HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 05-12; Ocean Street Residences; Tentative Map (CT) (11)I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY,
2303 OCEAN STREET,
CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RECEIVED
JUN 1 0 2005
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT
Submitted to:
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
(760) 602-4600
Prepared for:
2303 Investors, LLP
1020 Prospect Avenue, Suite 314
La Jolla, California 92037
(858) 456-0014
Prepared by:
Affinis
Shadow Valley Center
847 Jamacha Road
EI Cajon, California 92019
(619) 441-0144
Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A. (RPA)
Director of Cultural Resources
May 2005
Affinis Job No. 2011
USGS quadrangle: San Luis Rey (7 .5' series)
Acreage: 3 acres
Keywords: San Diego County; Carlsbad; Buena Vista Lagoon; coastal; developed; negative archaeological survey; TUS, RSW, Section
I
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Authors:
Consulting firm:
Report Date:
Report Title:
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Contract number:
USGS quadrangles:
Acreage:
Keywords:
Mary Robbins-Wade
Affinis, 847 Jamacha Road, El Cajon, California 92019
(619) 441-0144
May 2005
Archaeological Resources Study, 2303 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego
County, California.
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008-7314
(760) 602-4600
2303 Investors, LLP, 1020 Prospect Avenue, Suite 314, La Jolla,
California 9203 7
(858) 456-0014
Affinis Job No. 2011
San Luis Rey (7. 5' series)
3 acres
San Diego County; Carlsbad; Buena Vista Lagoon; coastal; developed;
negative archaeological survey; TllS, R5W, Section 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1
PROJECT LOCATION .................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................... 1
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ............................... 1
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................. 5
III. PR2VIOUS RESEARCH ....................................... 8
IV. RESEARCH METHODS ....................................... 9
V. RESULTS ................................................. 9
VI. IMPACTS, SIGNIFICANCE, AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .. 10
VII. INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ...................... 12
I VIII. PERSONNEL .............................................. 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IX. REFERENCES ............................................. 13
FIGURES
1 Regional Location in San Diego County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Project Location on USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey Quadrangle .................. 3
3 Project Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Areas to be Monitored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX
A Records Searches
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The project area is located at 2303 Ocean Street, immediately south of Buena Vista Lagoon in the
City of Carlsbad in northwestern San Diego County. The subject property contains 3. 05 acres that
are currently developed with three apartment buildings, which were built in the mid-1960s. The
applicant proposes to demolish the existing apartment buildings and construct 35 new stacked-flat
condominium units.
The archaeological project consisted of a survey to assess the presence of cultural resources that
would be affected by development of the project.
No archaeological resources had been previously recorded within the property, and none were
found during the current study, but the original ground surface was obscured by existing
development. Archaeological site CA-SDI-626 is mapped just west of the project area. Hanna
(1984) noted that CA-SDI-626 is the remnant of what was once a larger archaeological site. It is
possible that the site once extended into the project area, but development has destroyed or
obscured evidence of it. CA -SDI -626 was determined not to be a significant cultural resource,
due to the amount of disturbance the site has sustained; the research potential of the site was
extremely limited (Hanna 1984). Monitoring of grading was recommended at CVA-SDI-626, in
case there were pockets of buried cultural material, and because there was a rumor that a human
burial had been found on the site previously (Hanna 1984).
No historic or archaeological resources have been identified within the pr~iect area, and the
property is already developed with an apartment complex. Therefore, the project is expected to
have no effect on cultural resources. However, given the proximity to the lagoon and to CA-SDI-
626, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources not visible on the surface. The geology
report indicates that the northern portion of the site contains alluvial soils. During periods of
rising and falling water levels in the lagoon, native people may have made use of the project site
as a habitation area or a shellfish processing location, and evidence of this use is buried in the
alluvium. Buried sites are found in Oceanside along the San Luis Rey River. Therefore, it is
recommended that an archaeologist and a Native American representative be present to monitor
initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/ alluvium (Figure
4). If archaeological resources are encountered, the monitor would have the authority to
temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material discovered. If
cultural material is found and collected, it would be curated at the San Diego Archaeological
Center (or other appropriate repository) or repatriated to the San Luis Rey Band if they so desire.
S-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. INTRODUCTION
PROJECT LOCATION
The project area is located immediately south of Buena Vista Lagoon in the City of Carlsbad in
northwestern San Diego County (Figure 1). The property is at 2303 Ocean Street, which is west
of Interstate 5 (I-5) and west of Carlsbad Boulevard (Figure 2). The parcel is on the north side
of Ocean Street, west of the AT&SF railroad tracks, and east of the Rue Des Chateaux
development. The property is within Township 11 South, Range 5 West, Section 1, on the USGS
7.5' San Luis Rey quadrangle (Figure 2).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property contains 3.05 acres that are currently developed with 50 apartment units in
three separate buildings, which were built in the mid-1960s. The applicant proposes to demolish
the existing apartment buildings and construct 35 new stacked-flat condominium units. Access
would be located at the southwest corner, from Ocean Street.
The archaeological project consisted of a survey to assess the presence of cultural resources that
would be affected by development of the project. Mary Robbins-Wade served as the project
manager/ project archaeologist. This report addresses the methods and results of the survey.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The project area is on the south side of Buena Vista Lagoon, near the mouth of the lagoon, in
northwestern San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). This area is in the coastal plains physiographic
province, where the climate is characterized as semi-arid, cool (Griner and Pryde 1976:Figure
3.4). Temperature ranges from an average January low of about 44 o (Griner and Pryde
!976:Figure 3.1) to an average July high of approximately 75 o (Griner and Pryde 1976:Figure
3.2), and annual rainfall averages between 10 and 15 inches (Griner and Pryde 1976:Figure 3.).
Geologically, the project area is mapped as Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits, with
Quaternary alluvium at the lagoon mouth (Rogers 1965). The U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(Bowman 1973) maps the property as Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (Bowman
1973). The soils report indicates that "Buena Vista lagoon once extended into the northern portion
of the site. It is assumed that this land was reclaimed by placing hydraulic fill" (Geocon 2004: 1).
Undocumented fill soils and alluvium were undifferentiated on the geology map (Geocon 2004).
An apartment complex has been developed on the property, so no native vegetation remains.
Marina series soils generally support "chamise, sumac, black sagebrush, flattop buckwheat, and
I
-
South Laguna
0
"' 0
0 5 10
Miles
Affinis
Shadow Valley Center
847 Jamacha Road
El Cajon, CA 92019 - - -
"
-
---------------------
Solana Beach
Del Mar
Mission Beach
Ocean Beach
San Diego
Imperial Beach
sa;.~~~~:f•
El Capitan
ReseiVOir
Lakeside
Alpine
Barrett
Lake ~
Regional location in San Diego County
----- - ---
Borrego Springs
Desert
State
Mount Laguna
Park
- -
r
I
I
Figure 1
- - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Affinis
I
I
Shadow Valley Center
847 Jamacha Road
El Cajon, CA 92019
0 .....
Project location on USGS
7.5' Encinitas quadrangle Figure 2
S:;.:·;.~
C-e-'11('•
r r . I
)'
\
@SITE PLAN .,
Affinis
Shadow Valley Center
84 7 Jamacha Road
El CA 92019 ----
N
SCALE-1"•20' ~
---
,,
~~ •"'
Project plans Figure 3
--- -- - - - -- - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
annual grasses and forbs" (Bowman 1973:64). Marsh and riparian communities would have
occurred in proximity to the project area as well. These vegetation communities would have
provided a number of plant species known to have been used by the Luiseiio people for food,
medicine, tools, shelter, ceremonial and other uses (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908).
Many of the animal species found in these communities also would have been used by native
populations. In addition, native inhabitants would have made use of the resources of the lagoon
itself, as well as the open ocean.
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
General Culture History
Several summaries discuss the prehistory of San Diego County and provide a background for
understanding the archaeology of the general area surrounding the project. Moratto' s ( 1984)
review of the archaeology of California contains important discussions of Southern California,
including the San Diego area. Bull (1983, 1987), Carrico (1987), Gallegos (1987), and Warren
(1985, 1987) provide summaries of recent work and interpretations. The following is a brief
discussion of the culture history of the San Diego region.
Carter (1957, 1978, 1980), Minshall (1976) and others (e.g., Childers 1974; Davis 1968, 1973)
have long argued for the presence of Pleistocene humans in California, including the San Diego
area. The sites identified as "early man" are all controversial. Carter and Minshall are best
known for their discoveries at Texas Street and Buchanan Canyon. The material from these sites
is generally considered nonartifactual, and the investigative methodology is often questioned
(Moratto 1984).
The earliest accepted archaeological manifestation of Native Americans in the San Diego area is
the San Dieguito complex, dating to approximately 10,000 years ago (Warren 1967). The San
Dieguito complex was originally defined by Rogers ( 1939), and Warren published a clear synthesis
of the complex in 1967. The material culture of the San Dieguito complex consists primarily of
scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, large blades, and large projectile points. Rogers considered
crescentic stones to be characteristic of the San Dieguito complex as well. Tools and debitage
made of fine-grained green metavolcanic material, locally known as felsite, were found at many
sites which Rogers identified as San Dieguito. Often these artifacts were heavily patinated.
Felsite tools, especially patinated felsite, came to be seen as an indicator of the San Dieguito
complex. Until relatively recently, many archaeologists felt that the San Dieguito culture lacked
milling technology and saw this as an important difference between the San Dieguito and La Jolla
complexes. Sleeping circles, trail shrines, and rock alignments have also been associated with
early San Dieguito sites. The San Dieguito complex is chronologically equivalent to other
Paleoindian complexes across North America, and sites are sometimes called "Paleoindian" rather
than "San Dieguito". San Dieguito material underlies La Jolla complex strata at the C. W. Harris
site in San Dieguito Valley (Warren, ed. 1966).
5
The traditional view of San Diego prehistory has the San Dieguito complex followed by tbe La
Jolla complex at least 7000 years ago, possibly as long as 9000 years ago (Rogers 1966). The La
Jolla complex is part of the Encinitas tradition and equates witb Wallace's (1955) Millingstone
Horizon, also known as Early Archaic or Milling Archaic. The Encinitas tradition is generally
"recognized by millingstone assemblages in shell middens, often near sloughs and lagoons"
(Moratto 1984:147). "Crude" cobble tools, especially choppers and scrapers, characterize tbe La
Jolla complex (Moriarty 1966). Basin metates, manos, discoidals, a small number of Pinto series
and Elko series points, and flexed burials are also characteristic.
Warren et al. (1961) proposed that the La Jolla complex developed with the arrival of a desert
people on the coast who quickly adapted to their new environment. Moriarty (1966) and
Kaldenberg (1976) have suggested an in situ development of tbe La Jolla people from tbe San
Dieguito. Moriarty has since proposed a Pleistocene migration of an ancestral stage of the La
Jolla people to tbe San Diego coast. He suggested tbis Pre-La Jolla complex is represented at
Texas Street, Buchanan Canyon, and the Brown site (Moriarty 1987).
In recent years, archaeologists in tbe region have begun to question the traditional definition of
San Dieguito people simply as makers of finely crafted felsite projectile points, domed scrapers,
and discoidal cores, who lacked milling technology. The traditional defining criteria for La Jolla
sites (manos, metates, "crude" cobble tools, and reliance on lagoonal resources) have also been
questioned (Bull 1987; Cardenas and Robbins-Wade 1985; Robbins-Wade 1986). There is
speculation tbat differences between artifact assemblages of "San Dieguito" and "La Jolla" sites
reflect functional differences rather than temporal or cultural variability (Bull 1987; Gallegos
1987). Gallegos (1987) has proposed that the San Dieguito, La Jolla, and Pauma complexes are
manifestations of the same culture, with differing site types "explained by site location, resources
exploited, influence, innovation and adaptation to a rich coastal region over a long period oftime"
(Gallegos 1987:30). The classic "La Jolla" assemblage is one adapted to life on tbe coast and
appears to continue through time (Robbins-Wade 1986; Winterrowd and Cardenas 1987). Inland
sites adapted to hunting contain a different tool kit, regardless of temporal period (Cardenas and
Van Wormer 1984).
Several archaeologists in San Diego, however, do not subscribe to the Early Prehistoric/Late
Prehistoric chronology (see Cook 1985; Gross and Hildebrand 1998; Gross and Robbins-Wade
1989; Shackley 1988; Warren 1998). They feel tbat an apparent overlap among assemblages
identified as "La Jolla," "Pauma," or "San Dieguito" does not preclude the existence of an Early
Milling period culture in tbe San Diego region, whatever name is used to identify it, separate from
an earlier culture. One problem these archaeologists perceive is that many site reports in tbe San
Diego region present conclusions based on interpretations of stratigraphic profiles from sites at
which stratigraphy cannot validly be used to address chronology or changes through time.
Archaeology emphasizes stratigraphy as a tool, but many of the sites known in the San Diego
region are not in depositional situations. In contexts where natural sources of sediment or
anthropogenic sources of debris to bury archaeological materials are lacking, otber factors must
be responsible for the subsurface occurrence of cultural materials. The subsurface deposits at
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
numerous sites are the result of such agencies as rodent burrowing and insect activity. Recent
work has emphasized the importance ofbioturbative factors in producing the stratigraphic profiles
observed at archaeological sites (see Gross 1992). Different classes of artifacts move through the
soil in different ways (Bocek 1986; Erlandson 1984; Johnson 1989), creating vertical patterning
(Johnson 1989) that is not culturally relevant. Many sites which have been used to help define the
culture sequence of the San Diego region are the result of just such nondepositional stratigraphy.
The Late Prehistoric period is represented by the San Luis Rey complex in northern San Diego
County and the Cuyamaca complex in the southern portion of the county. The San Luis Rey
complex is the archaeological manifestation of the Shoshonean predecessors of the ethnohistoric
Luiseiio (named for the San Luis Rey Mission). The Cuyamaca complex represents the Yuman
forebears of the Kumeyaay (Diegueiio, named for the San Diego Mission). Agua Hedionda is
traditionally considered to be the point of separation between Luiseiio and Northern Diegueiio
territories.
The San Luis Rey complex (SLR) is divided into two phases, SLR I and SLR II. Elements of the
SLR complex include small, triangular, pressure-flaked projectile points (generally Cottonwood
series, but Desert side-notched series also occurs); milling implements: mortars and pestles, manos
and metates, and bedrock milling features; bone awls; Olivella shell beads; other stone and shell
ornaments; and cremations (Meighan 1954; Moratto 1984; True et al. 1974). The later SLR II
complex also includes several elements not found in the SLR I complex: "pottery vessels,
cremation urns, red and black pictographs, and such nonaboriginal items as metal knives and glass
beads (Meighan 1954:223).
SLR I was originally thought to date from A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1750, with SLR II dating between
A.D. 1750 and A.D. 1850 (Meighan 1954). However, that division was based on the assumption
that the Luiseiio did not practice pottery manufacture until just prior to the arrival of the Spanish.
The chronology has since been revised due to evidence that pottery may have been introduced to
the Luiseiio circa A.D. 1200-1600. Ceramics were probably introduced from the Luiseiios'
southern neighbors, the Kumeyaay (True et al. 1974).
Ethnography
The name Luiseiio derives from Mission San Luis Rey de Francia and has been used to refer to
the Indians associated with the mission. The Luiseiio language belongs to the Cupan group of the
Takic subfamily, which has also been called Southern California Shoshonean, and is part of the
widespread Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908; White 1963).
Neighboring groups that speak Cupan languages are Cupeiio, Cahuilla, and Gabrielino. The
Indians associated with Mission San Juan Capistrano, called Juaneiio by the Spanish, have
sometimes been described as a separate group. The language, culture, and territory of the Luiseiio
and Juaneiio is so closely related that the two are generally considered to be a single ethnic
nationality (Bean and Shipek 1978; White 1963); however, many Luisefio and Juanefio consider
7
themselves to be separate groups. Cameron (1987:319-321) has noted archaeological differences
between the two groups.
The territory of the Luisefto Indians is generally described as extending along the coast from Agua
Hedionda Creek on the southwest to Aliso Creek on the northwest. On the north this boundary
extended east beyond Santiago Peak to the eastern side of the Elsinore Fault Valley, continuing
southeast to Palomar Mountain, then around the southern slope above the valley of San Jose. The
southern boundary follows westerly to Agua Hedionda Creek (Bean and Shipek 1978; White
1963).
Luisefto social organization is noted for "(1) extensive proliferation of social statuses, (2) clearly
defined ruling families that interlocked various rancherias within the ethnic nationality, (3) a
sophisticated philosophical structure associated with the taking of hallucinogenics (datura), o_nd
( 4) elaborate ritual paraphernalia including sand paintings symbolic of an avenging sacred being
named Chinigchingish" (Bean and Shipek 1978:550).
Ethnographic and ethnohistoric studies of the Luisefto include Bean and Shipek (1978), Boscana
(1947), Kroeber (1976), Robinson (1947), Shipek (1977), Sparkman (1908), Talley (1982), and
White (1963). Archaeological studies addressing the Late Prehistoric San Luis Rey complex
include Meighan (1954), McCown (1955), True eta!. (1974), and Wallace (1960). Most of the
ethnographic studies, as well as the "classic" archaeological studies of the Luisefto, have
concentrated on the Pauma Valley and the Palomar Mountain area, although Wallace's (1960)
study was an archaeological survey of the Buena Vista Creek watershed.
III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Records searches were conducted at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State
University and at the San Diego Museum of Man. The records searches covered the project area
and a one-mile radius around it (Confidential Appendix A). Five archaeological sites have been
recorded within a mile of the property. These sites have generally been described as campsites
or shell middens, attributed to the La Jolla period, based on the lack of small projectile points and
ceramics. While shell is noted for all the sites, some have low density shell scatters and others
have an abundance of shell.
Archaeological site CA-SDI-626 is mapped adjacent to the 2303 Ocean Street property, to the
west. A 1972 site record describes this site as a " highly eroded sandstone formation with trace
of La Jollan camping below a 1920-40 trash lens" (site record, on file at South Coastal Information
Center). A testing program was conducted at CA-SDI-626 in 1984 to determine whether the site
was a significant cultural resource and develop appropriate mitigation measures if necessary.
"The test units define SDi-626 as a disturbed remnant of what was once a larger archaeological
site. Natural processes and historic impacts have seriously damaged this remnant" (Hanna
1984: 1). Due to the degree of disturbance, the site was determined not to be a significant cultural
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
resource, but monitoring of grading was recommended, in case there were pockets of buried
cultural material. Hanna also noted, "Although there have been reports that a flexed human burial
was accidentally destroyed at the site a few years ago, a negative declaration is recommended on
the condition that an archaeological monitor present during construction and should be fully
empowered to temporarily halt construction for as long as is necessary to achieve emergency
salvage in the event that important archaeological phenomena are unexpectedly encountered"
(Hanna 1984: 1). No report of such a monitoring program was available at the South Coastal
Information Center.
IV. RESEARCH METHODS
The project area is currently developed with an apartment complex built in the 1960s. Affinis
senior archaeologist Mary Robbins-Wade visited the property on April 25, 2005, but no actual
field survey could be conducted, due to the existing buildings. The project site was visited by
Mark Mojado, representing the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians, in April 2005 as
well. The senior archaeologist also contacted the State Native American Heritage to request a
search of their sacred lands files.
The senior archaeologist reviewed previous archaeological reports relevant to the current project
area. Historic maps were also reviewed to determine the potential for historic archaeological
resources.
V. RESULTS
No archaeological resources had been previously recorded within the property, and none were
found during the current study, but the original ground surface was obscured by existing
development. Archaeological site CA-SDI-626 is mapped just west of the project area. Hanna
(1984) noted that CA-SDI-626 is the remnant of what was once a larger archaeological site. It is
possible that the site once extended into the project area, but development has destroyed or
obscured evidence of it. CA-SDI-626 was determined not to be a significant cultural resource,
due to the amount of disturbance the site has sustained; the research potential of the site was
extremely limited (Hanna 1984).
The review of historic maps showed no buildings on the north side of Ocean Street in the past.
Maps reviewed included the 1901 USGS 30' San Luis Rey quadrangle, 1930 USGS 15' Oceanside
quadrangle, 1942 USGS 15' Oceanside quadrangle, and 1948 USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey
quadrangle.
9
VI. IMPACTS, SIGNIFICANCE, AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
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 to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported
by substantial evidence in tight 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
California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852)
including the following:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
•
•
•
Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
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:
Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history .
No historic or archaeological resources have been identified within the project area, and the
property is already developed with an apartment complex. Therefore, the project is expected to
have no effect on cultural resources. However, given the proximity to the lagoon and to CA-SDI-
626, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources not visible on the surface. The geology
report indicates that the northern portion of the site contains alluvial soils. During periods of
rising and falling water levels in the lagoon, native people may have made use of the project site
as a habitation area or a shellfish processing location, and evidence of this use is buried in the
alluvium. Buried sites are found in Oceanside along the San Luis Rey River. Therefore, it is
recommended that an archaeologist and a Native American representative be present to monitor
initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/ alluvium (Figure
4). If archaeological resources are encountered, the monitor would have the authority to
temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material discovered. If
cultural material is found and collected, it would be curated at the San Diego Archaeological
Center (or other appropriate repository) or repatriated to the San Luis Rey Band if they so desire.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
)'
\
Area to be monitored
@SITE PLAN
Affinis
Shadow Valley Center
84 7 Jamacha Road
El CA 92019
I ~ 1--J ____, E: ~ ,L, ... , m ""'
Area to be monitored Figure 4
VII. INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED
Archaeological Records Search Department
David Cantarino
Carol Gaubatz
Mark Mojado
San Diego Museum of Man
South Coastal Information Center
Native American Heritage Commission
San Luis Rey Band of Luisefio Mission
Indians
VIII. PERSONNEL
The following persons participated in the preparation of this report:
Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A. (RPA) Director of Cultural Resources
Richard Knauel, M.A. Graphic Artist
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IX. REFERENCES
Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek
1978 Luisefto. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. The Handbook of
Nonh American Indians, vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bocek, B.
1986 Rodent Ecology and Burrowing Behavior: Predicted Effects on Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 51:589-603.
Boscana, G.
1947 Chinigchinich. A Ilistorical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of
the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta-
California. Translated by A. Robinson. Biobooks, Oakland.
Bowman, R.H.
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Pan I. United States Department of
Agriculture, Beltsville, MD.
Bull, C.S.
1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. Casual
Papers: Cultural Resource Management 1(3):15-64. Cultural Resource
Management Center, San Diego State University.
1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-
La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 35-42. San
Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.
Cameron, C.
1987 Archaeological Investigations on the Rancho San Clemente, Orange County,
California. Archaeological Research Facility California State University,
Fullerton.
Ciirdenas, D.S., and M. Robbins-Wade
1985 An Archaeological Investigation of SDM-W-I 431 I 46: An Unique Coastal
Luiseiio Occupation Site in Carlsbad, California. RBR & Associates, Inc., San
Diego. Submitted to the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department. Report on file
at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
13
Cardenas, D.S., and S.R. Van Wormer
1984 Archaeological Investigation of SDI-4648 and SDM-W-348. RBR & Associates,
Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of El Cajon, Planning Department.
Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Carrico, R.L.
1987 Sixty-five Years of San Diego County Archaeology. In San Dieguito-La Jolla:
Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 1-14. San Diego
County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.
Carter, G.F.
1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
1978 An American Lower Paleolithic. Anthropological Journal of Canada 16:2-38.
1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in America. Texas A&M
University Press, College Station.
Childers, W.M.
1974 Preliminary Report on the Yuba Burial, California. Anthropological Journal of
Canada 12 (1):2-9.
Cook, J.R.
1985 An Investigation of the San Dieguito Quarries and Workshops Near Rancho
Santa Fe, California. Mooney-Lettieri and Associates, San Diego. Submitted
to County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on file
at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Davis, E.L.
1968 Early Man in the Mojave Desert. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions
in Anthropology 1 (4):42-47.
1973 People of the Old Stone Age at China Lake. Ms., on file at Great Basin
Foundation, San Diego.
Erlandson, J.M.
1984 A Case Study in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects of the Burrowing
Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of Archaeological Materials. American
Antiquity 49:785-790.
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gallegos, D.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the
Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and
Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County
Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.
Geocon Incorporated
2004 Geotechnical Investigation Ocean Street Condominiums, Ocean Street and
Mountain View Drive, Carlsbad, California. Geocon Incorporated, San Diego.
Report on file at Affinis.
Griner, E.L., and P.R. Pryde
1976 Climate, Soils, and Vegetation. L1 San Diego: An Introduction to the Region,
edited by P.R. Pryde, pp. 29-46. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque,
Iowa.
Gross, G.T.
1992 Site Formation and Transformation Processes in Coastal Shell Middens and
Shell-Rich Sites. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by
T. L. Jones, pp. 195-204. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis
Publications 10, University of California, Davis.
Gross, G. T., and J.A. Hildebrand
1998 San Dieguito and La Jolla: Insights from the 1964 Excavations at the C.W.
Harris Site. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for
California Archaeology, San Diego.
Gross, G.T., and M. Robbins-Wade
1989 Archaeological Investigation of SDi-9772 (SDM-W-341 1) San Marcos,
California. Affinis, El Cajon. Submitted to County of San Diego, Department
of Planning and Land Use. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center,
San Diego State University.
Hanna, D.C.
1984 Archaeological Testing of SDi-626, a Coastal Shell Midden site in Carlsbad,
California. TerraMar International Services, Inc., San Diego. Report on file at
South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Johnson, D.L.
1989 Subsurface Stone Lines, Stone Zones, Artifact-Manuport Layers, and
Biomantles Produced by Bioturbation Via Pocket Gophers (Thomomys bottae).
American Antiquity 54:370-389.
15
Kaldenberg, R.L.
1976 Paleo-technological Change at Rancho Park North, San Diego County,
California. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San
Diego State University.
Kroeber, A. L.
1976 Handbook of California Indians. Dover, New York. Originally published 1925
as Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian
Institution.
McCown, B.E.
1955 Temeku. A Page from the History ofthe Luiseiio Indians. Archaeological
Survey Association of Southern California Paper No. 3.
Meighan, C.W.
!954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 10(2):215-227.
Minshall, H.L.
1976 The Broken Stones. Copley Books, San Diego.
Moratto, M.J.
!984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Moriarty, J.R., III
1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested By Typological Change Coordinated with
Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. The
Anthropological Journal of Canada 4 (4):20-30.
1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. In San
Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 49-
60. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.
Robbins-Wade, M.
1986 Rising Glen: SDM-W-143/146 (SDI-5213 C & D). Casual Papers 2 (2):37-58.
Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University.
1988 Coastal Luiseiio: Refining the San Luis Rey Complex. Proceedings of the
Society for California Archaeology, Fresno, California I :75-95. Society for
California Archaeology, San Diego.
Robinson, A.
1947 Life in California. Biobooks, Oakland.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rogers, M.J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent
Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 3. San Diego Museum
of Man.
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San
Diego.
Rogers, T.H.
1965 Santa Ana Sheet, Geologic Map of California. California Division of Mines and
Geology, Sacramento.
Shackley, M.S.
1988 Archaeological Investigations at SDi-5103. A San Dieguito Lithic Workshop,
San Diego County, California. Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego.
Shipek, F.C.
1977 A Strategy for Change. The Luiseiio of Southern California. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Hawaii. University Microfilms International, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Spatkman, P.S.
1908 The Culture of the Luisefio Indians. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4): 187-234.
Talley, R.P.
1982 The Life History of a Luiseiio Indian: James (Jim) Martinez. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.
True, D.L., C.W. Meighan, and H. Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California.
University of California Publications in Anthropology 11, Berkeley.
Wallace, W.J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
1960 Archaeological Resources of the Buena Vista Watershed, San Diego County,
California. University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual
Report 1959-1960:277-300.
17
Warren, C.N.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity
32:168-185.
1985 Garbage About the Foundations: A Comment on Bull's Assertions. Casual
Papers: Cultural Resource Management 2(1):82-90. Cultural Resource
Management Center, San Diego State University.
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 Diego
County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.
1998 San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, Ten Years Later.
Discussant in symposium at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for
California Archaeology, San Diego.
Warren, C.N. (editor)
1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito
River. San Diego Museum Papers No. 5. San Diego Museum of Man.
Warren, C.N., D.L. True, and A.A. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and
Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los
Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Repon 1960-1961, pp. 1-106.
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
White, R.C.
1963 Luiseii.o Social Organization. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194.
Winterrowd, C.L., and D.S. Ciirdenas
1987 An Archaeological Indexing of a Ponion of the Village of La Rinconada de
Jamo SDJ-5017 (SDM-W-150). RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted
to the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal
Information Center, San Diego State University.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I