatural power, particularly that of Chingichngish. The positions of chief and assistants were hereditary, and the complexity and multiplicity of these specialists’ roles likely increased in coastal villages and larger inland villages (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976; Strong 1929). Marriages were arranged by the parents; these arrangements were often made to forge alliances between lineages. Useful alliances included those between groups of differing ecological niches and those that resulted in territorial expansion. Residence was patrilocal (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Women were primarily responsible for plant gathering while men were responsible for Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–7 hunting, although, at times, particularly during acorn and marine mollusk harvests, there was no division of labor. Elderly women cared for children, while elderly men were active participants in rituals, ceremonies, and political affairs and were responsible for manufacturing, hunting, and ritualistic implements. Children were taught subsistence skills at the earliest age possible (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Material Culture House structures were conical, partially subterranean, and thatched with reeds, brush, or bark. Ramadas were rectangular and protected workplaces for domestic chores, including cooking. Ceremonial sweathouses, which were important in purification rituals, were round, partially subterranean, thatched structures covered with a layer of mud. Another ceremonial structure was the wámkis, which was located in the center of the village and was the place of rituals such as sand painting and associated with the Chingichngish cult (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Clothing was minimal. Women wore a cedar-bark and netted twine double apron and men a waist cord. In cold weather, cloaks or robes of rabbit fur, deerskin, or sea otter fur were worn by both sexes. Footwear included sandals fashioned from yucca fibers and deerskin moccasins. Adornments included bead necklaces and pendants made from bone, clay, stone, shell, bear claws, mica sheets, deer hooves, and abalone shell. Men wore ear and nose piercings made of cane or bone, which were sometimes decorated with beads. Adornments were commonly decorated with semiprecious stones including quartz, topaz, garnet, opal, opalite, agate, and jasper (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Hunting implements included the bow and arrow. Arrows were tipped with either a carved, fire-hardened wooden tip or a lithic point, usually fashioned from locally available felsite or quartz. Throwing sticks fashioned from wood were used in hunting small game, while deer head decoys were used during deer hunts. Coastal groups fashioned dugout canoes for near-shore fishing and harvested fish with seines, nets, traps, and hooks made of bone or abalone shell (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The Luiseño had a well-developed basket industry; baskets were used in resource gathering, food preparation, storage, and food serving. Pottery containers, which were shaped by paddle and anvil and fired in shallow open pits, were used for food storage, cooking, and serving. Other utensils included wooden implements, steatite bowls, and ground stone manos, metates, mortars, and pestles (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Tools included knives, scrapers, choppers, awls, and drills. Shamanistic items included soapstone or clay smoking pipes and crystals made of quartz or tourmaline (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 4.0–1 4.0 METHODOLOGY The Phase I cultural resource survey of the 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project consisted of institutional records searches, a pedestrian archaeological survey of the project, and preparation of this report. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Carlsbad guidelines (City of Carlsbad 2017) and CEQA Section 15064.5 criteria. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995). The report format follows the Archaeological Resource Management Report guidelines. The results of the assessment are discussed in detail in Section 5.0. 4.1 Archaeological Records Search BFSA requested a records search from the SCIC at SDSU for an area of one mile surrounding the project in order to determine the presence of any previously recorded archaeological sites. The complete results of the records search are provided in Appendix B and discussed in Section 5.1. The SCIC search also included a standard review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD). Land patent records, held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and accessible through the BLM General Land Office website, were also reviewed for pertinent project information. In addition, the BFSA research library was consulted for any relevant historical information. 4.2 Field Methodology BFSA Senior Field Archaeologist Clarence Hoff conducted the survey of the 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project on February 10, 2023, with the assistance of Cami Mojado, a San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Native American monitor from Saving Sacred Sites. Parallel survey transects spaced at approximately five-meter intervals were utilized throughout the entire project and photographs were taken to document project conditions (see Section 5.2). The subject property is a developed active commercial shopping center. 4.3 Report Preparation and Recordation This report contains information regarding previous studies, statutory requirements for the project, a brief description of the setting, research methods employed, and the overall results of the survey. The report includes all appropriate illustrations and tabular information needed to make a complete and comprehensive presentation of these activities, including the methodologies employed and the personnel involved. A copy of this report will be placed at the SCIC at SDSU. Any newly recorded sites or sites requiring updated information will be recorded on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation site forms, which will be filed at the SCIC. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 4.0–2 4.4 Native American Consultation A request was made to the NAHC for a search of the SLF to determine if the proposed project would affect any known Native American cultural resources. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American consultation. The SLF search has been returned with positive results for potential sites or locations of Native American importance within the vicinity. The NAHC suggested contacting local Native American groups, specifically, the La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, for further information. During the survey of the property, Cami Mojado from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians was present to monitor and participate in the the archaeological survey. Documentation of correspondence may be found in Appendix C. 4.5 Applicable Regulations Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of Carlsbad in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Specifically, criteria outlined in CEQA provide the guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important. 4.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA, (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following: 1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by, the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852), including the following: Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 4.0–3 a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and 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 may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. According to CEQA, Section 15064.5(b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as: 1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. 2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 4.0–4 Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites: 1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply. 3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a) but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts upon other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. Sections 15064.5(d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides: (d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, the lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC, as provided in PRC SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from: 1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). 2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.0–1 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Records Search Results An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a one- mile radius was conducted by the SCIC at SDSU (Appendix B). The search results identified 33 cultural resources and 13 historic addresses within one mile of the project, none of which are located within the project boundaries. Of the previously recorded resources, 12 are prehistoric, two are multicomponent, and 19 are historic (Table 5.1–1). The prehistoric sites include two campsites, three shell middens, four shell and artifact scatters, two shell scatters, and one isolate. The multicomponent resources consist of one site containing a historic trash scatter and a prehistoric shell scatter and one site containing a historic road and prehistoric shell scatter. The historic resources consist of 17 built resources, one trash deposit, and one isolate. Table 5.1–1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within a One-Mile Radius of the Project Site Number(s) Site Description SDI-626 and SDI-627 Prehistoric campsite SDI-628, SDI-5077, and SDI-17,672 Prehistoric shell midden SDI-629, SDI-10,746, SDI-17,414, and SDI-19,375 Prehistoric shell and artifact scatter SDI-8455 and SDI-20,692 Prehistoric shell scatter P-37-033873 Prehistoric isolate SDI-21,274 Multicomponent site containing a historic road and prehistoric shell scatter SDI-22,605 Multicomponent site containing a historic trash scatter and prehistoric shell scatter P-37-029981 and P-37-037183 Historic multifamily property P-37-037177, P-37-037182, and P-37-037187 Historic single-family property P-37-029985 Historic government building P-37-037178 Historic bridge P-37-037179 Historic motel building P-37-037180, P-37-037181, P-37-037184 P-37-037188, P-37-037189, P-37-037190, and P-37-037191 Historic commercial building P-37-037185 Historic railroad depot P-37-037186 Historic industrial building SDI-21,704 Historic trash deposit P-37-036871 Historic isolate Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.0–2 The results of the SCIC records search also indicate that 57 archaeological investigations have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the subject property, six of which are mapped by the SCIC overlapping the current study area (Table 5.1–2). The previous studies consist of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Element (Seeman 1982) and five studies pertaining to improvements to Interstate 5 (Blake 2013; Byrd and O’Neill 2002; Dominici 2007; Dominici and Laylander 2008; Caltrans 2007). As such, all of these previous studies overlapping portions of the current project are large overview and do not directly address the subject property. Regardless, no cultural resources were identified within the project boundaries as a result of any of the studies. Table 5.1–2 Previous Studies Conducted Within Portions of the Project Blake, Michelle 2013 Sixth Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR): Revised Area of Potential Effects (APE) I-5 North Coast Corridor. Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Byrd, Brian F. and Collin O’Niell 2002 Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5 San Diego County, CA. ASM, Inc. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Dominici, Deb 2007 Historic Property Survey Report, I-5 North Coast Widening Project. Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Dominici, Deb and Don Laylander 2008 2007 Cultural Resources Treatment Plan North Coast Interstate 5 Corridor. Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Caltrans 2007 Interstate 5 Corridor Project Historic Property Survey Report and Supplementals. Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Seeman, Larry 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.0–3 Additionally, the following historic resources were also consulted, which did not indicate the presence of any resources within the project boundaries: • The NRHP index • The OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility • The OHP BERD • 1938, 1947, 1953, 1964, 1967, 1978, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 aerial photographs • 1893, 1901, 1911, 1925, and 1931 Oceanside, California topographic maps (1:62,500 scale) • 1948, 1968, and 1978 San Luis Rey, California topographic maps (7.5-minute) None of these sources identified any potential archaeological resources. The historic maps and aerials show the property originally as rural residential. The 1938 aerial photograph shows most of the property as vacant with a rural residential property in the southwest corner. By 1947, more structures are visible in the northeast and southeast corners. These structures are still present on the 1953 aerial photograph; however, similar properties east of the project were removed for the construction of Interstate 5. The 1964 aerial photograph shows the current commercial center within the project in the process of being developed while the next available photograph, from 1967, shows the completed commercial center. Subsequent photographs show little to no change to the subject property. In addition, a SLF search was requested from the NAHC to list potentially sacred or ceremonial sites or landforms on or near the project. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American consultation. The SLF search has been returned with positive results for potential sites or locations of Native American importance within the vicinity. The NAHC suggested contacting local Native American groups, specifically, the La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, for further information. During the survey of the property, Cami Mojado from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians was present to monitor and participate in the the archaeological survey. Documentation of correspondence may be found in Appendix C. 5.2 Field Investigation The archaeological survey was completed on February 10, 2023, by Senior Field Archaeologist Clarence Hoff with participation by Cami Mojado from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Aerial photographs, maps, and a mobile Trimble Global Positioning System unit permitted orientation and location of the project boundaries. The entire 4.11-acre property was surveyed by employing five-meter spaced transects. A survey form, field notes, and photographs documented the survey work undertaken. The survey confirmed that the property is entirely developed and contains a commercial Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.0–4 shopping center (Plates 5.2‒1 and 5.2‒2). Given the current commercial development within the project, almost no exposed ground was visible. However, various landscaped islands and planters within and surrounding the property were carefully inspected. No archaeological resources were identified during the current survey; however, it appears the ability to identify archaeological resources within the project is limited by the current commercial development within the property. Plate 5.2‒1: Overview of the project from the northwest corner of the property, facing south. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.0–5 Plate 5.2‒2: Overview of the project from the southwest corner, facing north. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 6.0–1 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The archaeological study of the 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive Project consisted of an archaeological survey program and research of available archaeological records. An analysis of archaeological information of this property has indicated that no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the boundaries of the project. Further, no archaeological artifacts, features, or darkened midden soils were observed during the survey. While the investigation of the 4.11-acre property did not identify any archaeological resources, the current development within the subject property and surrounding area was constructed prior to CEQA and the implementation of environmental laws necessitating cultural resource studies. When land is cleared or otherwise disturbed, evidence of surface artifact scatters is typically lost. As such, whether any archaeological resources ever existed within the project prior to the development of the current commercial shopping center is unclear. As result of the prior development of the property, the level of disturbance to the natural soil beneath the current structures and hardscape is unknown. Therefore, due to this uncertainty, coupled with the project location along with the records search and NAHC SLF results, it is recommended that the project be conditioned with archaeological and Native American monitoring for the initial ground disturbances associated with the redevelopment of the subject parcel. The monitoring program shall follow the protocol and standard treatment options outlined in the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (City of Carlsbad 2017) to facilitate the identification and review of any subsurface cultural resources that may be potentially exposed during grading. If it is determined that the project will not extend into any previously undisturbed native soils or will only intrude into formational soil, the monitoring archaeologist shall have the authority to reduce or suspend the level of monitoring in response to the extent of the proposed redevelopment. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7.0–1 7.0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and have been compiled in accordance with CEQA criteria as defined in Section 15064.5 and City of Carlsbad cultural resource criteria. April 3, 2023 Andrew J. Garrison Date Project Archaeologist Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8.0–1 8.0 REFERENCES CITED Beauchamp, R. Mitchel 1986 A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City, California. Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bedwell, S.F. 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock Area of South-central Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Blake, Michelle 2013 Sixth Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR): Revised Area of Potential Effects (APE) I-5 North Coast Corridor. Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Bowman, R.H., A.A. House, G. Kester, D.D. Estrada, J.K. Wachtell, G.L. Anderson, and P.V. Campo 1973 Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California. Part I. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Bull, Charles S. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Edited by Dennis Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (1). Byrd, B.F. 1998 Harvesting the Littoral Landscape During the Late Holocene: New Perspectives from Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2):195–218. Byrd, Brian F. and Collin O’Neal 2002 Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I Archaeological Survey Along Interstate 5, San Diego County, CA. ASM, Inc. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Caltrans 2007 Interstate 5 Corridor Project Historic Property Survey Report and Supplementals. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8.0–2 Carrico, Richard L. and Clifford V.F. Taylor 1983 Excavation of a Portion of Ystagua: A Coastal Valley Ipai Settlement. Environmental Impact Report on file at the City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division. Carrico, R.L. and D.R. Gallegos 1988 Data Recovery program for a Portion of Pump Station 64 Force Main Improvement. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. City of Carlsbad 2017 Carlsbad Tribal, Paleontological, and Cultural Resources Guidelines. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad by ECORP Consulting, Inc., San Diego, California. Davis, E. L., C.W. Brott, and D.L. Weide 1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers (6). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego. Dominici, Debra Ann 2007 Historic Property Survey Report, I-5 North Coast Widening Project. Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Dominici, Debra Ann and Don Laylander 2008 2007 Cultural Resources Treatment Plan North Coast Interstate 5 Corridor. Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Gallegos, Dennis 1987 San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Research Paper (1), San Diego. 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter- Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by John M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colton, pp. 19–41. Perspectives in California Archaeology (1). Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1992 Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Gallegos, Dennis and Richard Carrico 1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131, Carlsbad, California. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8.0–3 Gallegos, Dennis, Andrew Pigniolo, and Roxana Phillips 1989 A Cultural And Paleontological Inventory Update for the University of California at San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Manuscript on file with the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Gallegos, Dennis R., Roxana Phillips, and Andrew Pigniolo 1988 A Cultural Resource Overview for the San Dieguito River Valley, San Diego, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Hayden, Julian D. 1987 Notes on the Apparent Course of San Dieguito Development. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Edited by Susan M. Hector. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (1). Kaldenberg, Russell 1982 Rancho Park North: A San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site in Coastal Southern California. Occasional Papers (6). Imperial Valley College Museum Society, El Centro, California. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S. 2007 Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' quadrangle, California. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Series, 1:100,000 scale, Map (2). Koerper, Henry, C., Jonathan E. Ericson, Christopher E. Drover, and Paul E. Langenwalter II 1986 Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22 (1):33–69. Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter, and Adella Schroth 1991 Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kroeber, A.L. 1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Masters, Patricia, Ph.D., Gallegos, Dennis, and Carolyn Kyle 1988 Five Thousand Years of Marine Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California. Report on file with the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8.0–4 Meighan, C.W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2). Miller, Jaquelin Neva 1966 Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of California, San Diego. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Moriarty, James R., III 1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Topological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4(4). 1967 Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County. Science 155. 1969 San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural Relationships. Anthropological Journal of Canada 7(3). 1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. In San Dieguito- La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Edited by Susan M. Hector. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (1). Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/ gmap/, accessed February 15, 2023. Raven-Jennings, Shelly, Brian F. Smith, and Johnna L. Buysse 1996 The Results of a Cultural Resource Study at the 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, County of San Diego. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, San Diego, California. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers (3). San Diego Museum of Man. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Edited with contributions by H. M. Worthington, E.L. Davis, and Clark W. Brott. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. Seeman, Larry 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8.0–5 Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jollan Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93(3). Smith, Brian F. 1987 The Excavations at Site CA-SDI-9956/W-3376. Environmental Impact Report on file at the County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty, III 1983 An Archaeological Evaluation of a Drainage Channel Project at the South Sorrento Business Park. Environmental Impact Report on file at the City of San Diego. 1985 The Archaeological Excavations at Site W-20. Report on file at the City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26 (1). True, D.L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3). 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4). Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. True, D.L., C.W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology (11), Berkeley. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3). Albuquerque. Walker, E.F. 1951 Five Prehistoric Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 6:1–116 Warren, Claude N. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: Malcolm J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers (6). Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8.0–6 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity, 2(2). Salt Lake City, Utah. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. Edited by C. Irwin-Williams. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3). Warren, Claude N. and D.L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in California Prehistory. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961:246–337. University of California, Los Angeles. Warren, C.N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudy 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960–1961:246–338. University of California, Los Angeles. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1975 Rimbach Property Archaeological Report. Manuscript on file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– APPENDIX A Resumes of Key Personnel Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA Project Archaeologist BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa.perennialenv.com Education Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009 Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005 Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005 Professional Memberships Register of Professional Archaeologists Society for California Archaeology Society for American Archaeology California Council for the Promotion of History Society of Primitive Technology Lithic Studies Society California Preservation Foundation Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Experience Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present BFSA Environmental Serives, A Perennial Company Poway, California Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private clients and lead agencies. Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal. Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation. Preservation Researcher 2009 City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant- funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside. BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2 Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009 Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms. Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural resource firms. Reports/Papers 2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California. Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California. 2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of Mills Act application. BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 3 2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. 2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. 2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Presentations 2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Fish Camp, California. 2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California. 2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Irvine, California. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– APPENDIX B Archaeological Records Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Phase I Archaeological Assessment for 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– APPENDIX C NAHC Sacred Lands File Search (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)